What’s Halfway Between Moral and Immoral?
Yes, the United States has become divided, and that’s not an accident; it’s the prevailing political strategy of the entire American right wing: you’re either on our side, or you’re a weak and/or an evil socialist. We don’t want any conversation on (or any real thought applied to) the subject.
But I wonder if this radical division is the terrible thing it’s normally thought to be. Check out the words of Elie Wiesel here, and the piece below I came across earlier today:
The middle is a point equidistant from two poles. That’s it. There is nothing inherently virtuous about being neither here nor there. Buried in this is a false equivalency of ideas, what you might call the “good people on both sides” phenomenon. When we revisit our shameful past, ask yourself, Where was the middle? Rather than chattel slavery, perhaps we could agree on a nice program of indentured servitude? Instead of subjecting Japanese-American citizens to indefinite detention during WW II, what if we had agreed to give them actual sentences and perhaps provided a receipt for them to reclaim their things when they were released? What is halfway between moral and immoral?
Stoking the fires of bigotry and hate is wrong. Aggressively transferring wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich is wrong. Ruining the environment for profit is wrong. I suppose compromise measures cause less damage, but they’re nonetheless wrong.
Craig,
I curious, The fact that politics in the US has become seemingly more divided, you attribute entirely to the more conservative side of the political divide.
You even seem to eschew the middle ground usually occupied by moderates as “immoral”.
Astonishingly, you can find no fault with the political belief you espouse. You confuse “morality” with a particular brand of political ideology, in this way anyone who disagrees or disputes your doctrine must be “immoral” !
Maybe the in the words of Luke 6:41, you may find some enlightenment;
” Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye”
Or
Matthew 7:3-5
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye”.
Or maybe Horace;, “Mutato nomine de te ipso describere” (change the name and you describe yourself).
Even the message of the movie “Pleasentville” may make you break free of the black and white prison in which you seemed determined to imprison your mind.
Of course there are good and sincere people on both sides of the political divide, just as there are often a number of methods to solve to various problems, depending on circumstances and resources.
In the words of General Eisenhower, ” Only by understanding your enemy, can you understand yourself”. ( he may have been quoting Cicero).
Craig,
Ignoring your idiot troll and returning to the question at hand:
“What is halfway between moral and immoral”.
The closest answer, and one most relevant for the current American political situation, would be “appeasement”.
Craig,
….and there you go ! Glenn just provided the perfect example of how intolerant leftists react when to those who don’t share their beliefs.
Like spoiled children, the elitists of left respond with abusive name calling and shrill demands to get their own way.
From mobs of violent demonstrators demanding speakers they don’t like be forced to leave University Campuses and denied the right to free assembly or speech, to mobs violently loud and offensive abuse toward administration employees eating peacefully in restaurants with their families, the left demonstrates an unwillingness to accept the results of the ballot box and even the common decency of civil behavior.
You write “Stoking the fires of bigotry and hate is wrong”, but then go ahead and vehemently abuse those with whom you disagree !
Government by elected representative government, is based on a social compromise. It requires a certain degree of acceptance that others may not share your opinions or perspective, but they are still good and valuable citizens deserving a measure of respect and at the very least, civility.
As Glenn demonstrates, sometimes in a fever win a debate, participants can get so focused on “winning”, what they wanted to win becomes forgotten, and they find themselves so consumed with hatred for their opponents, they have become the very thing they set out to oppose.
How can you quench the fires “of bigotry and hate”, when you are busy stoking your own fires of intolerance?