Whatever happened to virtue and morality?

[Johnny Mayberry]

Perception IS reality for everyone...............You are no different

Is it? So when, dor instance, Michael Jackson gets Pepsi to declare him the 'King of Pop', he simply becomes that, even though he was already past his prime? Or are you saying that Internet hoaxes are real, simply because people percieve them to be?
I'm really trying to address a larger issue, which is how the media has skewed the ideas of right and wrong, to have more to do with public perception, rather than any intrisic value.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

I was about to say, "sad, but true" to this, but then I was wondering - why is it? Are we just too accustomed to it? Is it what we expect now?

I do think morals and virtue still exist. It just depends exactly how *you* define them.

Is it because maybe we have been conditioned to see everything as a competition on a par with spectator sports, and the most popular atheletes are often the 'trash talkers'?

 

[funspirit]

i agree with JM about the media's influence, but I also think that the media only shows what sells, so the responsibility once again comes back to us. Also, capitalism is based on a system of competition. You are much more likely to be rewarded for getting the job done than for maintaining your integrity.....

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by Johnny Mayberry
And all teh flaming in the world simply proves my point: perception is more important to most people than reality. Being on teh 'right' side, and pushing everyone else into the 'wrong' side, is more important than a rational look at the facts.

Except in the liberal/collectivist fantasyland, telling the truth is not an attack nor is it flaming someone.

Your statement about the election declares either your ignorance or your dishonesty. If you had kept up, you would recall that the news media got their recount of the Florida ballots and they published it somewhere around a year after the election was over. Since the outcome did not meet with their hoped for results, i. e., the actual recount showed Bush getting more than the original margin of victory in Florida, they published the results as a sort of, "Oh, by the way," column buried in their pages somewhere near the want ads or home & garden section. It was somewhere it was not going to attract a good deal of attention, be sure of that. And it was never picked up by the major networks that I recall either.

Had the results supported their desires, i. e., that Gore actually got the majority of the vote in Florida, we would still be reading and hearing about it. But if you notice, the claim that Gore won has quietly slipped away with no fanfare to draw attention to the fact that the media went hysterical on a tear hoping to avert reality.

So I'm calling you on the stupidity of a remark that is obviously false; the only thing I don't know is if it is based in your ignorance or malice.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Except in the liberal/collectivist fantasyland, telling the truth is not an attack nor is it flaming someone.

Your statement about the election declares either your ignorance or your dishonesty. If you had kept up, you would recall that the news media got their recount of the Florida ballots and they published it somewhere around a year after the election was over. Since the outcome did not meet with their hoped for results, i. e., the actual recount showed Bush getting more than the original margin of victory in Florida, they published the results as a sort of, "Oh, by the way," column buried in their pages somewhere near the want ads or home & garden section. It was somewhere it was not going to attract a good deal of attention, be sure of that. And it was never picked up by the major networks that I recall either.

Had the results supported their desires, i. e., that Gore actually got the majority of the vote in Florida, we would still be reading and hearing about it. But if you notice, the claim that Gore won has quietly slipped away with no fanfare to draw attention to the fact that the media went hysterical on a tear hoping to avert reality.

So I'm calling you on the stupidity of a remark that is obviously false; the only thing I don't know is if it is based in your ignorance or malice.

Actually, I read those articles...they all said that Bush lost, in the most roundabout way possible. Re-read them if you get a chance. The media is not biased towards the left, unless you count Fox News and Rush Limbaugh as being neutral.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by Johnny Mayberry
Actually, I read those articles...they all said that Bush lost, in the most roundabout way possible. Re-read them if you get a chance. The media is not biased towards the left, unless you count Fox News and Rush Limbaugh as being neutral.

And the fact is, any statement, inference or insinuation that Bush was not legitimately elected is a partisan lie which was my initial point. It is further evidence of the childishness of the elitists who seek to undermine his Presidency because they wanted the other candidate to win for their own partisan reasons ilustrating that they have little if any respect for the law when it does not serve their purposes.

While it is true that Bush did not win the popular vote, he did win the election by the means prescribed by the law of the land. And he is, I believe, the fifth President so elected. And there was no such childish uproar over those previous occasions nor was there anyone previously so juvenile and petty on the losing side that they tried to steal the election by going to a partisan activist court who would attempt to rewrite legislation from the bench.

