The Gender Debate

Nick333

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
34,454
Who knows? Existential guilt?:D
It's just a thought that there may be many reasons why people give money to charity.
Other than altruism? That's hardly what you could call a good faith assumption. Would you assume the expectation that the government should (or could) solve people's problems with other people's money is altruism?
 

Emjay

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
7,880
This may even be true - that Conservatives give more to charity (on a per person basis or what? It's not clear) - but the reason for that could be other than what you are suggesting.
It's possible that Cons are more bugged by guilt and try to redress it by handing out money.
Conservatives are usually RELIGIOUS, especially in the USA. Christianity especially preaches to give to the poor...
 

STS

Mafia Detective
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
30,689
Conservatives are usually RELIGIOUS, especially in the USA. Christianity especially preaches to give to the poor...
Or else you will hurn on hell.

Don't kill a fetus, or else you will burn in hell.

Don't give women rights, or else you will burn on hell.
 

Emjay

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
7,880
Or else you will hurn on hell.

Don't kill a fetus, or else you will burn in hell.

Don't give women rights, or else you will burn on hell.
Still harping on about this? Don't worry, STS. You can still drive women around to get their abortions in SA.
 

STS

Mafia Detective
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
30,689
Still harping on about this? Don't worry, STS. You can still drive women around to get their abortions in SA.
Just stating that religion isn't always a measure of morality, many people only do good deeds because they're scared/superstious or follow a faith that supports their worldview(left and right). How many people that donate to charity or follow religion have done terrible things?
 

Emjay

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
7,880
Just stating that religion isn't always a measure of morality, many people only do good deeds because they're scared/superstious or follow a faith that supports their worldview(left and right). How many people that donate to charity or follow religion have done terrible things?
Do you even think any of your posts through?

Religions institutions, like the church or schul, etc, form the anchor for their communities and teach "love thy neighbour". Communities that are connected together see a lot more charity flowing through them. Not because of fear or superstition.
 

STS

Mafia Detective
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
30,689
Do you even think any of your posts through?

Religions institutions, like the church or schul, etc, form the anchor for their communities and teach "love thy neighbour". Communities that are connected together see a lot more charity flowing through them. Not because of fear or superstition.
Love thy neighbour, but also excommunicate them or spread beliefs that cause division? Donate to charity, but collect tithes to fund more instutions like religious schools, missionaries, pamphlets, etc? Many religious institutes operate like a business.

I am not denying that there are a lots of good religious people out there and are even better because of their beliefs, I am just saying that a lot of philanthrophy is advertising too, no matter who does it. Many people being donated to are religious themselves and share beliefs, so it sharing amongst their own community.

I encourage charity to anyone who wants to make life better, just that people who are charitable will donate to charities that coincide with their beliefs - many atheists probably donate to scientific causes than teaching Ghertuio to read english in the amazon
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,359
So morality is reduced to the sphere of life that can be voluntarily engaged in? None of us chose to be born, none of us chose to need to constantly eat in order to sustain ourselves. You are naively proceeding as if it is a fait accompli that civilised behaviour is a non-optional given without bothering to look at the behavioural requirements (i.e. moral prescriptions) people must be bound to in order to make it a possibility in the first place.
Morality is surely a social practice. It wouldn't be relevant if you're the last person alive - at least I don't see how. So the only way I find it applicable is how one engages socially. It seems to be either through force, slavery or agreement. I wonder who then gets to decide who's the slave if we're not in agreement. Hopefully their ideology doesn't give them permission, else I might have something to say about it ;)

You appear to be operating under the presumption that one can be good by doing nothing, and that doing nothing is in fact a reasonable option at all times.
I think this is a reasonable criticism. Reminds me of the saying, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

If you have the capacity to do a good deed, is it immoral to do nothing? At what point would you over-extend? It is an interesting question and I'd love to hear your views on it.

If you think of inaction as a form of action then I suppose no. Also it seems one may relinquish moral superiority if one is not an example of what he/she preaches. For instance you cannot call out dangerous drivers if you yourself are one - at least you won't be taken seriously.

Also a peaceful society cannot be expected without a complimentary set of behaviors. If inaction in the relevant context exacerbates failure then one cannot expect otherwise if he/she practices this. And one thing that is key to individualism is self-defense. It'd be easy to argue that case I think. I suspect it is under growing ideological oppression that individualists tend to wake up - even support and sacrifice for freedom.
 
Last edited:

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,359
Conservatives are usually RELIGIOUS, especially in the USA. Christianity especially preaches to give to the poor...
Thanks to the new testament I suppose (Which I find has a lot of individualist tendencies). Though I suspect you will find both types of people - those who abide in order to get that mansion in heaven (and will subsequently go to hell lol - if such a thing were real), or those who simply do good for good's sake.
 

Gingerbeardman

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
4,307
Morality is surely a social practice. It wouldn't be relevant if you're the last person alive - at least I don't see how.
Then how can morality be about individualism? That appears to be a contradiction in terms.

So the only way I find it applicable is how one engages socially. It seems to be either through force, slavery or agreement. I wonder who then gets to decide who's the slave if we're not in agreement. Hopefully their ideology doesn't give them permission ;)
The issue that I have is that any claims that we live absent of force turn out to be dishonest. If morality is indeed supposed to save us from the use of force, it fails to do the job spectacularly.

