That's the driving force, one of the underlying principles guiding policy decisions for democratic socialism. If you disagree, then do not call them socialists... they won't mind.

It's kind of sad really. The amount of available literature from the founding fathers, the framers of the constitution, and the revolutionary thinkers of the time is overwhelmingly against capitalism and capitalists.

Sad, because people just don't know. A careful perusing through the literature will quickly confirm that all they warned about has actually happened... and yet... "socialism" is bad, and "capitalism" and capitalists are currently held to be admired and defended.

Those who started this country vehemently disagreed.

They place what's best for the overall community(the public at large) at the forefront.

I can't agree with that. Public education, post offices, fire departments, infrastructure, etc were not invented by any socialist. — NOS4A2

Invented by any socialist?

As if the only thing that counts as socialist is that which is invented by some socialist?

That's part of the problem with the term being bandied about. It's hollow. People do not know what sort of socialism is already deeply embedded in America.

For a very long time, when it comes to large corporate and financial interests... it's socialism for them and pure capitalism for everyone else. Government subsidies set aside for private business is socialism in practice.

All of the financial industry and car manufacturing bailouts were socialism in practice - or at least they were framed as what's best for the public. Congressional members publicly funded healthcare is a socialist measure. Private citizens pay for it, despite not being able to afford their own private health insurance in many cases. Etc.

They place what's best for the overall community(the public at large) at the forefront.

Which socialist institutions? — NOS4A2

Post office. Public education. Fire department. Police department. Department of interior. Land and natural resources. All infrastructure. FDA. EPA. Etc.

He wants better deals for our exporters — Noah Te Stroete

Perhaps. Profit as the motive. The bigger problems with the trade deals are shown by the financial harm they've caused to the American workers, as well as all the issues revolving around inferior quality products... which an entire thread could be based upon.

The second hand information has the public quite misinformed.

During national debates, the misconception of negativity towards Bernie due to 'socialism' would be rendered null and void to anyone who is reasonable enough to recognize the deep seated 'socialist' institutions that have always been a part of America.

He is for better trade deals, however, so we will see what he gets done there. — Noah Te Stroete

That's just not true, unless 'better' means continued harm against American workers.

I dunno. I thought Hamilton was a Federalist. Quick search showed that Adams was the only Federalist. So... I need to research that prior to assenting to much else.

:brow:

What's your take on the votes that Bernie would take from Trump, if Sanders is awarded the nomination?

What is your take on the Trump defense teams use of the idea that the framers warned against partisan impeachments, and then pointed out that Trump's impeachment seemed to be exactly what they were warning about?

I think they're right. I don't think someone should be impeached because of partisan differences. I think the bar should be set much higher for impeachment, especially when it comes to democratically-elected officials. What do you think? — NOS4A2

I do not think that impeachment based upon "partisan differences" is what the framers were warning about. To quite the contrary, they were warning about what could happen when and if political parties were established.

It was a warning against the establishment of political parties altogether.

To be clear. The framers were putting forth an unacceptable consequence of forming political parties(factions) themselves. It was a warning not just about some unacceptable kind of one-sided 'partisan' impeachment process, but rather it was a warning about the results of forming political parties altogether.

The prosecution failed to seize on that.

So... I would not call that defense "right" by any reasonable standard of understanding. Misleading is a better description.

What is your take on the Trump defense teams use of the idea that the framers warned against partisan impeachments, and then pointed out that Trump's impeachment seemed to be exactly what they were warning about?

You're just providing good practice.

:wink:

Truth is presupposed in within all thought and belief. This is shown by the redundancy of adding "is true" to statements of thought and belief.

Meaningful correspondence between what is thought and/or believed about what has happened and/or is happening, and what has happened and/or is happening is existentially dependent upon belief formation. That is not to say that in order for a statement to be true, it must also be believed by anyone in particular. Rather, it is to point out that all statements are existentially dependent upon belief about what has happened and/or is happening and what has happened and/or is happening. Statements are statements of belief(assuming a sincere speaker of course).

Truth is correspondence 'between' thought and belief about the world and/or ourselves(what has happened and/or is happening), and the world and/or ourselves(what has happened and/or is happening.

That's only the half of it though. Talk of truth without meaning is nonsense.

All thought and belief are meaningful as well. All meaning is attributed solely by virtue of drawing correlations between different things. Drawing correlations between different things requires a plurality of things, at least one of which is capable of detecting, perceiving, and/or drawing a distinction between different things.

All thought and belief consist(s) of the aforementioned correlations. Across the entire gamut, from the simplest to the most complex... each and every thought and belief consists of correlations drawn between different things.

Thought, belief, meaning, and truth...

We don't know how things really are, we only know how we believe them to be... — Isaac

Isn't this just a rehashing of Kant?

In order to know that we do not know how things are, we must already know both... how things are and what we believe about how things are. We must perform a comparative analysis between the way things are and what we believe about the way things are. But if we do not know how things are, we cannot possibly perform this comparison.

It's untenable.

Moral intuitions or moral behaviors could be codified as rules; spoken or written. so I'm not seeing how morality is dependent upon language, except for its formulation as sets of written or spoken rules. — Janus

If morality - as a term - refers to codes of conduct, and all codes consist entirely of common language, then it only follows that so too does all moralities. It would also follow that whatever all common language consists of, so too does all morality. It would also follow that whatever all common language is existentially dependent upon, so too is all morality.

