Yes we all have some moral intuition when we are born, that is true. BUT, this moral intuition gets corrupted with time, unless we remind ourselves of the right principles. Anamnesis, as the Platonists called it :) This initial moral intuition that we have, just like all other abilities that we have, must be grown and developed with time. And this is the purpose of religion (for the masses) and philosophy (for those who have the time).

Without having such an intuition, we would never be able to discover moral right and wrong, as we do through religion and philosophy, neither would we be able to perfect our characters.

And I'm not objecting to guidance. Why do you do this? You assume that I'm against your conclusion - be it guidance or virtue - when I'm objecting to your premise: what sort of guidance or what constitutes virtue. You act as though you're the sole arbiter of such things. Get off your high horse!

No, the real arbiter of this is our natural reason. And our natural reason, if we anaylse it carefully, does indeed yield the conclusions that I have mentioned in this thread and in the other thread. Now you may disagree, if you do, you have to show where the reasoning presented is wrong. But keep in mind that what I have argued for, has, by and large, been argued for by literarily 80%+ of all thinkers historically. It's not just me saying this. Everyone has been saying this, all the major religions, all the major thinkers. If you want to present an argument against, please do so, but keep in mind that there's already a lot going against you.

It was twenty-five years ago that America defeated communism and any ideas of socialism with it. Yet, here we are today with a serious Democratic candidate arguing, successfully, for socialism in America. Isn't that rather amazing? I find this relieving as opposed to the rather constant pessimism hereabouts about the human spirit/condition/nature. — Question

The USSR was defeated. If by that you mean communism, then I guess it was. The idea of socialism was not defeated, as it existed and continues to exist throughout Europe. Whether socialism is an early form of communism is debatable, but certainly not something that has ever empirically occurred.

The truth is that all countries' economies exist on a spectrum, with some having little government control and few social security protections and some having more. The US is to the right of Sweden which is to the left of the UK. That the US has moved to the left isn't amazing, nor is it a triumph for Marxists.

The SCOTUS is key because we can't count on the bowels of congress moving in an orderly fashion in the next few terms, as long as the far right maintains enough strength in office. — Bitter Crank

Unless Congress excretes some sort of law, SCOTUS will have nothing to rule on.

You misinterpret what I meant.

The ideology of "communism" was defeated in people's minds with the fall of the USSR. That it happens that socialism is becoming mainstream after all the red scares and propaganda on the issue of "communism" and "socialism"after only twenty-five years is a testament to the remarkable human spirit.

The problem is that the ideology of communism is ill defined and that the fall of the USSR was never considered by Marxists to represent the fall of communism. Socialism is also ill defined, but whether socialism will also fall remains a question, if for no other reason than it's expensive to maintain.

I see the emergence of Bernie and Donald not to be a sign of the remarkable human spirit, but as evidence of the law of entropy in action. Why you can only see the left side of the ledger and not the right seems like selective analysis.

I see the emergence of Bernie and Donald not to be a sign of the remarkable human spirit, but as evidence of the law of entropy in action. Why you can only see the left side of the ledger and not the right seems like selective analysis. — Hanover

Why do you see Donald that way?

That it happens that socialism is becoming mainstream after all the red scares and propaganda on the issue of "communism" and "socialism"after only twenty-five years is a testament to the remarkable human spirit. — Question

No, I think this is simply a testament to human stupidity and failure to learn from history :)

First we had G.W. and that resulted in Obama and now we're getting Trump. I just see the pendulum that used to swing slightly left then slightly right swinging a bit more wildly.

I also think that the US political system is incredibly conservative by design, with so many checks and balances, that in times of turbulence, you end up with preservation of the status quo. As long as the Dems and the Republicans remain so far apart, nothing happens.

First we had G.W. and that resulted in Obama and now we're getting Trump. I just see the pendulum that used to swing slightly left then slightly right swinging a bit more wildly.

I also think that the US political system is incredibly conservative by design, with so many checks and balances, that in times of turbulence, you end of with preservation of the status quo. As long as the Dems and the Republicans remain so far apart, nothing happens. — Hanover

That may be true politically, but culturally there has been a very large shift to the left. The left literarily dominates American culture. This is precisely why the media hates Trump but loves Bernie.