Obfuscation notwithstanding, you may choose not to observe reality but that merely makes you foolish to self-destructive.

As to the media not being biased, perhaps you should ask Bernard Goldberg who was part of it for many years and find out how he has been personally savaged, i. e., ad hominem attacks, for stating his perceptions of the overall media bias and illustrating it with examples. Once an integral part of the media, he is now a pariah for the gross, vicious, horrible crime of telling the truth.

You can choose to ignore or evade reality but it is a futile and loosing struggle. Reality is a relentless adversary for those who choose not to deal with it or who seek to evade it. It does not go away and has an annoying habit of biting you in the ass at the least appropriate moment.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

And the fact is, any statement, inference or insinuation that Bush was not legitimately elected is a partisan lie which was my initial point. It is further evidence of the childishness of the elitists who seek to undermine his Presidency because they wanted the other candidate to win for their own partisan reasons ilustrating that they have little if any respect for the law when it does not serve their purposes.

While it is true that Bush did not win the popular vote, he did win the election by the means prescribed by the law of the land. And he is, I believe, the fifth President so elected. And there was no such childish uproar over those previous occasions nor was there anyone previously so juvenile and petty on the losing side that they tried to steal the election by going to a partisan activist court who would attempt to rewrite legislation from the bench.

Obfuscation notwithstanding, you may choose not to observe reality but that merely makes you foolish to self-destructive.

As to the media not being biased, perhaps you should ask Bernard Goldberg who was part of it for many years and find out how he has been personally savaged, i. e., ad hominem attacks, for stating his perceptions of the overall media bias and illustrating it with examples. Once an integral part of the media, he is now a pariah for the gross, vicious, horrible crime of telling the truth.

You can choose to ignore or evade reality but it is a futile and loosing struggle. Reality is a relentless adversary for those who choose not to deal with it or who seek to evade it. It does not go away and has an annoying habit of biting you in the ass at the least appropriate moment.

There are entire websites which refute everything you just posted. The Republicans in Florida used half a dozen illegal techniques to 'win', and they still didn't, so they stopped teh recount early.

Bernie Goldberg is a liar...go to dailyhowler.com for a does of reality about the media.

 

[Purple Haze]

Here's some reality:

For those that think Bush won fair and square

 

[bknight2602]

Maybe its just me, but I feel like traits such as these seem to have fallen by the wayside in our society. And what about humility? It seems like someone isn't "great" unless their press agent is telling you just how great they are. Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough, or maybe I've become numbed by the sensationalism running rampant in our world. Does anyone actually think that any of our last few presidents have been virtuous men? Shouldn't they be?

The presidents are men just like otheres, just in a "higher" office. Maybe they should have a higher moral standard, but that really doesn't sound like it is so. Maybe this speaks of our decision making process?

 

[Guest]

Maybe its just me, but I feel like traits such as these seem to have fallen by the wayside in our society. And what about humility? It seems like someone isn't "great" unless their press agent is telling you just how great they are. Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough, or maybe I've become numbed by the sensationalism running rampant in our world. Does anyone actually think that any of our last few presidents have been virtuous men? Shouldn't they be?

There is a difference to what they should be and what they are. Presidents are human, they have fallacies like us. Is adultery limited to normal people? Sensationalism is the presses job, who would watch if they didn't include it? Media is a business like any other, its about profits.

What if the press found out a president hanged out at a board like this?

 

[Ms_Lilith]

Maybe its just me, but I feel like traits such as these seem to have fallen by the wayside in our society. And what about humility? It seems like someone isn't "great" unless their press agent is telling you just how great they are. Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough, or maybe I've become numbed by the sensationalism running rampant in our world. Does anyone actually think that any of our last few presidents have been virtuous men? Shouldn't they be?

I will not comment on your presidents.

However, when it comes to Virtue and Morality: what do you consider virtues? And what morals do you choose to incorporate into your life?

Big question, and not many people will have the exact same two lists.

I was raised Catholic. By Catholic standards, I live an immoral and virtueless life. Why? Because I'm bisexual. I enjoy and partake in premarital sex. I curse, don't go to church, and I don't want to baptise my children when they're born, because I believe that should be a choice they make when they're old enough.