If you have the capacity to do a good deed, is it immoral to do nothing? At what point would you over-extend? It is an interesting question and I'd love to hear your views on it.
Well, you can neglect a child as a parent through inaction, I suppose. I would consider that immoral. As for the point at which you over extend, I guess that would depend upon the individual and what they're actually capable of doing.

If you think of inaction as a form of action then I suppose no. Also it seems one may relinquish moral superiority if one is not an example of what he/she preaches. For instance you cannot call out dangerous drivers if you yourself are one - at least you won't be taken seriously.
I don't think we have the luxury of not doing anything, that's my point. You have to eat or you die. You have to exert effort to get food or you die. There's no such thing as a free lunch; if you didn't pay for it, well, someone or something did.

Also a peaceful society cannot be expected without a complimentary set of behaviors.
Right, but this is where the introduction of obligations and duties enters the picture. Shall civilisation get agreement in advance before expecting anyone to follow by civilised norms for the sake of not subjecting anyone to force? That's not workable, imo.

If inaction in the relevant context exacerbates failure then one cannot expect otherwise if he/she practices this. And one thing that is key to individualism is self-defense. It'd be easy to argue that case I think. I suspect it is under growing ideological oppression that individualists tend to wake up - even support and sacrifice for freedom.
Well, as I initially said, I don't know how to reconcile what you've said about the social nature of morality with individualism.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,359
Then how can morality be about individualism? That appears to be a contradiction in terms.

Well, as I initially said, I don't know how to reconcile what you've said about the social nature of morality with individualism.
The political spectrum is really about collectivism vs. individualism in my view. It takes any ideology and measures the degree of ideological subservience thereof (In relation to the subject/person), perhaps taking into account the social prescriptions/demands of said ideology as an additional caveat. i.e. an ideology entailing supremacy may prescribe discrimination, or an ideology that entails outsiders to be evil may also prescribe violence - those are some complications.

Individualism doesn't mean what it sounds like (solo, alone, selfish etc...) - it is a political alignment with the idea of independence across the board - a principle or value that can be extended to others and defended in unison. This is quite literally a moral position in my view and can be appreciated by an entire society. In fact I believe notions of individualism to be the true cause of societal success (Free Market, Democracy, Protection of Property Rights, Self-Responsibility, Self-Defense, the Golden Rule etc...). Christianity may have brought some of that across, at least in part.

Just a theory :) but it connects way too many dots for me.
 
Last edited:

Gnarls

Expert Member
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
2,300
Or else you will hurn on hell.

Don't kill a fetus, or else you will burn in hell.

Don't give women rights, or else you will burn on hell.
Don't post ignorant schitt.....

:rolleyes:
 

Emjay

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
7,880
The political spectrum is really about collectivism vs. individualism in my view.
Maybe, at a stretch, the x axis can be seen as this. But many people seem to forget about the y axis.

I was scoffed at by calling myself somewhat liberal whilst being being center right.

1558989345033.png
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,359
Maybe, at a stretch, the x axis can be seen as this. But many people seem to forget about the y axis.

I was scoffed at by calling myself somewhat liberal whilst being being center right.

View attachment 664264
So to be completely honest, I am naively shoving all the political axes aside. Because when I google such a thing I am presented with such abortions and conflicting terminology that it is completely useless. And there is no such thing as authoritarian right - this is nationalism or fascism which to me is typically left wing (collectivism) if enforced (There is however a distinction between pride and supremacy when it comes to nationalism). The extreme right is the least authoritarian possible (libertarian, and some interpretations of anarchism, though I've seen graphs place that on the extreme left as well).

I find these diagrams to be laughably idiotic and a major cause of confusion. They try squeeze ideology on the axes (Without regard for social/political context), form false dichotomies, use ambiguous terms, desperately try to break out concepts further (economics and social), and disregard what the axes actually entail - which is supposed to be a political spectrum (keyword), not a political spaghetti. Subsequently our dialogue on the subject is completely tainted.

And as I've alluded to, morals are a social practice and so is politics. That should give an idea of the scale the spectrum should entail.

Reminds me of the typical scene of a villain character telling the protagonist, "We're alike you and I". The protagonist refuses to believe that. So lefties put opposing lefties on the other side of their "spectrum".

Again I realize I am being very different so feel free to disregard :)
 
Last edited:

MrsWestcot

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2018
Messages
149
Your intuition is actually borne out by science. Conservatives tend to be high in conscientiousness, and people high in conscientiousness have a high aversion to any kind of feelings of guilt and modulate their behaviour accordingly. Though I don't think that's actually why they give to charity.
I believe the word you are looking for is consciousness (I guess). Conscientiousness is wishing to do one's work to the best of one's ability. And yes conservatives are for the most part just that. Not sure how that causes a high aversion to any kind of feelings of guilt etc..
 

Gingerbeardman

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
4,307
I believe the word you are looking for is consciousness (I guess). Conscientiousness is wishing to do one's work to the best of one's ability. And yes conservatives are for the most part just that. Not sure how that causes a high aversion to any kind of feelings of guilt etc..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Conscientiousness

I mean conscientiousness as in the personality trait. People high in conscientiousness are less likely to report experiencing negative emotion, and at the same time they are also more sensitive to negative stimuli on average. That might strike you as paradoxical, but one can see how a personality type that thrives on regularity and routine would structure their lives so that they can consistently avoid situations that would otherwise provoke a negative reaction.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025552

I'm not sure why exactly people high in conscientiousness also have an exaggerated neural response to negative stimuli, but the correlation is definitely there.
 
Top