Unless Congress excretes some sort of law, SCOTUS will have nothing to rule on. — Hanover

Are there no laws already on the books that can be taken to court and declared, or not declared, unconstitutional?

I don't think that's why Trump has attracted so much fire from the media. Much of American media leans to the right. I think that it's a similar situation to Britain in the late sixties, when there was a media backlash against Enoch Powell after his "Rivers of Blood" speech. He too had much popular support, even after the infamous speech, with a poll at the time suggesting that 74% of the UK population agreed with his opinions. Then too there was a left-of-centre party in power. Then too there had been a recent economic crisis. Right-wing populism tends to gain popularity when the economy is suffering. The media backlash is an understandable and predictable reaction to controversy. And Trump is a buffoon that purposely stirs up controversy. The right-of-centre Conservative party won the following election, by the way.

In recent times, outside of America, there has been a surge in right-wing parties across Europe, which shouldn't come as much of a surprise, especially given the migrant crisis.

I don't think that's why Trump attracts much fire from the media. Much of American media leans to the right. I think that it's a similar situation to Britain in the late sixties, when there was a media backlash against Enoch Powell after his "Rivers of Blood" speech. He too had much popular support, even after the infamous speech, with a poll at the time suggesting that 74% of the UK population agreed with his opinions. Then too there was a left-of-center party in power. Then too there had been a recent economic crisis. Right-wing populism tends to gain popularity when the economy is suffering. The media backlash is an understandable and predictable reaction to controversy. And Trump is a buffoon that purposely stirs up controversy. The right-of-centre conservatives won the following election, by the way. — Sapientia

Funny that you say that a man who has done so well in business is a buffoon. Trump has always stood up for greatness, for believing in people, and for doing great work. And before the usual objection comes that he has done terrible in business and if he had invested in S&P500 stocks he would have had more money today - maybe that is true, but don't forget that Trump isn't someone who sat on his wealth, he is someone who has been actively involved in wealth management. Even to KEEP such wealth when you're investing it left and right the way Trump has been, even THAT is a huge achievement.

In recent times, there has been a surge in right-wing parties across Europe, which shouldn't come as much of a surprise, especially given the migrant crisis.

Yes, which is exactly what I am predicting as well. People are getting sick of how much communism and socialism have hurt our societies. People want to live the good life, and living the good life requires strong morality, and a society which fosters family life and all the other virtues, including confidence, faithfulness, integrity, courage, commitment, love-of-neighbor, personal responsibility, and freedom - virtues which by the way are required for good economic achievement. In 50 years time, Europe will switch back completely to its traditional virtues, I predict. And we will have a new golden age, where people live happily together in communities bound by friendships between families, and where the goal ceases to be personal career achievement.

Funny that you say that a man who has done so well in business is a buffoon. — Agustino

A ridiculous, ludicrous figure; a clown. I'd say that Trump fits the definition. Have you seen him on TV? Have you seen how he behaves and listened to what he has said? Have you read his controversial quotes?

One thing's for sure, he has done very well in inheriting and receiving a very large amount of money from daddy. But as for how well he has done in business, there's reason to doubt his oft presumed talent.

Trump has always stood up for greatness, for believing in people, and for doing great work. — Agustino

:D

Sure, he believes in people. Unless you're one of those rapey Mexicans or terrorist Muslims or inferior blacks or pesky poor. Trump stands up for his vision of greatness. Trump needs to go to Specsavers.

And before the usual objection comes that he has done terrible in business and if he had invested in S&P500 stocks he would have had more money today - — Agustino

Oops, too late.

maybe that is true, but don't forget that Trump isn't someone who sat on his wealth, he is someone who has been actively involved in wealth management. Even to KEEP such wealth when you're investing it left and right the way Trump has been, even THAT is a huge achievement. — Agustino

Ok, well done, Trump. Have a scooby snack. There are some things that are more important than money, and in any case, there are plenty of other politicians with similar capabilities who don't share his vile opinions.