However.. I am a good person. I try my best to be kind to people (though I have my moments of meanness). I believe in truth and honesty, I promote kindness and gentleness, generosity and selflessness. I really try to be a good person. I don't go out of my way to hurt people, I work hard to make people happy, etc. I believe in integrity. I believe in right-action (which, to me, is an action that you can do freely, without any form of doubt or self-imposed guilt attached). And I will raise my future children well, with my own sense of morals and virtues.

And yet... my entire family would call me devil-spawn if they read this post.

Morality and Virtues are completely subjective. Many people agree on various forms of them, but in the end, it is up to each individual how they incorporate them into their lives.

 

[JazzManJim]

Ibelieve that what's most lacking isn't a sense of virtue(s) or morality, but a sense of decency. We, in large part, seem to have forgotten how to be decent people.

We've forgotten that you ought to treat others well, even if there's nothing to gain from it.

We've forgotten that you should help wherever possible, even if the help seems insignificant to you.

We've forgotten how important personal sacrifice is to keeping a society vital and healthy.

We've forgotten that the responsibility for caring for the weak and infirm and those who can not care for themselves belongs to each of us individually.

We've forgotten the simple courtesies, manners and politeness.

I think if we brought these things back from wherever they went, the rest would look infinitely better.

 

[bored1]

I think if we brought these things back from wherever they went, the rest would look infinitely better. [/B]

I think those "things" are gone forever..............

 

[The Heretic]

Ibelieve that what's most lacking isn't a sense of virtue(s) or morality, but a sense of decency. We, in large part, seem to have forgotten how to be decent people.

Possibly. I am not sure how much we have forgotten and how much we just choose to ignore because it is inconvenient or expedient to do so. I believe that most of the world knows how to be decent. I have commented on this before when the subject comes up in threads where people are asked what they would do if they were given some special power or priviledge; dissapointingly, a major percentage of the people answer that they would use the power/priviledge for a dishonest or dishonorable use. I am beginning to think that power doesn't corrupt, but that rather people are corrupt in the first place and they just don't have the power to get away with exercising their corrupt desires.

I think that one measure of an honest person, a person with integrity and honor, is a person who stays true to the principles they claim to have even when it would be easier, more convenient or beneficial to them to ignore those principles temporarily. There aren't very many people like that.

Most people will steal if there is low risk (how many people here steal software, music, other e-content?). Most people will use power given to them, or that they acquire, to enforce their world view on others (what they think people should be able to say or not say), to take their money by force (taxes) to finance programs they think are beneficial.

Most people will be curteous only when they are not anonymous (won't cut in line at the grocery store), but will tailgate or cut people off while driving because in their cars they are anonymous.

Still, given all of that, I think overall maybe people have more integrity, honesty and honor now than in the past - at least in many parts of the world. We have come to recognize other people's right to be different, in ethnicity, religion and politics. We resort to force less. We steal less (in the overall scheme of things). It would be hard to measure how honest we are and compare it to the past - so that is my subjective opinion - but I am fairly sure we are more tolerant and respectful of other people.

 

[The Heretic]

Virtue and morality were never the defining character of this country.

I disagree. I think that we have always tried to have virtue, morality and integrity as our defining character. Many times we failed - sometimes tremendously so - and we often looked the other way or hid such failures, in one way or another. But I think we have tried to do the right thing - to a greater degree than most countries and peoples.

It's just a lie that White people tell themselves for reasons I can't fathom.

Everybody lies to themselves, whether they are white, black, Asian, whatever. If you can't fathom that this is basic human nature, regardless of ethnicity, then I can't explain it to you.

The Puritans knowingly fabricated stories in order to have other people murdered. The amorality of the ethnic cleansing and attempted genocide of the Native Americans, the rape murder and human bondage of the African slave trade, segregation, the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII, et. al. is indefensible.

All of those things happened to one degree or another, and no, I am not going to try to defend the actions themselves - but I will say that, for the most part, a large part of the general populace had a problem with most of these actions. We fought a very bloody civil war in a large part over the slavery issue, and as far back as the inception of this country there was a significant part of the country that had real misgivings with regards to slavery.

The attempted geneocide of the indigenous peoples of North America was again something that eventually came to be regarded as immoral and wrong, and not just a century later; people in Congress and on the east coast were objecting to it when they learned what was truly going on.

Thomas Jefferson, who wrote so eloquently of liberty, was a lecherous ephebophile who routinely raped his wife's minor half-sister who, herself, was denied all liberty.

Now you are just throwing out allegations for which there is no real evidence, much less proof.

