Most and least moral posters

[angus]

Here's what I think:

Most moral: Al
Least moral: opebo

outstanding.  I'd read the title of the thread and before looking at your answers that's exactly what I came up with.  Great minds think alike.

Opebo, it isn't subjective.  Elazar, with his complex political terminology, and the dictionary (moral = concerned with the difference between right and wrong, put simply), are very clear on the definition.  What may be subjective is what you consider right and wrong, or what you consider to be moral behavior, but the question doesn't read that way, it only asks who's most and least "moral"  Very objective, I think.

[angus]

Opebo, the "danger" question is pretty objective as well.  In fact, an international poll a few years ago asked whether Saddam or George Bush was more dangerous.  The overwhelming majority chose Bush.  Some Americans were surprised.  I'm surprised that they were surprised.  Bush is the most dangerous man in the world, potentially.  This is simply a fact.  It is not an insult, nor is it subjective.  He is the president of the United States, and therefore, by definition, has the greatest arsenal and quick access to huge sums of money and blocs of manpower to create danger, if he so chooses.  Saddam was merely the dictator of a country with one-tenth the population of the USA and a very small per-capita GDP. 

The moral question is very similar.  No one should be surprised either that the most and least moral posters here both sport Red Avatars.  The DNC was the party that once staked its reputation on defending that most amoral form of elitism, chattel slavery.  But it is also the party, among the larger two, that defends welfare and social security.  I'm always saying that the GOP is a big tent, and in the sense of diversity of thought and opinion, it is.  But in strict moral terms, the Democrats have a slightly larger tent and spans the range from old-school elitism to fairly egalitarian, even with a touch of socialism in some cases.  (In any case elitism is amoral whereas socialism is moralism run amok.  Too much of a good thing can kill you.  You and Al mark those extremes very well, imho.)  No offense.  Just an observation.

[angus]

least moral (which coincidentally means most tolerant).

intriguing.  I hadn't thought of putting it in exactly that phrasing before, but I believe it's dead right.  To expand on the previous example, the Democrat party tolerated a great deal, historically, in the name of State's Rights that we don't tolerate today.  And in fact, both parties tolerated much more, historically, than we do today.  This coincides with what folks call "civilization" but you and I know it as moralism.  Londoners and Washingtonians recoil at the thought of sexual exploitation of children, while Muscovites wouldn't bat an eyelash at it.  (DO NOT CONFUSE COMMUNISM WITH SOCIALISM)  Also, consider that most individualistic (and least moralistic) being of all:  The American Cowboy.  Now, let your mind wander.  What do you think of when you think of the average Wyoming voter?  Maybe the phrase, "You can take my gun when you pry my cold dead fingers from around the barrel." comes to mind.  Fair enough.  But what doesn't come to mind is the word "unacceptable"  On the other hand, hardly a day went by during the five years I lived and worked in Massachusetts when I didn't hear the phrase, "I find that unacceptable!"  And going with Elazar's concept of the quintessential Massachusetts Moralist, we realize that these were the folks that wanted to abolish slavery, prohibit alcohol, and force truancy laws so that no one would be allowed to keep their children out of school.  Moral?  absolutely.  Tolerant?  Hardly.  Yes, while I wouldn't have come up with it, I have to agree:  Your brand of tolerance is intimately related to your lack of moralism.  Very incisive post you made, opebo, I must admit.  And it gets around the current fashion of confusing traditionalism with moralism.  Still, and no offense here, there's a sense of justice in Al's authoritarian-leftist-moralism that is lacking in your brand of individualist-amoral-elitism.  I think if you're honest with yourself you'll see it as well.

[angus]

Fair enough angus.  One may view the 'most moral' as the one most filled with the delusion that his personal preferences constitute an objective morality.  If one views it that way then Al or any of the religious are suitable choices, and I am the best choice for least moral (which coincidentally means most tolerant).

You aren't the only person who rejects the notion of universal morality.

