Most and least moral posters

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Here's what I think:

Most moral: Al
Least moral: opebo

[© tweed]

Depends if you mean moral in the religious or non-religious sense of the word.  the most religiously moralized member is JMF, otherwise maybe Al.  Least moral no doubt is Opebo, no matter the definition.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

non-religious sense

[Cashcow]

Most moral? PBrunsel. He's probably the nicest forum member, and kindness is essential to morality.

[Emsworth]

It's a difficult question for one to answer, as I don't believe that there is such a thing as objective or universal morality.

[Jake]

Jake

Thanks for the mention, but no

I'd say IlikeVerin for sure

[TomC]

I can go along with PBrunsel for the kind way he treats other posters.

Verin? for most moral? I'm sorry, but no, verin is a little too concerned with what people think of him. Sometimes it seems there's little else to him. He is kind, true,  but too self-centered to be the most moral.

For least moral, I'd have to say NixonNow.

[opebo]

This thread is meaningless, as of course each of us has our own 'morality' or subjective heirarchy of preferences - there is no objective one.

[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.

[TomC]

Well, if it were objective, then it would be meaningless. Aren't most of these threads asking for opinions? I mean a thread like "Poster whose name begins and ends with the same vowel." Now that would be meaningless.

[opebo]

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.

Oh you mean who is the most deluded in thinking that their personal preferences consistute some sort of objective morality?

You might as well ask which is the most dangerous.

[opebo]

Well, if it were objective, then it would be meaningless. Aren't most of these threads asking for opinions? I mean a thread like "Poster whose name begins and ends with the same vowel." Now that would be meaningless.

No, the assumption in asking 'who is the most moral' is that there is an objective morality - which of course there is not.  Instead there are many subjectivities making the spurious claim of objective truth for the purpose of subjugating those different from themselves. 

[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.

[opebo]

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).

[Emsworth]

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.

[opebo]

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.

Well, then perhaps I was right in the first place and this question is being interpreted by most to be an application of an objective morality, rather than of belief in same.

In any case why don't you speak up when I'm arguing with these horrible moralizers, emsworth?

[Emsworth]

In any case why don't you speak up when I'm arguing with these horrible moralizers, emsworth?

Well, I have already made a post on this subject in this thread: see here.

But, in any event, I would agree with you that one cannot define "universal" or "objective" morality. By what standard would the morality of an action be judged? Any such standard would be totally arbitrary. Hence, morality is merely a system of personal preferences and values, with no universal application.

[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.

[dazzleman]

Good points, angus, as always.

I do think however, that one can be both tolerant and moral.  It just depends what a person is tolerant of.

If you are tolerant, for example, of people marrying outside their race, that doesn't preclude morality because there is nothing immoral about marrying outside your race, though at one time people thought there was (another example, as you said, of not confusing traditionalism with moralism).

But if you tolerant of 45-year-old men sexually abusing children, as opebo does, then that does preclude morality.

[opebo]

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?

Actually both Cowboys and Wyomingites are terrible intolerants and moralists, for the most part, particularly in their judgements of homosexuals.  No, I think the supposed libertarianism of the Mountain West is a myth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thanks for the compliment, angus, but keep in mind that all moralism is based upon intellectual dishonesty - the presumption that one's own subjective preference is objectively better, or 'moral'.  Such a statement is tantamount to a seriously intended verbal threat against others, should they disagree with you.  It is little more than a comically inadequate camoflage for the will to power.  There is no 'justice' in Al's moralism, only an incredibly obvious fraud poorly camoflaging the will to power.

[opebo]

Good points, angus, as always.

I do think however, that one can be both tolerant and moral.  It just depends what a person is tolerant of.

If you are tolerant, for example, of people marrying outside their race, that doesn't preclude morality because there is nothing immoral about marrying outside your race, though at one time people thought there was (another example, as you said, of not confusing traditionalism with moralism).

But if you tolerant of 45-year-old men sexually abusing children, as opebo does, then that does preclude morality.

Your disapproval of 45 year old men have sex with younger persons is of course merely your own subjective preference, dazzleman. 

[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.

[Emsworth]

But it is that rejection that is tantamount to the concept of amorality.

I would tend to disagree. One can have morals, without believing them to be objective or universal.

[opebo]

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.  (?!)

Actually you make a good point - homosexuality was rife in the Old West, as in any situation where there was a dearth of women (though of course participating in something hardly means that you are making the claim that it is moral).  However I stick to my assertion that the modern West is quite different, and far form a tolerant place - who was that kid famously pistol whipped to death tied to a fence in Wyoming for being gay?

[opebo]

But it is that rejection that is tantamount to the concept of amorality.

I would tend to disagree. One can have morals, without believing them to be objective or universal.

Yes, those are mere personal preferences.