?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

(I know some of you probably voted Republican and had good reasons. This is directed only at those who... didn't. And everyone else to whom it might conceivably apply.)

...many, many Americans voted for Bush not because they agreed with his policies, or thought he was a particularly good President, but because they liked his morals and his asshattery and thought he was doing "the right thing". Allow me to rebut this argument with the following, simple question:

ARE YOU PEOPLE ALL HIGH? Or did you all just miss that class in elementary school where they explained "separation of church and state"? Isn't that phrase one of *your* cliches?

One does not vote because the candidate's morals are "right" or "wrong". One does not vote for "right" or "wrong". And yes, most laws in the world are based on moral imperatives, but morality is a product of social necessity and society? Guess what: founded on Reason. At least, supposed to be. "Morality" is what we started calling it once it had become so ingrained that we no longer remembered where the rules came from, and couldn't imagine it any other way. That's where "right" comes from. Not the sky. "Moral" is another word for "we came up with it a few thousand years ago but that was before we had writing".

That notwithstanding? "Moral" in our society is taken to mean "acceptable without need of justification."

Does "without need of justification" sound like a good precept for ANY society you can imagine, especially one with the nuclear capability of several dozen super novas?

My gods, people, THINK. I know it's a new concept for some of you, or most of you, assuming you were raised in religious households before learning the basic structure of an argument, in which case, okay, you couldn't help it, then, but you bloody well can, now. You are all, ostensibly, thinking, reasoning, responsible adults. "Because God said so" is *not* a valid argument for an action that affects other people, especially when the authenticity of your source matter is (yes, I'm sorry, but live with it) dubious. "Because it says so in a umpteen-times mistranslated book" is *also* not a valid argument. See above.

The thing about government? Or *any* action you take that affects *anyone* other than your own self? Is that it must be justifiable. Preferably empirically, definitely reasonably. If it doesn't make *sense*, if you can't support it with actual thinking, rather than repeating someone else's pseudo-arguments, then you definitely shouldn't do it, and you probably shouldn't say it, but how you look to other people is, after all, your deal. If you want a moralistic, unreasoning system that blindly follows rules set down thousands of years ago without questioning them, despite blatant material evidence of their illogic, that's your deal. But I expect that a large portion of your current countrymen would rather you did it elsewhere. I know I sure as hell would. And I'm pretty sure the rest of the purportedly-democratic world would, too. Because as you were instructed in your earliest youth, what you do affects other people, places, and things, and as long as you lay claim to that swirly grey stuff between your ears, you have a responsibility to consider that, AT ALL TIMES, NO MATTER WHAT.

Remember: thinking is good, and good for you.

Thank you, and please have a nice day.

I know I will. It's Friday and only one more class 'til Freedom! :D

Comments

( 2 comments — Leave a comment )
nute
Nov. 5th, 2004 02:32 pm (UTC)
From the fifth column...
The trouble with trying to say people shouldn't vote for morality is that there isn't any other way to win a popularity contest. And really - show me one - just ONE - election that was based on merit. Where every single voter voted solely on the qualifications of the candidates.

You can't, because the people by and large can't do that. People vote for who they LIKE and who they WANT to be their leader, which is why I believe at heart an electoral system is an unnatural form of government.

As for the separation of church and state, there's people who believe that establishing such a thing was an error of the Founding Fathers. Which may be a valid point, they made quite a few (such as the Second Amendment and wearing wigs all the time).

The trouble with letting the people decide is that you DON'T get what's right, you get what the majority wants.
iamgerg
Nov. 6th, 2004 04:34 pm (UTC)
It has been my experience that if you have a phrase to describe something that should be fundamental, it is because it isn't, i.e. employee empowerment, compassionate conservatism, separation of church and state.
( 2 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

reeciebastion
chandri
Chandri MacLeod
Fantasi.net

Latest Month

April 2017
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com