If not most, then a good number of U.S. Presidents had mistresses while they were in office.

This is true, however having a mistress does not necessarily make a person immoral (especially if they have tacit permission from their spouses, which at least a few seem to have had). Leaders of all sorts, including a number of prominent black civil rights leader (living and dead), have had extramarital affairs. I think they would have been better leaders had they led better personal lives, but I allow that they are human and therefore flawed. What I don't allow is that the principles they believed in were flawed - regardless of how flawed was the implementation or practice of those beliefs. Sometimes you do have to separate out the person from the belief they are espousing.

J. Edgar Hoover was a flaming Queen who lived with his lover for years, and yet persecuted other homosexuals.

J. Edgar's immorality had more to do with hypocrisy and persecution than his sexual orientation. There are a lot of people, in and out of government, in and out of wealth, in and out of power, who are hypocritical and who persecute others. People of all sexual persuasions, ethnicities, political and religious beliefs.

The gloriously moral and virtuous history that many Americans claim, despite all scholarly evidence to the contrary, is as fictitious as Uncle Sam's red-white-and-blue stovepipe hat.

To a certain extent that is true - but what is more important is that we as Americans have a belief in morals and virtue, no matter how flawed our practice of those beliefs are.

The only difference between the recent Presidents and the mythologized figures of U.S. history is that we now live in an unprecedented age of information. Thus, their dirty little secrets are harder to keep hidden.

No, there is actually very little difference in that respect. The allegations of Thomas Jefferson having a child by a slave was no secret, nor were any of the other sexual misconduct of figures of the time - it was often thrown about in the press with reckless abandon.

What is different between today and presidents/politicians of that time, is that most now seek power for power's sake, whereas at the time may politicians sought office mostly because they felt it their duty to serve the public.

You could say that back then most pols sought to serve their country and their people, whereas now most pols wish to have the country and the people serve them.

But all of that is of little consequence compared to the morality and integrity of the people at large. Today people don't elect pols because they are leaders, or because they think the pols will do the right thing - they elect the pols because the pols promise them more social programs, because pols promise them more pork barrel programs, because the pols will get them their share of the slop at the public trough.

"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money." - Alexis de Tocqueville

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods." - Ambrose Bierce

 

[funspirit]

thanks for posting heretic- I appreciate what you have to say, and agree with most of it

when I started this thread, I was thinking mainly of our president and his seeming lack of accountability for his actions, specifically in regards to the environment- does he just not care?

 

[JazzManJim]

when I started this thread, I was thinking mainly of our president and his seeming lack of accountability for his actions, specifically in regards to the environment- does he just not care?

I dare say that your viewpoint and mine differ greatly on this topic. YOu see a lack of caring and conflicting views. I see a strategy for the environment which has been long a part of conservative views which says that placing stewardship for the environment in the hands of the citizens and giving them a vested interest in caring for it, is a sure way to ensure that it flourishes.

 

[The Heretic]

thanks for posting heretic- I appreciate what you have to say, and agree with most of it

when I started this thread, I was thinking mainly of our president and his seeming lack of accountability for his actions, specifically in regards to the environment- does he just not care?

I don't know. I don't follow individual pols or their concrete policies that closely to say one way or the other. The reason being is that they don't play by my rules, and they cloud the issues so much that it would take a commission of experts to determine who is telling the truth and who isn't.

Therefore, I tend towards the theoretical and looking at the big picture. Neither the "liberals" (socialists) nor the conservatives fit perfectly into that big picture - the group that comes the closest is the Libertarians. Maybe I should start a new political group; the Heretics.

But back to the President. The President does not determine environmental policy, for the most part the Congress does - and if you want to know who they are supposed to report to, who is responsible for their makeup, who is responsible for how they form policy - look in the mirror.

 

[funspirit]

I dare say that your viewpoint and mine differ greatly on this topic. YOu see a lack of caring and conflicting views. I see a strategy for the environment which has been long a part of conservative views which says that placing stewardship for the environment in the hands of the citizens and giving them a vested interest in caring for it, is a sure way to ensure that it flourishes.

In theory, I agree. However, when he removes EPA inspectors from factories with horrible pollution records and asks the corporations to police themselves, then tries to open up public lands for mining while simultaneously repealing nearly every clean air law on the books, it doesnt make me feel too good about his intentions. And I am truly sad to say it, but I really don't think that Bush is intelligent enough to think oof things in idealistic theory terms.