Yes, which is exactly what I am predicting as well. People are getting sick of how much communism and socialism have hurt our societies. People want to live the good life, and living the good life requires strong morality, and a society which fosters family life and all the other virtues, including confidence, faithfulness, integrity, courage, commitment, love-of-neighbor, personal responsibility, and freedom - virtues which by the way are required for good economic achievement. In 50 years time, Europe will switch back completely to its traditional virtues, I predict. And we will have a new golden age, where people live happily together in communities bound by friendships between families, and where the goal ceases to be personal career achievement. — Agustino

No, in this case, the case of Europe, it has very little to do with communism and socialism, and it has much to do with ignorance, prejudice and an inward-looking attitude. It's the exact opposite of love-of-neighbor. It's the age-old vice of making a scapegoat out of Johnny Foreigner. They aren't voting for right-wing parties out of fear of a communist dystopia.

I presume Trump made his money the way most rich people do: it's a combination of inheritance, investment, and possibly some ingenuity. I also presume he earned it honestly. I don't happen to know the precise relationship Trump has with Trump Hotels -- whether he wholly owns them or is the principle in the business.

What is important to me is the tone of his comments. IF a potential candidate is willing to admit wanting to punch a protester in the face or urge his supporters to aggressively oust someone from a public meeting--when making debut appearances as a candidate--THEN it doesn't bode well for the sort of responses he might have to citizens who might object en masse to something he has done. It doesn't speak well for Trump to have rather casually insulted so many people.

I don't care that he's being politically crude, frank, honest, or incorrect. I have opinions that aren't politically correct too. What disturbs me is that his language suggests a leaning toward the style of fascism or gang politics. (Note, I didn't say he is a fascist; I said he leans toward the style of certain fascist dictators we have known and not loved. Maybe he is a fascist, but I don't have any evidence of that.)

A ridiculous, ludicrous figure; a clown. I'd say that Trump fits the definition. Have you seen him on TV? Have you seen how he behaves and listened to what he has said? Have you read his controversial quotes? — Sapientia

He may sound out-landish and over the top with some things, but that's just how he is in the way he speaks. He simply talks that way, pure and simple, and anyone who has listened to his talks even before he ran for President knows this. I think overall he is a good man, he has defects, like all other people do, but I see nothing terribly malicious in him.

There are some things that are more important than money — Sapientia

Agreed.

IF a potential candidate is willing to admit wanting to punch a protester in the face or urge his supporters to aggressively oust someone from a public meeting--when making debut appearances as a candidate--THEN it doesn't bode well for the sort of responses he might have to citizens who might object en masse to something he has done. It doesn't speak well for Trump to have rather casually insulted so many people. — Bitter Crank

I agree, Trump encouraging violence at his rallies is something that is wrong. But that's not the whole man, so I'm willing to agree that this is something that is bad about Trump. There are also good things though, despite his encouragement of violence.

I said he leans toward the style of certain fascist dictators we have known and not loved — Bitter Crank

I wouldn't exactly go this far. He has shown a willingness to handle tough questions, and has not appeared to encourage violence against those who want to ask/argue. He has however encouraged violence against those who came there to disrupt his rallies and protest against him. He hasn't encouraged violence against everyone who disagrees with him, as a dictator would, but rather just those who interfere with his rallies. I guess, because he wants to keep the image of the tough guy, he wants to be totally in control of his rallies, and therefore wants to give a strong message to people: "don't interrupt my rallies". And in a way his point is correct (although using violence to make it is certainly wrong). People should not go to a rally meant to support a candidate in order to demean him. It's just rude. If you wanna protest, that's fine, but don't do it at a rally... the purpose of a rally is to support a candidate, not to have protests. So to a certain extent, people going there to protest were also asking for it. Nevertheless, I don't mean to ever justify the use of violence - he simply should not have encouraged violence. Ted Cruz, I believe, was right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmxBp4IFe_I

Trump is responsible for creating an environment that has encouraged violence from his supporters.

Unless you're one of those rapey Mexicans or terrorist Muslims or inferior blacks or pesky poor. — Sapientia

Pesky poor? He has never spoken ill of the poor as far as I'm aware. Nor has he spoken badly about the blacks - quite the contrary he has said that the African-American youth is having a lot of problems that they need help with. Additionally he has been endorsed by quite a few important black people, including Dr. Carson, Mike Tyson (who by the way is also Muslim!), etc.

