Conservative vs Libertarian... Round One... DEBATE!

Fleiur

Well-known member
Meanwhile, I say that organized religion is wrong. All the violence done in its name, its rejection of science, and the abuses perpetrated by those it gives power over others to proves me right. That's the issue with claiming that something is objectively moral; there's no shortage of justifications one can point to for one's own beliefs on what is and is not moral, and if it was truly objective, we wouldn't be arguing about it with each other. The simple fact that I don't agree with you that free love is wrong (or rather, its original form as the belief that the state had no business meddling in sexual matters such as marriage, birth control, and adultery), and you don't agree that organized religion is wrong, despite the evidence each of us presents to justify our beliefs, is itself proof that trying to determine objective morality is far more difficult than you assumed.

Consider this; we can both agree that murder is morally reprehensible, correct? Now consider the trolley problem; pulling the lever, killing one to save five, is murder. Or rather, I believe it would be murder; many would disagree with me on that, but that's how I interpret the thought experiment. It would be murder to kill one person to save five, so I would not pull the lever. In the end though, our positions are not morally equivalent; because you and I are not equivalent. I believe certain things are wrong, you believe that other things are; and society is about reconciling those differences, finding compromises where possible, but also punishing those who do what the majority have decided is immoral.
Any violence done in the name of Christianity is done contrary to its tenets, tenets that your own beliefs are based on in some way if you are a Westerner.

We hold arbitrary violence to be wrong. Yet, what if society approved of arbitrary violence as SJWs would have it? If that happened, would you stand against it? What right would you have to oppose it if society's purpose is to punish what the majority deems immoral?
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Any violence done in the name of Christianity is done contrary to its tenets, tenets that your own beliefs are based on in some way if you are a Westerner.

We hold arbitrary violence to be wrong. Yet, what if society approved of arbitrary violence as SJWs would have it? If that happened, would you stand against it? What right would you have to oppose it if society's purpose is to punish what the majority deems immoral?
I am well aware that I vastly oversimplified the issue to prove a point, but that's what you did as well when you asserted that free love caused "infidelity, decline of marriage, and the rise of degeneracy like "trans kids"", as if they were the sole result of the movement. Also, I find it interesting that you jumped immediately to assuming that I was solely referring to Christianity; you do realize that Islam is also an organized religion, don't you? Second-largest in the world, in fact. Christianity is a pussycat in comparison, though it does have it's own issues; most of which I believe are rooted in it being an organized religion, and not the belief structure. Things like letting thousands of priests sexually abuse kids for decades, and covering the evidence up to try and save face for the church.

As for standing against arbitrary violence, of course I would. Again, just because I acknowledge that other people can reach conclusions about morality that, from their perspective, are valid, does no mean I must then surrender my belief in the validity of my own belief in what is moral. Conflicts do not have to have a "wrong side" and a "right side"; merely two or more sides battling each other for supremacy. I don't know about you, but I would prefer it if my side won.
 

Fleiur

Well-known member
I am well aware that I vastly oversimplified the issue to prove a point, but that's what you did as well when you asserted that free love caused "infidelity, decline of marriage, and the rise of degeneracy like "trans kids"", as if they were the sole result of the movement. Also, I find it interesting that you jumped immediately to assuming that I was solely referring to Christianity; you do realize that Islam is also an organized religion, don't you? Second-largest in the world, in fact. Christianity is a pussycat in comparison, though it does have it's own issues; most of which I believe are rooted in it being an organized religion, and not the belief structure. Things like letting thousands of priests sexually abuse kids for decades, and covering the evidence up to try and save face for the church.

As for standing against arbitrary violence, of course I would. Again, just because I acknowledge that other people can reach conclusions about morality that, from their perspective, are valid, does no mean I must then surrender my belief in the validity of my own belief in what is moral. Conflicts do not have to have a "wrong side" and a "right side"; merely two or more sides battling each other for supremacy. I don't know about you, but I would prefer it if my side won.
Then you believe in only power. Under your moral system, we will inevitably have a boot stomping on our face. Forever.
I know Islam is a religion of peace through violence.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Then you believe in only power. Under your moral system, we will inevitably have a boot stomping on our face. Forever.
I know Islam is a religion of peace through violence.
People with power want to protect their power.

Religious groups claim power over the soul and afterlife.