 

[funspirit]

I don't know. I don't follow individual pols or their concrete policies that closely to say one way or the other. The reason being is that they don't play by my rules, and they cloud the issues so much that it would take a commission of experts to determine who is telling the truth and who isn't.

Therefore, I tend towards the theoretical and looking at the big picture. Neither the "liberals" (socialists) nor the conservatives fit perfectly into that big picture - the group that comes the closest is the Libertarians. Maybe I should start a new political group; the Heretics.

But back to the President. The President does not determine environmental policy, for the most part the Congress does - and if you want to know who they are supposed to report to, who is responsible for their makeup, who is responsible for how they form policy - look in the mirror.

unfortunately, I think that elections are now simply an illusion of choice. Both major parties are full of rich white guys who answer to big business first, campaign donors second, and the people are a distant third

 

[The Heretic]

In theory, I agree. However, when he removes EPA inspectors from factories with horrible pollution records and asks the corporations to police themselves, then tries to open up public lands for mining while simultaneously repealing nearly every clean air law on the books, it doesnt make me feel too good about his intentions. And I am truly sad to say it, but I really don't think that Bush is intelligent enough to think oof things in idealistic theory terms.

A president may have the power, being the head of the Executive branch, to remove EPA inspectors, but he doesn't have the power to repeal a law. As for intelligence, I would dare say that he is probably more intelligent than you or I. I take leave to reserve judgement on his wisdom - which is different from intelligence. I am not a Bush fan, I didn't vote for him, but I would rather have him in office than Gore, even if Gore would be better for the environment.

Just the same, neither of them would be my first choice for that office - they would be way down on the list - and neither of them "get it". But we are stuck with what we have. If you want to see his policies change, then work to that end.

 

[funspirit]

you're right, heretic- I do need to work more on voicing my opinions in consequential arenas- sometimes it seems that by the time I figure out where I stand, the situation has drastically changed.

 

[The Heretic]

unfortunately, I think that elections are now simply an illusion of choice. Both major parties are full of rich white guys who answer to big business first, campaign donors second, and the people are a distant third

Elections do reflect the choice of the general populace. The question is whether that choice is an informed one, or more importantly, whether it is a wise one - but it is still a choice, and as such it can still be influenced. I choose to influence people's choices by trying to educate and persuade them.

Thomas Jefferson (and other Founding fathers, pick a different one if that choice bothers you), often repeated the wisdom of the day; that the war for independence was won or lost in the hearts and minds of the people long before the first shot was fired. Without public support the government is nothing. Every pol understands that, as does every lobbyist. The general populace does not.

 

[Cuckolded_BlK_Male]

Now you are just throwing out allegations for which there is no real evidence, much less proof.

This is, of course, bullshit. Sally Hemmings was a biracial slave who was "gifted" to Jefferson's wife by her father. In all likelihood he was her father and Mrs. Jefferson's half-sister. Sally Hemming was a minor and a slave (meaning she didn't have the ability to refuse Jefferson) when Jefferson began his sexual abuse of her. That is rape, plain and simple. Moreover, it's child rape.

Majority America simply doesn't want to believe the truth about their despicable founding fathers. Sally Hemmings' experience was in no way unique. Hers is just the only one that you people can't sweep under the rug and pretend it never happened. The only reason that America largely believes the truth of the rape of Sally Hemmings is because it was publicly known at the time both at home and abroad, and because it's be corroborated genetically since. And, still many Americans equivocate about and romanticize the obvious predatory nature of the relationship.

To a certain extent that is true - but what is more important is that we as Americans have a belief in morals and virtue, no matter how flawed our practice of those beliefs are.

This country was formed out of genocide and slavery. For it's first 100 years this country was the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany. If that is what passes for morals with you. Then I reject your notions of morality utterly.

 

[Cuckolded_BlK_Male]

unfortunately, I think that elections are now simply an illusion of choice. Both major parties are full of rich white guys who answer to big business first, campaign donors second, and the people are a distant third

It doesn't matter that they are White, albeit it's telling that they are conspicuously all White. What matters is that this country is ruled by a plutocracy that doesn't act in the interests of its people. Somehow Americans have grown to worship rich people so much that even as their retirement possibilities dwindle and their civil liberties are eroded, they just keep puckering-up to kissing rich butt.