Of course he isn't.  In fact, I'd suggest most of us do.  But it is that rejection that is tantamount to the concept of amorality.  I.e., that which is neither moral nor immoral is, by definition, amoral.  And opebo rejects it with such individualist flair that, if I dare say, comes close to being that most stereotypical caricature of Individualistic amoral Americana:  The Cowboy.  And opebo's comments about the cowboy are mistaken.  Let's imagine a man who rides into town, dusty and looking for action.  Does he have any problem with the high-dollar card game going on at the next table?  Of course not.  He may well even join in.  Later, that is.  Only after he's made his way upstairs to the brothel above, and selected his favorite from among the ladies on offer.  Does a cowboy even think to ask whether she's 18?  hardly.  And tomorrow, after the whoring and gambling grows wearisome, what to do tomorrow?  Let's go out and kill some Injuns (i.e., the poor).  Sure, I'm stretching a metaphor (the wealth of heirs apparent is narrow indeed, to the scope of broad horizons and free range, but the common thread is that neither punches a clock), but the stretched-paper thin metaphor is only to make a point:  all which was said subsequent to the originator's original comment only further's the argument that opebo is the least moral (most amoral) poster here.  And, I'm of a mind to argue with anyone who suggests otherwise.  And yes, opebo, many a cowboy made the beast with two backs with a lady boy.  For a man who claims not to watch TV, you sure have been gulled by its popular imagery.  That, or you have confused (as apparently many have) the Cowboy with the other characters in the Western:  The marshall, The Soldier, The Outlaw, The Preacher, The Mormon Settller, etc.  The cowboy is an individualist, hardly a moralist.  make no mistake.

As for Al being the most moral (least amoral) poster here, well, we hold this truth to be self-evident.  With apologies to Thomas Jefferson.

[angus]

opebo, I don't think we're arguing at this point.  it's just syntactical difference here and I think we're basically on the same page on this particular thread.

Emsworth, this is intriguing as well, and it may also be just a syntax disagreement.  I like to speak in anecdotes, examples, and metaphors, like in that episode of ST:TNG.  And one example that comes to mind is when a former girlfriend used to take tests for her friends.  She was good in math, physics, and chemistry.  And a Repbulican.  And in most ways saw the world differently than did I.  This was during a period when I saw Reagan as a horrible plutocrat-fascist.  (yes, I've aged nicely and no longer hold that particular view, but nevertheless it's important to the example)  Among the issues wherein we disagreed was academic dishonesty.  I felt then, and I feel now, that it is a high crime against humanity.  I'm generally a bleeding-heart liberal when it comes to those who commit grave wrongs, and to this day abhor capital punishment, 3-strikes laws, and sex-offender registries, but the one thing I cannot abide is academic dishonesty.  I tend to be very harsh abou that.  Now, obviously that's moralistic, in a sense.  Anyway, this chick, who was born in china and later became a US citizen, would take tests for her friends.  Not for money, mind you, just as a favor.  You know, in those big lecture halls where there are 150 students, 75 of them east asians, and you know those asians all look alike to the semitic or caucasoid TA.  So little Abdullah or Johnny would glance at the ID, and at the student, then accept the test without thinking much about it.  So, it was easy for east asians to get some other east asian to take his/her test for him/her.  Right?  Anyway, she was doing this all the time.  It was something we'd argue about.  In my system of morality, it was a great wrong, for reasons which I hope I do not have to delineate here.  But for her, education was not so much as an end in itself but rather a means to an end.  (yes, she was a pre-med, and her shallowness and goal-orientation typified the pre-med mentality.  but I digress.)  Anyway.  The relevance here is that I am certain it would be immoral for me to ever take anyone else's exam for them, or to cheat in any way in school.  (yes, I've broken many laws, lied, stolen, used drugs, impregnated women and pressured them to terminate the pregnancy, etc., etc., but I have never cheated in school.   Let's be perfectly clear on that.  And I will never accept cheating from my son.  Nor would I ever marry any one who cheats in school.  though I might sleep with them if they're good in bed.)  Anyway, the point here is that while I'm convinced that it's wrong for me to take part in that sort of activity, I do not know whether it is immoral or amoral for her to.  Perhaps you can clarify. 