Nation states claim power over the physical realm and basic needs.

People make careers and build societies using these two avenues. What is called 'morality' is dictated by the confluence of those two power structures.

This isn't rocket science.
 

almostinsane

Well-known member
People with power want to protect their power.

Religious groups claim power over the soul and afterlife.

Nation states claim power over the physical realm and basic needs.

People make careers and build societies using these two avenues. What is called 'morality' is dictated by the confluence of those two power structures.

This isn't rocket science.

This is all true. What I think she is getting at is that power shouldn't be the only thing to give legitimacy. That has been true, historically, but this country was founded in direct opposition to that. The belief in inalienable rights is inextricably American.

Degeneracy, lack of civic virtue, a welfare state. The Founders abhorred all of these as threats to the republic.

It's funny how libertarians believe in the doctrine of power. By championing libertinism in the name of freedom, they deliver us to other people who believe in the doctrine of power.

And they will take all freedom except libertinism.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
This is all true. What I think she is getting at is that power shouldn't be the only thing to give legitimacy. That has been true, historically, but this country was founded in direct opposition to that. The belief in inalienable rights is inextricably American.

Degeneracy, lack of civic virtue, a welfare state. The Founders abhorred all of these as threats to the republic.

It's funny how libertarians believe in the doctrine of power. By championing libertinism in the name of freedom, they deliver us to other people who believe in the doctrine of power.

And they will take all freedom except libertinism.
The simple fact is conservatism as we know it only survives because the libertine community shares some values with traditional conservatives/evangelical conservatives.

The progressives/Marxists hate libertines deep down, but tolerate a degree of liberty, if they control the ways it is expressed.

Understand that there are those on the middle who will support commie overlords before they support religious overlords, if forced to chose.

Do not make them feel like they have to chose.
 

almostinsane

Well-known member
The simple fact is conservatism as we know it only survives because the libertine community shares some values with traditional conservatives/evangelical conservatives.

The progressives/Marxists hate libertines deep down, but tolerate a degree of liberty, if they control the ways it is expressed.

Understand that there are those on the middle who will support commie overlords before they support religious overlords, if forced to chose.

Do not make them feel like they have to chose.
I am not. Nor will I. I do not advocate morality laws in any shape or form. If @Terthna wants to be a libertine, he can do so.

But, at the same time, I have to point out that libertinism has caused terrible damage to our society. Nor can I not advocate a return to common sense virtues. I trust libertines can hear constructive criticism without turning to the side that actively wants to suppress freedom.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Then you believe in only power. Under your moral system, we will inevitably have a boot stomping on our face. Forever.
I know Islam is a religion of peace through violence.
Thing is, from my perspective, so do you; you just obfuscate it in your own mind by believing that your morals are objectively correct. Meanwhile, I'm just trying to reconcile my own moral code with yours, in a way that does not reduce you into some sort of evil caricature of yourself. Also, if you think my moral code involves "a boot stomping on our face" than you clearly have no idea what my moral code actually entails.
 

Fleiur

Well-known member
Thing is, from my perspective, so do you; you just obfuscate it in your own mind by believing that your morals are objectively correct. Meanwhile, I'm just trying to reconcile my own moral code with yours, in a way that does not reduce you into some sort of evil caricature of yourself. Also, if you think my moral code involves "a boot stomping on our face" than you clearly have no idea what my moral code actually entails.
I'm criticizing the belief that morality comes from power. Morality comes from what's true.
If morality comes from power, no one's freedom will be protected. Tyrants will be free to take away freedoms at will.
 

Prince Ire

Section XIII
The simple fact is conservatism as we know it only survives because the libertine community shares some values with traditional conservatives/evangelical conservatives.

The progressives/Marxists hate libertines deep down, but tolerate a degree of liberty, if they control the ways it is expressed.

Understand that there are those on the middle who will support commie overlords before they support religious overlords, if forced to chose.

