U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-05-2008, 03:59 PM
 
Location: Not where you ever lived
11,544 posts, read 25,098,941 times
Reputation: 6189

Advertisements

One of the airhead cable commentators proudly announced the win of the incumbent Senator from Georgia a "moral victory for the Repblicans" as if the vote count was anointed and the outcome should be venerated and adorned with jewels. For goodness sake, it was a one-seat re-election that changes nothing in the U.S. Senate for six years. It wasn't the next coming of anything.

For the last too many years we have been inunundated with political terms like "moral majority" and "moral values" ad nauseum as if the phrases were some kind of religious icon that survived a thousand years of antiquity. I for one am tired of the implications, and I am certainly tired of the rhetoric. The politicians spewing the trash should worry about their own mortal turpitude and let the rest of us worry about our own.

It's time to can the labels and devisive words. We are Americans who do not need cable entertainers or politicians to tell us who the "right" political party is or whether or not we have moral turpitude. We certainly do not need to be told by a political party their members have more family values than any other family in America.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-05-2008, 04:08 PM
 
5,273 posts, read 11,920,316 times
Reputation: 5750
I think you may be reacting a little too strongly.

The republicans now have cloture with this election. That means that even though they are far from a majority in the Senate, they can fillibuster any piece of legislation. That defines a "moral" victory. That is, you may not have won the war, but you'll always have a way to win a battle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2008, 04:41 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
7,091 posts, read 10,493,331 times
Reputation: 4104
It's easy to say it's a moral decision without having a conclusive logical argument to support ones beliefs. In addition many people believe "morality", even though it's a subjective measure as the points get finer, the top of the food chain in argumentative reasoning...beyond money (greed), logic of cause and effect (immoral), and legal (higher power).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2008, 06:52 PM
 
48,519 posts, read 81,086,895 times
Reputation: 17978
They are merely saying that Obamja carried many in congress with him. It was like this after Reagan won the first time.Quite different than a moral decision.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2008, 09:04 PM
 
Location: Orlando, Florida
43,858 posts, read 43,585,576 times
Reputation: 58603
I'm not sure that ANY political race should be equated with morality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2008, 10:41 PM
 
Location: Not where you ever lived
11,544 posts, read 25,098,941 times
Reputation: 6189
Default Exactly

Quote:
Originally Posted by GloryB View Post
I'm not sure that ANY political race should be equated with morality.
My point exactly. Politics is neither a living, breathing thing nor a religion although there are some who give it homage as if it were. The line between politics and religion should not be blurred for entertainement,value, nor titilated for advertising revenue, nor should it be used to score mythical points. There isn't anything special about Anerican politics. Elections occur every two years, and the moral victory the rooster crowed over was not a Hail Mary pass that won a football game.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2008, 05:37 AM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,640,563 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by linicx View Post
One of the airhead cable commentators proudly announced the win of the incumbent Senator from Georgia a "moral victory for the Repblicans" as if the vote count was anointed and the outcome should be venerated and adorned with jewels.
Huh? I do not agree that the word "moral" has any implications of being "venerated and adorned with jewels" (and yes, I mean figuratively, too). I think it's okay if it implies that to you, but it's worth realizing that that would be highly unusual.

On the other hand, I agree that the commentator's usage might be odd, and if possible (or necessary--maybe it wouldn't be give the context), I'd probably ask for clarification. It's not clear to me that a "victory for morale" is not what he should have said instead, otherwise, it begs the question of what the Republicans were fighting morally that a seat caused them to win.
Quote:
For the last too many years we have been inunundated with political terms like "moral majority" and "moral values"
I see nothing wrong with eaither phrase, and especially not with "moral values". People care about morality, most folks think that there is right or wrong morality, they do not think that at least some kinds of immorality should be tolerated (such as the immoral act of murder), there are other kinds of values, etc.
Quote:
as if the phrases were some kind of religious icon that survived a thousand years of antiquity.
You seem to be thinking that morality is merely a religious idea. That's not at all the case. And morality--the ideas about it, the judgments about behavior, etc.--has certainly been around for much more than a thousand years. Moral philosophy (ethics) goes back much further than Christianity. Read some Plato.
Quote:
I for one am tired of the implications,
It's not very clear to me what the implications are to you.
Quote:
The politicians spewing the trash should worry about their own mortal turpitude and let the rest of us worry about our own.
Most views about morality do not suggest that one shouldn't consider the conduct of any people other than oneself. In fact, a large number of philosophers who concentrate at all on ethics (the Greek-derived word (rather than the Latin one) for morality, or moral philosophy) would say that a non-prescriptive ethics is not an ethics at all. I do not agree with them on that as a logical point (and I think that the view mainly stems from so many folks being a fan of Kant's approach to ethics--Kant's categorical imperative is precisely about ethical prescriptions not just pertaining to oneself), but I at least agree that most ethics, including my own, contain prescriptions. Prescriptions that only pertain to oneself would be possible, I suppose, but very odd.
Quote:
It's time to can the labels and devisive words.
All (or nearly all, at least) words are labels and make distinctions or divisions. So that would be prescribing that we get rid of language more or less.

Last edited by Tungsten_Udder; 12-06-2008 at 05:47 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2008, 09:37 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,613,725 times
Reputation: 35875
You're trying to define the word too narrowly.

mor·al
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2008, 09:45 AM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,640,563 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
You're trying to define the word too narrowly.

mor·al
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
Ah--good point. I actually forget about that sense sometimes . . . which I shouldn't, because that sense is found in older philosophical literature too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2009, 12:35 AM
 
Location: Not where you ever lived
11,544 posts, read 25,098,941 times
Reputation: 6189
The problem with the word moral is it being spouted all too frequently by persons who have no idea what morals are. It is a word interjected to arouse passion. There is no moral vicory in an election, It's a vote count - even though some people may feel vindicated and even morally superior. There is no moral victory any more than there is a moral majority, or a moral right, or high moral ground. You may have the legal right to do X, but.that doesn't necessarily mean it was predicated by an ethical decision making process.

1 a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments> b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c: conforming to a standard of right behavior d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e: capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>
Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top