Another example:  Senator Lieberman is always wearing his religion out on his sleeve.  Fanatical he is.  Won't even drive a car on Saturdays.  But he will have others drive to pick up things for him.  Now, his morality is religion-based, whereas mine is not, but the similarity stands:  is he a hypocrite?  I'm not sure.  If so, then so am I, for I never reported to the authorities what this chick was doing. 

Truth is, we're getting into eschatology and aesthetics and ethics.  And it's way over my head, as you can probably tell.  But I do know this:  Al is the most moral poster on this forum.  And opebo is the least.

Beyond that I agree with dazzleman's comments that you are taking an extreme.  In particular, I think the credo of Socrates and Saint Francis and modern-day recovering alcoholics in Alcoholics Anonymous meetings:  This above all else, to thyne own self be true.  that is, if you really believe what you're typing, and you're typing it as a heartfelt important point of clarification, then you're acting in a universally objective moral manner as well.  And I admire your enthusiasm for accuracy.  If you're just playing word games with me, then you can kiss my hairy, white, skinny, wrinkly, shriveled ass.  Punk.

[angus]

I also have some fierce, explosive gas right now.  Probably from that Japanese Tou Fu we got from Wal-Mart instead of the usual chinese stuff we get.  Azumaya extra firm.  Definitely not recommended.  Stick with the Wu Chong brand.  Anyway, this all deserves a better response than I'm capable of giving in my current bloated, humorless state.  Hasta luego.

[angus]

I also have some fierce, explosive gas right now.  Probably from that Japanese Tou Fu we got from Wal-Mart instead of the usual chinese stuff we get.  Azumaya extra firm.  Definitely not recommended.  Stick with the Wu Chong brand.  Anyway, this all deserves a better response than I'm capable of giving in my current bloated, humorless state.  Hasta luego.

  After you've blown all that gas out, it will be interesting to see your response to all this.  Good luck, man.

whoa, I let the old lady talk me into taking a couple of antacid tablets.  Feeling better already.  Well, I also had a major gut-wrenching fart.  That's was probably the clincher.  Seems like opebo's the clear winner on the least moral, but for most moral, PBrunsel is giving Al a run for his money.  But I'm tired of lobbying.  And tired in general. 

As an aside, that I agree with your idea of bedrock universal goes without saying.  And presumably many other posters do as well.  Note that murder hasn't come up in this thread.  Nor has rape.  Well, only artificially in this post, and only to point out that they haven't.  I think these concepts cross cultural and temporal boundaries.  So, sure, you can find examples outside religious and/or philosophical constructs to make the case for moral imperatives.  anyone who tells you otherwise is yanking your chain, as I suggested earlier.

And I'd point out to Akno21 that these posters may be wiser than you're giving them credit for.  Except for the usual handful of contrarians, no one here is confusing religiosity with moralism.

"You do not eat the pig.  I do not eat the cow.  We may respectively observe these taboos."
     --account of Admiral Zheng He's interpreter, Ma Huan, of the Calcutta Hindu maharaja to the people of Malabar.  AD 1421

"Religion is a private matter.  A private choice."
      --Zheng He (chinese Muslim and famed voyager, considered by his chinese comtemporaries to have had an extremely large penis), AD 1422

[angus]

no one here is confusing religiosity with moralism.

but I do think many are confusing Moralism with Traditionalism.  But we've hashed that out before.  Many times.  If they don't get it by now I guess they just don't want to.

"The truth is not kind.  And you say neither am I."
    --Toad the wet sprocket, AD 1991



meow.  hiss.  gettin' hot in here, folks.  make nice boys. 

"Judge not lest ye be judged."
          --God, the Son.  Circa AD 29

[angus]