My suspicion is that you're using the term "moral" in two different ways here. Sometimes as a value judgment similar to "good" or "right", or "worthy of assent", and other times as naming practice for anything and everything that is based upon - or a manifestation of - keeping others interest/benefit in mind.

I don't think we're too far apart here.

There's still much headway to make, on my part, concerning the overall thread. Much ground to cover.

If you are incapable of providing grouds for your assertions — StreetlightX

Weird.

True statements are the strongest possible justificatory ground. I wouldn't expect you to know that though if you believe that you cannot agree that a statement is true unless it is already part of an argument...

To have beneficent concern for others is to consider what they want or need... — Janus

...but it is not enough to be called "moral" unless all wants and needs and all consideration thereof also counts.

Morality is more than rule writing.

What's puzzling to me is that you are arguing that you cannot know if you agree that some statement is true unless you see it in an argument.

As if statements cannot be thought, believed, and/or known to be true unless they're part of an argument.

"Writing a rule" would be to formulate a rule; — Janus

...

I mean, in order for something to be so deserving as to be called and/or further qualified as moral takes more than just keeping other's benefit in mind.
— creativesoul

What "more" would you say it takes? — Janus

Something that doesn't allow a masochist thinking about what's in my best interest to have moral intent.

t's not clear what one would be agreeing or disagreeing with. Without an argument the position is impossible to assess, and everything that follows from it is arbitrary and equally inassailable — StreetlightX

Are you really saying that without an argument you do not know if you agree to any of the numerous claims I've made?

:brow:

That strikes me as rather odd. Hopefully the thread will lead somewhere more clearly understood by you when you read it. Then, perhaps you'll know if you agree with any specific claim herein.

Do you disagree with any particular statement?

All codes of conduct are existentially dependent upon common language use. All language use is relative to individual particulars.

Look towards the top of the OP. Second paragraph.

I count some intuitions and behaviors as moral, insofar as they are manifestations of beneficent concern for others. — Janus

Manifestations of X are moral ones.

Moral intuitions and moral behaviours count as being moral because they are the result of some previous beneficent concern.

Here you've placed much importance upon having beneficent concern for another.

Is that the criterion for what counts and/or qualifies as being moral in kind?

Surely not.

:brow:

In either descriptive or prescriptive terms, being moral takes more than just mere well intended concern for another. I mean, in order for something to be so deserving as to be called and/or further qualified as moral takes more than just keeping other's benefit in mind.

Strictly speaking... when that is the single guiding principle governing one's own deliberate consciously thought about and carefully considered course of action, well you've no better example of altruism.

These, unlike codes of conduct, cannot be reduced to formulations. — Janus

But this mistakenly presupposes that all codes of conduct can be reduced to formulations. It cannot be translated in such a way without significant loss of meaning.

...all codes of conduct are formulations, at least insofar as they are made explicit. — Janus

You must be using the term "formulation" a bit looser than I. Not all rule writing counts as formulations.

We have an American president who is proud of himself when he proves that he's the best name caller.

Juvenile minds.

Seems to be 'privileged' information you're passing along.

Weird.

Put all the facts on the table. Let the people decide for themselves based upon careful considerations of those facts. Allowing one candidate to knowingly state falsehoods about the other candidate is to engage in fraud against the American people. Not allowing that to be called out for exactly what it is is to knowingly, deliberately, and intentionally mislead the public.

An election based upon that is anything but a free and fair election, because it quite simply does not include a well informed electorate.

A travesty of justice performed on the American people, and the world...

That is precisely what a presidential election without nationally broadcasted debates between the two candidates would be. All Americans need to be watching the same channel, tuning into the same set of events, observing the same facts - as they happen.

A free and fair election must include a well informed electorate.

A national election without debate between the candidates in order to inform the public about what they stand for?

Given recent events, that would not surprise me. However, it would only fuel Bernie to point it out.

I personally cannot wait until the Bernie Trump national debates. Trump is like a juvenile on his feet. Bernie has self-respect and honor, and will neither stoop nor feed Trump's troll tendencies. Trump is no match for Bernie Sanders on a national debate stage, and that will be more than obvious to anyone watching.

Ok?

:brow:

Be well...

Easier if you just answer the question: for you do any things other than formulations count as morality? — Janus

What morality is is not a matter of 'for you' or 'for me'. The SEP article I linked earlier categorizes uses of the term "morality" in one of two ways, prescriptive and descriptive. Both are about codes of conduct. Thus, morality is all codes of conduct. All codes of conduct are about acceptable and/or unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour. That is how I've arrived at morality being that which counts as acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour. It would follow from that that what counts as moral - in kind, as compared/contrasted to moral as a value judgment - is so by the very same measure. All things moral involve what counts as acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour.

To directly answer your question. Formulations are not codes of conduct. So, formulations are not equivalent to morality. Therefore, the answer is yes. Things other than formulations 'count' as morality.

To be clear, just in case it hasn't been... You're employing the term "moral" as a value judgment, whereas I am not.

Follow me on that?

What about moral behavior or intuitions, for example? — Janus

Moral behavior?

"Moral" as in good or moral as in being moral in kind? Same question and/or concern with "moral intuitions"...

I'm granting the current conventional understanding of morality. The SEP has an article of the definition of morality...