Joan, did matt dillahunty anywhere in his lectures acknowledge Tom Paine's view?
Morality, in government anyway, grew as monarchs felt so threatened by their subjects that, to keep their power and maybe their heads, they did as England's John did at Runymede when he signed the Magna Carta.
Before you reply, it's important to know that the Magna Carta gathered in one place the then-existing rights of only barons and bishops. The common folk remained on their own.
As Frederick Douglass said well, power does not yield calmly.
Joan, I was about two-thirds through a carefully thought-out reply when suddenly a screen message told me a page could not be found and cyberspace, or Yahoo, stole what I'd written. I'll try again later, probably in a Word document I can copy and paste.
I look forward to your reply.
What I'd written, and cyberspace stole, evolved from a paraphrase of Lucy Stone, abolitionist turned suffragette:
In our childhoods, our adulthoods, in everything, disappointment is the lot of the 99%. It shall be the business of my life to deepen this disappointment in the hearts of others in the 99% until they bow down to it no longer.
Stone's words were:
In education, in marriage, in religion, in everything, disappointment is the lot of woman. It shall be the business of my life to deepen this disappointment in every woman's heart until she bows down to it no longer.
Oh! Yes! These words, carved in my brain for whatever splendid time I have left! Thanks.
"In education, in marriage, in religion, in everything, disappointment is the lot of woman. It shall be the business of my life to deepen this disappointment in every woman's heart until she bows down to it no longer."
~ Lucy Stone, abolitionist turned suffragette. “Disappointment Is the Lot of Women”.
Reprinted in "History of Woman Suffrage", vol. 1, edited by Elizabeth Cady Stanton (New York: Fowler and Wells, 1922), pp. 165–167
Thank you Tom Sarbeck
Joan, second thoughts, and clearer thoughts too.
It's often important to clarify a statement, so I'm wondering if dillahunty distinguished between the terms in each of these:
1) "Morality, its source" and "Morality, its sources".
2) "The source of human morality" and "A source of human morality".
On each line, the first term suggests an authoritarian point of view; the second suggests a democratic point of view.
On Lucy Stone. Did she leave any information on what she did when she encountered people whose disappointment was so much a part of their personality that they resisted its being deepened?
I've met people whose responses to issues led to my deciding that talking with more democratically-inclined people would be a better use of my limited time.
As to whether I think current affairs can be resolved without bloodshed, the depth of disappointment matters, as does whether that disappointment be changed to anger.
I'm not a socialist, but I am disillusioned with laissez-faire capitalism.
I am certainly disillusioned with what we have now but it sure as hell isn't laissez-faire capitalism, and never was.
We have a government which is used by "capitalists" to grant favors, squash competition (a favorite method is to push for regulations they can afford to follow and a startup cannot, which is why Walmart came out in favor of Obamacare) and hand out subsidies. The sad thing is that even a business determined not to use the government in this underhanded way has to hire lobbyists and the like to defend itself against their competitors that do, and sometimes they find even THAT is not enough to stay afloat when all their competitors get competitive advantage from goodies handed to them, so they either become what they loathe, and survive, or go out of business... either way all businesses in that industry end up playing the game.
In a laissez-faire system the government neither hinders nor favors businesses other than enforcing laws against the initiation of force and fraud. (It is not anarchy, because there is still a government. Some will argue for something called anarcho-capitalism but I am not one of them.) And that governmental hands-off (except in the case of genuine criminal activity) stance sure doesn't describe the system we've had in this country since any time in our lifetimes.
1) It's a mixed economy of some sort. Some people think the economy (and the economy only) is veering towards fascism, i.e., where someone has nominal ownership of a business but very little control and/or discretion over it. Unfortunately the word fascism also brings up gas-chamber images so the term tends to cast more heat than it sheds light.
2) I'd like to see a government that confines itself to protecting people's basic rights--those that used to be called "natural." Now the problem with that statement is the notion of a right itself means very different things to different people but my litmus test is if something must be taken away from someone else to provide you with a purported "right" it's not a genuine right. Free speech, for example, is a genuine right because your free speech doesn't come at the expense of other people, but (say) a purported right to housing requires someone else to provide and pay for the housing. All that having been said I don't believe a transition to this can happen overnight, many people for instance have become dependent on government programs because they felt free to plan on them being there.
3) Nope, no individual of any prominence, and neither of the two major parties. The Rs are ever so slightly better on these sorts of economic issues in some respects, but the problem is they cooperate in mislabeling the current mixed jumble "capitalism" rather than a mixed economy. So when the current mixed jumble turns out to suck, or implodes, "capitalism" gets the blame, when it could just as easily be the government involvement that caused the problem. On the other hand the Rs will violate all sorts of rights that have less to do with the economy (such as, oh say, your religious freedoms, and noGod help you if you are gay or lesbian), so they just absolutely suck on that score. And let's not even go into foreign policy where there is a shit ton of blame to go around on both sides. Neither party scores more than about 10% on the "they will give Steve what he wants if they actually have the power to, much less when they have to fight tooth and nail against the other party" meter.
I'd have to say this is an interesting tangent we got off on here given you originally set this thread up to discuss morality, not politics!