Many people think that liberalism = no morals?

Question

this is just not true. Being Liberal means accepting people for who they are and not passing judment.. seeing as how that's God's place and not yours anyway. What strikes me as odd is that many of these people who claim Liberals have no morals, come from the party of Morals (and we've seen plenty of their "morals" pasted all over the place in the past year). isn't that hypocricy?

Answer 1

It's all propaganda and spin, from both ends.

Libs and cons are not what each side claims the other to be. People should try picking up a dictionary once in a while and learning that libs and cons are very similar in the views, just have different methods of getting there.

Answer 2

It's a wedge issue exploited by right-wing leadership to divide the country along lines that people tend to blindly cling to.

It's not really about morality. It's about groupthink and ego. It's about low self-esteem and belonging to a group. These are the same people who make the argument "morality comes from religion" but which religion are they talking about? In my experience, very very rarely are these people making a general argument for religion... they're talking about their own religion, not religion in general. Aside from a very basic set of "moral" codes that all societies basically operate under (don't murder, don't steal, etc...) the religions deviate pretty heavily on the details of their morality. Morality to a fundamentalist Christian is a much different thing than it is to a Buddhist. Very rarely are people arguing the structural argument that morality actually comes from religious beliefs... far far more often they're arguing that their personal definition of morality is absolute.

So from our perspective it's hypocrisy... but from their perspective giving any ground on the topic would be a problem. Their world view is very very fragile. In fact, it's so fragile that they themselves don't believe it. A little fact like morality being a trait of good social interaction throws a wrench in the supremacy of their belief system in their eyes and potentially seperates them from those they identify with.

With that kind of deeply rooted subconscious fear, absolutism settles in very easily. It's not a far jump from "I am a moral person, I know I am" to "those people in the groups I belong to are moral people, because I'm like them" to "all other groups are immoral because they disagree with the groups I assume to be moral".

And the more they argue their points, the more deeply rooted the need to blindly defend their agenda becomes, since the self-esteem ante increases every single time.

Answer 3

Those who advocate morality are always going to be more susceptible to the charge of hypocrisy, because it's hard to live up to an ideal.

I still think having ideals is important, though. Just because an advocate of something can't live up to it does not make the principle wrong.

Bill Clinton was a feminist, but sexually harassed women. that doesn't make the "morals" behind feminism wrong.

Answer 4

reason and result. something plenty of the inhabitants no longer takes into interest. I thanks for you nicely articulated outline of your question. you've a strong draw close of the social climate in this usa. As a robbery/homicide detective who deals with the end results of the professional take the money and run crowd. i visit allow you to recognize. the end results of those moves by technique of the few upon the various are costing fantastic quantities of money to handle. One armed robbery, ties up a minimum of three radio vehicles. generally a million or 2 detective gadgets. CS technicians. At a tremendous Hourly fee. If there occurs to were a guns discharge in the fee of the crime. upload EMT or Emergency airlift searching on the severity. Now those gadgets will dedicate something of their shift to this one incident. Taking the uniformed vehicles off of partrol and presence off the line. starting different homestead windows of chance for crimes to take position. I received't bore you. although the fee is heavy. What my morale to this tale is. moves beget moves. Deeds beget Deeds. sturdy has a some distance a lot less fee than evil. So if human beings might want to easily take a 2d to imagine, somewhat of react. shall we've a miles more desirable sensible society in which to evolve in. frustrating situations at the moment are forcing some sturdy human beings into some undesirable circumstances. the quicker we may be able to get a cope with in this example we are dealing with the more desirable sensible off the entire gadget will be. thanks for the chance to take a shot at this.

Answer 5

It is a well known fact that libs are moral relativists believing that no moral objective standard exists. This belief has wrought major chaos to families and the health of society generally.

To claim that libs "do not pass judgment" is appallingly wrong. They pass judgment constantly (much like the poster here passed judgment with cheap jabs like the "party of morals" and his "hypocricy" accusation). Ask an environmentalist what he thinks of a person who presents scientific evidence that global warming is not created by man, or that it is merely a natural event. You will hear plenty of judgment from that environmentalist. Ask a pro-choicer what she thinks of pro-life views. You will get an earful of judgment. Ask a Darwinist what he thinks of arguments which discredit the holy "fossil record." You'll get even more judgment. Thus, it is inaccurate to claim that Libs don't pass judgment. They just want a franchise on the practice.

One day I might hear an argument from a liberal that does not include the words "hypocrisy" and "Halliburton."

Answer 6

Those opposed to liberalism, of course try to bash it. Tell the Party of Morals to clean up their own backyard and watch them change the subject. They're just frustrated that everyone doesn't think the same way that they do.

Answer 7

Hypocrisy because people made mistakes ? People do make mistakes regardless of political affiliation .

I think the dispute really lies in the definition of the word 'morals' .

Answer 8

It's the Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh approach that if you say it enough times , people believe it. That has worked well for Republicans/Conservatives over the years. They don't care about whether it is true or not.

Answer 9

the people who in all seriousness say this sort of thing all have very questionable morals indeed.

consider this:

bill oreilly - accused of basically having phone sex with a co-worker against her will. settled out of court for who knows how much. also, bill has written a pornographic book, which amazingly enough, he read for the books on tape - one of the funniest things you will ever hear.

rush limbaugh - famously addicted to hillbilly heroin and has had multiple wives. limbaugh recently was caught with viagra on his way back from the dominican republic - and he is single - meaning that he was probably hiring prostitutes.

kkkarl rove - the man who made american politics about hatred and division - all because the candidates he was hired by sucked so bad.

newt gingrich - famously divorced one of his many wives while she was on her death bed dying of cancer.

bill bennett - wrote a book all about american morals, but is a known compulsive gambler - who famously lost $8,000,000.00 on a particularly unlucky gambling streak.

dick cheney - unlike president bush, cheney has never sworn off binge drinking. a couple of years ago cheney mistook a 78 year old lawyer for a small bird and shot half of his face off and then hid behind the secret service and his position to avoid prosecution for being drunk and shooting someone. cheney also received about $30,000,000.00 in options from haliburton, the company that cheney used to be ceo of and has seen a nearly 100% increase in business since he and bush started their crime spree.

this is just the start of a truly motly crew of gangsters who have very questionable morals, but have no problem telling the rest of us that we aren't moral enough to judge them or even ask them questions...

Answer 10

Of course it's hypocrisy.

The people from the 'party of morals' want to leave the burden of climate change on our children and grandchildren, they want to stop people who happen to be of the same sex from getting married, they want to illegalize abortion... That all sounds pretty immoral to me. Heck, we'd still be burning witches at the stake if it wasn't for liberal philosophy!

Here's what I think:

Conservative philosophy = no morals!