As for the Muslim terrorists and the rapey Mexicans (not all Muslims and/or Mexicans, just those qualified by the respective adjectives)... would you be FOR such people?

People should not go to a rally meant to support a candidate in order to demean him. It's just rude. If you wanna protest, that's fine, but don't do it at a rally... the purpose of a rally is to support a candidate, not to have protests. — Agustino

If the rally was a private, ticketed event, not open to the public, fine. It would be rude to go and disrupt it. However, if it is a public rally with doors open to all comers, then disruption through normal protest activity is appropriate--but limited to normal protest -- holding signs, asking unpleasant questions, chanting, etc. Anything beyond that (hitting, shooting, kicking, stomping, beating on people) is wrong.

Would you have disrupted Hitler's rallies by appropriate protest actions, assuming you wouldn't have minded being taken out and shot afterwards?

Would you have disrupted Hitler's rallies by appropriate protest actions, assuming you wouldn't have minded being taken out and shot afterwards? — Bitter Crank

No. I wouldn't disrupt anyone's rally. I would try to organise a different rally for protesters. Or, I would write and speak to people about my views, but not at the candidates' rally. Holding signs and asking questions is okay - but screaming, chanting, etc. is just rude at a rally which is meant to be for support.

He may sound out-landish and over the top with some things, but that's just how he is in the way he speaks. He simply talks that way, pure and simple, and anyone who has listened to his talks even before he ran for President knows this. — Agustino

Exactly. He talks and acts like a buffoon, and that gives me cause for concern, pure and simple. This is a potential president of the United States, for goodness sake. I don't believe it's all bluster, hot air and attention-seeking rhetoric. I think he has shown his true colours.

I think overall he is a good man, he has defects, like all other people do, but I see nothing terribly malicious in him. — Agustino

Then you aren't looking hard enough. But even if there were no malice, well intentioned damage is not desirable, and damage is what he'd bring about. The greatness of some at the expense of others. I feel for the minority groups that he has targeted. They have a hard enough time as it. The last thing they need is him adding to their troubles.

Pesky poor? He has never spoken ill of the poor as far as I'm aware. — Agustino

There's interview footage of him in 1999 calling them morons, and more recently, he said that poor people shouldn't play golf, but should aspire to be able to one day afford the privilege. Also, I know that he takes the typical hardline right-wing view on welfare, and I can't see him cracking down on big businesses and supporting workers.

Nor has he spoken badly about the blacks - quite the contrary he has said that the African-American youth is having a lot of problems that they need help with. Additionally he has been endorsed by quite a few important black people, including Dr. Carson, Mike Tyson (who by the way is also Muslim!), etc. — Agustino

Pah ha ha! This Dr. Carson? And the disgraced brute and convicted rapist Mike Tyson?

Trump refused to condemn actions taken and comments made by the Ku Klux Klan and one of its former leaders.

As for the Muslim terrorists and the rapey Mexicans (not all Muslims and/or Mexicans, just those qualified by the respective adjectives)... would you be FOR such people? — Agustino

Of course not, but unlike Trump, I don't tar them all with the same brush, and I don't endorse proposals which would unjustly discriminate against them.

Exactly. He talks and acts like a buffoon, and that gives me cause for concern, pure and simple. This is a potential president of the United States, for goodness sake. I don't believe it's all bluster, hot air and attention-seeking rhetoric. I think he has shown his true colours. — Sapientia

I don't think this is buffoon behavior quite frankly. His way of talking is quite effective at convincing people, and making people feel good. I wouldn't associate effectiveness with buffoonery.

They have a hard enough time as it. The last thing they need is him adding to their troubles. — Sapientia

Illegal immigrants should be out of the country though. The law is the law, and it must be respected. That's what justice is no? If someone does wrong and breaks the law, they deserve to be punished, and failing to punish them is a failure to do justice.