Do not make them feel like they have to chose.
Based on what? Libertarianism is not popular. While the most popular ideologies are social right/economic right and social left/economic left, social right/economic left is still more popular than social left/economic left. If anything libertarianism is--along with racism--one of the key things holding conservatism back and hurting its appeal with non-white Americans.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
I'm criticizing the belief that morality comes from power. Morality comes from what's true.
If morality comes from power, no one's freedom will be protected. Tyrants will be free to take away freedoms at will.
Freedom isn't something handed to you on a silver platter; it's something every generation must be vigilant to protect, else tyrants will rise to take it from you. It's a lesson that history has tried to teach us repeatedly, yet we keep making the same mistakes, because we always take what we have for granted. "Morality comes from what's true"; and who decides what is true, hmm? You? Your religion? By what authority? That of your god? And what happens if I refuse to abide by his tenets? Am I going to go to hell? That sounds like a threat to me, a threat of force.
 

Fleiur

Well-known member
Freedom isn't something handed to you on a silver platter; it's something every generation must be vigilant to protect, else tyrants will rise to take it from you. It's a lesson that history has tried to teach us repeatedly, yet we keep making the same mistakes, because we always take what we have for granted. "Morality comes from what's true"; and who decides what is true, hmm? You? Your religion? By what authority? That of your god? And what happens if I refuse to abide by his tenets? Am I going to go to hell? That sounds like a threat to me, a threat of force.
I'm saying that people need to live by certain standards to defend their freedom. You're really not getting my point..

Without belief in objective morality, Nazi morality is just as valid as yours. It is just as right to revere Mao as Gandhi.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
I'm saying that people need to live by certain standards to defend their freedom. You're really not getting my point..

Without belief in objective morality, Nazi morality is just as valid as yours. It is just as right to revere Mao as Gandhi.
You keep using that strawman like it's going to be true if you just repeat it enough.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
I'm saying that people need to live by certain standards to defend their freedom. You're really not getting my point..

Without belief in objective morality, Nazi morality is just as valid as yours. It is just as right to revere Mao as Gandhi.
If we believe in objective morality, that would mean only one set of morals is the correct one. One of us is going to be on the outs in that scenario. You're not necessarily wrong about us needing some sort of shared framework though; because there are some things people should agree on if society is to function correctly, like not hurting other people.
 

Fleiur

Well-known member
If we believe in objective morality, that would mean only one set of morals is the correct one. One of us is going to be on the outs in that scenario. You're not necessarily wrong about us needing some sort of shared framework though; because there are some things people should agree on if society is to function correctly, like not hurting other people.
I doubt anyone is 100% right on anything. But, there are some things that we can say for sure.

Violence to coerce people is wrong. Stealing is wrong. These are self-evident because it harms the other person.

Yet, everything we can agree to be right and wrong comes down to the belief that each person is infinitely valuable. Without that assumption, everything falls apart. If values are subjective, the value of human lives is subjective. And that has scary consequences.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
I doubt anyone is 100% right on anything. But, there are some things that we can say for sure.

Violence to coerce people is wrong. Stealing is wrong. These are self-evident because it harms the other person.

Yet, everything we can agree to be right and wrong comes down to the belief that each person is infinitely valuable. Without that assumption, everything falls apart. If values are subjective, the value of human lives is subjective. And that has scary consequences.
What about the trolley problem; I mean, would you pull the lever? Kill one to save five? What if those five were total strangers, and that one was a friend, or a family member?
 

Fleiur

Well-known member
What about the trolley problem; I mean, would you pull the lever? Kill one to save five? What if those five were total strangers, and that one was a friend, or a family member?
Assuming that one person is an innocent victim? No. That falls into the utilitarian trap. It's been done before. The results weren't good.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Assuming that one person is an innocent victim? No. That falls into the utilitarian trap. It's been done before. The results weren't good.
I agree actually, but I think it's a problem that, in my opinion, has no objectively correct solution; different people will decide different on what is the right thing to do in that situation, even if they otherwise share a moral framework.



You mean how the Catholic Church rejected evolution? Or Heliocentrism? Like that?

Because, hoo boy do I have a surprise for you...
No, I'm fairly certain I already know what you're going to tell me about that. I was more referring to groups like the young earth creationists; who think that evolution is a heretical concept, that the earth is only a few thousand years old, and that the devil put dinosaur bones in the ground to trick the faithful. Or radical Islam, which... seriously, do I even need to go into what they believe?

I'm not interested in stuff that happened over a hundred years ago; even fifty years ago is irrelevant to my concerns. What I'm critical of is what's being done in the name of organized religion now; as well as what was done within the past few decades, as those wounds are still fresh.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top