Question for Leftists and/or Libertarians

[Purple Knight]

There's a common thread among religious folks that I'm not sure the religious folks even understand is there, though some certainly do: God makes right.

God turning someone into a pillar of salt for the direction in which she glanced: Good.
Purple Knight turning someone into a pillar of salt for the direction in which she glanced: Evil.

Believe it or not I think the religious people are on to something very fundamentally true about morality.

It seems to run through progressive, hard-left, and libertarian views as well.

For example, libertarians often exalt the Non-Aggression Principle precisely because it does not apply equally to every situation and leans heavily upon judgment calls for almost every situation. Ideally, private security companies will make the calls, and they're under no more obligation to be fair than the market demands.

Those on the hard left also believe that morality is not necessarily equal by the act; the person must be considered. For example, a white supremacist may be punched for his ideology, but not a black supremacist. This goes back to market demand, and libertarian world populated by hard leftists would see the private security companies serving market demand by arresting the black-supremacist-puncher but not the Nazi-puncher, simply because that is the demand.

I agree with both.

Thus my question. It's about a conservative who adopts every last one of your principles and imitates every action of your exalted. If he's conservative in his heart, can he still be good? Or are his actions tainted by his feelings, regardless of what he chooses to do or why?

He might become a hero of human rights and a crusader for open borders, for example. He might be the sole saviour responsible for tends of thousands of struggling refugees being able to enter a better country and obtain better lives.

...But in his heart, he dislikes what he does. He may even know your way is right, but let's say he's come to this conclusion intellectually and no matter what he does, his feelings still run protectionist and conservative. He simply ignores those feelings.

Is he a good person?

[Menotu]

There's a common thread among religious folks that I'm not sure the religious folks even understand is there, though some certainly do: God makes right.

God turning someone into a pillar of salt for the direction in which she glanced: Good.
Purple Knight turning someone into a pillar of salt for the direction in which she glanced: Evil.

Believe it or not I think the religious people are on to something very fundamentally true about morality.

It seems to run through progressive, hard-left, and libertarian views as well.

For example, libertarians often exalt the Non-Aggression Principle precisely because it does not apply equally to every situation and leans heavily upon judgment calls for almost every situation. Ideally, private security companies will make the calls, and they're under no more obligation to be fair than the market demands.

Those on the hard left also believe that morality is not necessarily equal by the act; the person must be considered. For example, a white supremacist may be punched for his ideology, but not a black supremacist. This goes back to market demand, and libertarian world populated by hard leftists would see the private security companies serving market demand by arresting the black-supremacist-puncher but not the Nazi-puncher, simply because that is the demand.

I agree with both.

Thus my question. It's about a conservative who adopts every last one of your principles and imitates every action of your exalted. If he's conservative in his heart, can he still be good? Or are his actions tainted by his feelings, regardless of what he chooses to do or why?

He might become a hero of human rights and a crusader for open borders, for example. He might be the sole saviour responsible for tends of thousands of struggling refugees being able to enter a better country and obtain better lives.

...But in his heart, he dislikes what he does. He may even know your way is right, but let's say he's come to this conclusion intellectually and no matter what he does, his feelings still run protectionist and conservative. He simply ignores those feelings.

Is he a good person?

Probably doesn't matter much about what you or I say about him in all realness.
People worry too much about what others think of them these days. Just don't jack with someone else's life and live and let live - who cares if someone thinks I'm too tall, too fat, too skinny, too loud, lousy at golf, great and checkers.
Meh

[Bust Nak]

Is he a good person?

He would probably be a good person anyway. Most people are good, regardless of their political views. If he does all the right thing, all the better.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 1 by Purple Knight]

We are none of us perfect. And it is through our imperfections that we perceive God. Consider it like seeing through the lens of our characters, darkly.

That gives us plenty to debate.

Nevertheless, so long as we hold that it is we who might be in error, rather than those we we disagree with, or God Himself, there is scope for progress.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Purple Knight]

Nevertheless, so long as we hold that it is we who might be in error, rather than those we we disagree with, or God Himself, there is scope for progress.

My problem is that I actually do this.

So invariably I end up changing my view.

So now, I agree with Y instead of X.

But wait, now X is the thing that can't be wrong.

So I change my view to X.

But wait, now Y is the thing that can't be wrong...

Tortured existence.

Ultimately I want to have more confidence in my views, not less.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 5 by Purple Knight]

Ah! So you need a theory of everything! I hate to disappoint you, but, to date, no such theory has been proposed. Instead, the best we have to navigate the world is our moral compass, as informed by our consciences. Satisfactory? Maybe, maybe not. But I am inclined to think that in an uncertain world, with an uncertain morality, it will be enough to save us, and send us heavenward, should we just pay attention to that still, small voice of calm amid the storms that life determines to beset us.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Purple Knight]

Ah! So you need a theory of everything! I hate to disappoint you, but, to date, no such theory has been proposed. Instead, the best we have to navigate the world is our moral compass, as informed by our consciences. Satisfactory? Maybe, maybe not. But I am inclined to think that in an uncertain world, with an uncertain morality, it will be enough to save us, and send us heavenward, should we just pay attention to that still, small voice of calm amid the storms that life determines to beset us.

Yet there are people with certainty that their views are correct. There are people whose moral arguments are utterly unassailable who cannot be refuted.

I don't think it's out of the realm of reasonable expectation to simply want to be one of them.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 7 by Purple Knight]

Certainly, given the current state of the art, we can be certain that those who claim certainty in moral matters are wrong in that, and very possibly most everything else as well. It is a sign of intellectual maturity to be able to live with uncertainty.

eg:

Premise 1) God exists.
Counter premise 1) God does not exist.

Conclusion 1) I should live my life according to God's preferences.
Counter conclusion 1) I should live my life as I prefer.

Reconciliation 1) How can I best live my life according to both what the alleged God allegedly wants, and what I want?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Purple Knight]

Certainly, given the current state of the art, we can be certain that those who claim certainty in moral matters are wrong in that,

I would like to hear you say that after arguing with a libertarian.

But let's take your statement which I just quoted. It is either correct, or it is not.

If it is correct, then it is incorrect, because you have claimed certainty in a moral matter by stating that certainly, those who claim certainty in moral matters are incorrect.

However, this only refutes the statement as presented. If the statement were weakened to those who claim certainty in moral matters might be incorrect, it cannot be refuted.

That's why I would like to hear you reiterate after arguing with a libertarian.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 9 by Purple Knight]

That was a meta-ethical statement, not a moral one.

Best wishes, 2RM.