There's interview footage of him in 1999 calling them morons, and more recently, he said that poor people shouldn't play golf, but should aspire to be able to one day afford the privilege. Also, I know that he takes the typical hardline right-wing view on welfare, and I can't see him cracking down on big businesses and supporting workers. — Sapientia

Okay, but I don't take any of these remarks as seriously as you seem to. You seem to take what is a small matter and make it into something huge. Many of the remarks he has made are in specific contexts and have to be treated as such. Also you should remember that here is a man who often exaggerates when he speaks. Also you forget that he has said that people who can't take care of themselves must be taken care of - and that includes those who, because of poverty related circumstances, are unable to work.

Pah ha ha! This Dr. Carson? — Sapientia

Ummm what is wrong with Dr. Carson? I don't think Russell Brand has a point, he has totally missed the argument that Carson was making. And I agree with Carson - family is a pillar of society, and marriage is a religious institution, and should not be altered. Civil unions, etc. should be used for homosexual people, but marriage should remain, as it has traditionally been, a religious institution between a man and a woman. And this is not homophobic, and should not be made fun of. This humiliation of traditional views by the progressive media, especially by comedians, is extremely harmful. These people should understand that these are serious matters - not the stuff to make jokes about, or to laugh at people about. The fact that someone like Russell Brand treats this subject like this is morally reprehensible. I could likewise proceed to make fun of him for his lack of sufficient neurons to understand what homophobia is, and how homophobia is different from thinking that homosexual sex is wrong, or that marriage is a religious institution which must have religious laws.

Again - the fact that these people fail to respect conservatives, and to treat them with the dignity worthy of a human being, and to treat them as intelligent people, without insinuating that they are oppressive, or stupid etc. is very degrading. That's why we live in a society which is intolerant of conservative values, and conservative thinking. It's simply not cool to be a conservative because of what people like Russell Brand repeatedly do. So the only option is that us conservatives start making fun of, and degrading progressives, in the same way they are degrading us. There is no other way to win against this, because what is happening is that conservative views are discredited rhethorically, by making fun of them, which insinuates that conservative points aren't even worth thinking about seriously. This is the worst kind of assault that can happen on a piece of thinking. This is what Sophists do, and this is indeed buffoon behavior; instead of attacking the argument rationally, one makes fun of it, in an attempt to thereby brush it to the side.

And the disgraced brute and convicted rapist Mike Tyson? — Sapientia

Precisely because he is a brute, but he is also black, and Muslim, you would not expect him to support Trump a priori.

Trump refused to condemn actions taken and comments made by the Ku Klux Klan and one of its former leaders. — Sapientia

He did condemn them. He disavowed their support.

Of course not, but unlike Trump, I don't tar them all with the same brush, and I don't endorse proposals which would unjustly discriminate against them. — Sapientia

Depends. I've talked about this with quite a few Muslim friends, the thing is, a country, should ultimately have a right to decide who comes inside their borders, and they should be able to discriminate however they want. Of course citizens of the country should all be treated equally, but the people who come inside the country? I believe a country should be free to decide. I also believe that America banning Muslims would be ultimately America's loss, and even Trump has only proposed a temporary ban of Muslims who aren't citizens.

Ummm what is wrong with Dr. Carson? — Agustino

This one's worth a watch too. More so, perhaps. (Scroll down for the video).

This is indeed more to making a point. I still find the Russell insinuation that O'Reily is racist based on the way he has phrased his points to be sophistic, and should not be done. Because O'Reily simply hasn't made any racist statement, and why should anyone insinuate that he has? Sure, his words, if you're really crooked about it, can be viewed as such, but it's not the most plausible interpretation.

That there are poor black communities which have problems, largely because crime is more prominent in those regions (mainly due to poverty, and cultural reasons), so even policemen are generally more paranoid when dealing with them, is true, and it's something we should do something about. It must be a slow effort of integrating such communities through education.

The particular case brought forward is indeed unfortunate, that a black unarmed teenager was shot, probably for no real reason. Such mistakes can happen, but, ultimately, the policeman who has done this should bear responsibility for his actions if such a thing happens. That's why we have laws in countries, so that something wrong gets punished.

Overall, I fail to see how this really does anything to discredit Carson. Carson is just doing the right thing in his speech: there is an investigation going on, to prove the initial information recieved (namely that the teenager was unarmed, he did not pose a danger by threatening anyone, etc.), and then decide what must be done. Any person has no possibility of knowing, a priori, what the answer will be. So someone speaking about the case should take the cautious approach that Carson is taking.