Possibly, but we can take as a start the standard Merriam-Webster:  concerned with the difference between right and wrong.  I agree that it's a little hard to pick a most moral, but there's clearly a consensus on least.  Just to throw another monkey wrench in, I'd offer up Nym90 as a good choice for most moral as well.  That said, no I do not imply that union support = morality.  That'd be as silly as virginity = morality.  Perhaps it's just coincidence.  But one can make the case that one goes out of his way to support unions or stay a virgin precisely out of a strong sense of right and wrong.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm definitely not a big fan of Unions or of Virginity.  But then my thinking is probably closer to Dick Cheney than Saint Francis of Assisi anyway, and in any case I certainly haven't claimed any moral leverage over anyone else.  I only aim to speak up when I hear ambulance-chasing shysters like John Edwards claiming moral leverage over businessmen like Cheney.  Truth be told, they're both capable of being assholes.  I am more a fan of the ocassional reality check than anything else.  And it's important to remind folks that just because you've been convicted three times of DWI and you don't support welfare and workers unions and your oil-drilling company gets a no-bid sweetheart deal from the your best friend's son, now president, doesn't make you anti-morality.  (Okay, I'll stop picking on Cheney, but he is such an easy target isn't he?  But then so is John Edwards.  This is why neither of them are at the top of the ticket.  Suffice it to say that neither Cheney nor Edwards would make the "Most Moral" shortlist.  I'll leave Bush and Kerry out of this.  For the moment.)

[angus]

Interestingly, it is our own Least Moral poster who often compared himself favorably to VP Cheney.  Both his line of thinking and his physical attributes.  I distinctly remember several posts in which the "old opebo" (i.e., the Pre-Epiphany opebo) waxed fondly of our Vice President.  Of course, I do not mean to imply that our honorable vice president is as amoral as opebo.  It's just an interesting coincidence.  To be fair, the old opebo didn't like edwards any more than the new opebo does.  Not that Edwards is any more moral.  Just less likable.  Don't confuse morality with personability either.  History shows that morality doesn't win you many friends.  Lots of nice people get into trouble once in a while.  Hell, jesus managed to get himself crucified, after all.  In the literal sense!

Dazzleman, like Bush, I've only been arrested for DWI once.  And unlike Bush, I was never convicted.  That's what lawyers are for.  Hey, I never said Democrats are useless.  Obviously they have their place.  Mainly when you need good, but unscrupulous legal, representation.  Yeah, like O.J., I'm a big fan of the Democrats when it comes to hiring an attorney.

[angus]

And it's important to remind folks that just because you've been convicted three times of DWI and you don't support welfare and workers unions and your oil-drilling company gets a no-bid sweetheart deal from the your best friend's son, now president, doesn't make you anti-morality. 

Has Cheney really been convicted 3 times of DWI?  I guess he doesn't have to worry about that now that he has a government chauffeur.

I wonder why this was never publicized the way Bush's DWI was publicized.

BTW, haven't you mentioned that you've been busted for DWI more than once?  Isn't there a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black here?

Funny guy you are.  like Bush, I've only been arrested for DWI once.  But unlike Bush, I was never convicted.  yes, jfern, I think it's not accurate to say Cheney's been convicted 3 times.  I think he was only convicted on two of those arrests.  Bush was arrested for it once.  Convicted once.  Now, before you start asking, "why the hell did a rich guy like that let himself get convicted?!" remember that was back in 1976.  Dazzleman, you and I have discussed this sort of thing before.  You'll remember things were just different then.  Bush, for example, was arrested only in the sense that he was given a ticket and asked to come up and pay a fine of around 150 dollars.  Back then, you just got a slap on the wrist.  I had been pulled over many times, piss drunk, could hardly walk, and not arrested or ticketed.  I remember once, when I was about 18, a year under the legal age of 19, I was driving, drunk as a skunk, and my two other 18-year-old friends were with me in the car.  We got pulled over for running a stop sign.  They made us get out, and lectured us about the dangers of drunk driving, then found the two cases of cheap beer in the trunk.  One of them said, "now, if there was no evidence, then we'd have nothing to bust you on."   so we gave the two cops the two cases of beer.  "Enjoy, sir."  Problem solved.  True story.  That was then.  Nowadays, get pulled over for drunk driving and they act like you just raped a young man-child or something.  Nose to the wall, you scumbag!  And that's if you're white!!!  I hate to even think about how they treat you otherwise. 

I'm not sure these kids today appreciate what it meant for Bush and Cheney to get "busted" for DWI.  They imagine a few hours in jail, lawyers, huge fines, and social stigma.  you know better.  Times have changed, that's for sure.