The next point Russell makes, that somehow because historical issues relating to oppression have made the black community to react violently, etc. is true. But this in no way justifies the violence, and in no way does it justify not applying the law. Breaking the law must be punished, regardless of why the law was broken. Sure the people may have been oppressed. Still - this does not mandate that they kill others, that they break shops, etc. etc. Breaking the law still remains breaking the law.

The next point Russell makes, that somehow because historical issues relating to oppression have made the black community to react violently, etc. is true. But this in no way justifies the violence, and in no way does it justify not applying the law. Breaking the law must be punished, regardless of why the law was broken. Sure the people may have been oppressed. Still - this does not mandate that they kill others, that they break shops, etc. etc. Breaking the law still remains breaking the law. — Agustino

Just on this last point: Russell himself says in the video that the violent reaction isn't justified, but he does say that, given the context, it's understandable and practically inevitable. I also don't recall him saying anything about not applying the law. He does make some good points about the angle with which they - Fox News and Co. - frame the issue, and their hidden agenda, and rightly questions whether they'd be consistent if the tables were turned.

In what sense is it understandable? To my mind, violence and breaking the law isn't understandable. No circumstance can justify this. And if you think about it, you will realise that it depends on the character of the person in question. People with good character would not resort to violence, even under oppression - Mahatma Ghandi for example. People with bad character, on the other hand, will. The thing is character to a large degree is influenced by the free choices that people make, and the habits that this choice making creates. So I wouldn't say it's understandable, nor inevitable - I'll say that given the circumstances it's more probable statistically speaking.

And I mean, what would you do in that situation if you were Carson? I would have a similar cautious stand on the issue. One cannot start blaming the policeman who shot the person prior to the investigation. Has Fox framed the issue in a biased way? Possibly but I cant say this betrays a hidden agenda unless I see it consistently happen. I don't follow Fox, so I wouldnt know.

Illegal immigrants should be out of the country though. The law is the law, and it must be respected. That's what justice is no? — Agustino

Justice is a concept that is more fundamental than the bare idea of respecting the law; for if justice reduced to that, then the very idea of an unjust law would be incoherent. I think some of the Republican presidential candidates were aware of the need to reform immigration law until Trump came along with his poisonous rhetoric, and they suddenly felt uncomfortable standing on his left.

On edit: It seems that John Kasich, to his considerable credit, resisted the pressure, though.

Justice is a concept that is more fundamental than the bare idea of respecting the law; for if justice reduced to that, then the very idea of an unjust law would be incoherent. I think some the the Republican presidential candidates were aware of the need to reform immigration law until Trump came along with his poisonous rhetoric, and they suddenly felt uncomfortable standing on his left.

On edit: It seems that John Kasich, to his considerable credit, resisted the pressure, though. — Pierre-Normand

Yes, still, it is just that illegal immigration is wrong, so it follows that this, being a just law, must be enforced adequately.

Yes, still, it is just that illegal immigration is wrong, so it follows that this, being a just law, must be enforced adequately. — Agustino

Some law may be deemed "just" only in the sense that it proscribes an action that can reasonably be considered unjust on independent grounds (and/or because it institutes fairness for all concerned), while the prescribed penalty -- e.g. forced deportation and breakup of families, in this case -- is unjust due to its excessiveness, or due to an excessively long prescription period, or the lack of any such period.

Some law may be deemed "just" only in the sense that it proscribes an action that can reasonably be considered unjust on independent grounds (and/or because it institutes fairness for all concerned), while the prescribed penalty -- e.g. forced deportation and breakup of families, in this case -- is unjust due to its excessiveness, or due to an excessively long prescription period, or the lack of any such period. — Pierre-Normand

So you're telling me that I should license the breaking of the law for people who are smart enough to commit to actions, under cover, which makes them very difficult to remove from society, such as illegal immigrants getting married, and having children on American soil? If I license such behavior, then we will have no more laws.

The same as finding all sorts of ways to license immoral behavior, because the consequences of not licensing it are too harsh. This is nonsense. It's not practical, and it removes the legitimacy and power of the law.