This could explain how we got in the situation we're in

[Jimmy Neutron]

None of the above precludes my oft-repeated cure of publicly shooting one in ten Wall Street bankers, analysts and other financial cretins in order to properly encourage the others in the future, mind you.

 

I'm all for that as long as we drag out a like number of politicians to meet the same fate.

[dmarc117]

I'm all for that as long as we drag out a like number of politicians to meet the same fate.

 

 

and deadbeat homeowners

[SheikYerbuti]

and deadbeat homeowners

 

And people who use the phrase "So I was like. . ."

[dmarc117]

And people who use the phrase "So I was like. . ."

 

 

and dog owners that dont pick up after their animals

[muck]

After spending all day in meetings, I was looking forward to reading what was in this thread. And, I'll say that I'm disappointed in the depth of the responses; I was expecting more.

 

I think that it's pretty obvious that (i) federal, state and local politicians were complicit in getting us here ... (ii) big, medium and small businesses were involved ... and ... (iii) individual citizens regardless of intellect, ability, faith, color or other distinguishing factor ... were all crucial pieces to the puzzle.

 

The fact of the matter is that lots of people made decisions that, in hindsight, many others are calling immoral. What grounds do they have for calling something immoral? Etc...

[cre8tiff]

After spending all day in meetings, I was looking forward to reading what was in this thread. And, I'll say that I'm disappointed in the depth of the responses; I was expecting more.

 

I think that it's pretty obvious that (i) federal, state and local politicians were complicit in getting us here ... (ii) big, medium and small businesses were involved ... and ... (iii) individual citizens regardless of intellect, ability, faith, color or other distinguishing factor ... were all crucial pieces to the puzzle.

 

The fact of the matter is that lots of people made decisions that, in hindsight, many others are calling immoral. What grounds do they have for calling something immoral? Etc...

 

How in the WORLD did you expect anything more than what you got by injecting religion into a political discussion?

[detlef]

After spending all day in meetings, I was looking forward to reading what was in this thread. And, I'll say that I'm disappointed in the depth of the responses; I was expecting more.

 

I think that it's pretty obvious that (i) federal, state and local politicians were complicit in getting us here ... (ii) big, medium and small businesses were involved ... and ... (iii) individual citizens regardless of intellect, ability, faith, color or other distinguishing factor ... were all crucial pieces to the puzzle.

 

The fact of the matter is that lots of people made decisions that, in hindsight, many others are calling immoral. What grounds do they have for calling something immoral? Etc...

Hmm. Let's see. You start off by quoting a guy who basically said we're in this mess because each and every person alive doesn't accept the bible as undeniable unbending fact and you were expecting anything more than what you got?

 

What you got, and rightly so, is that guy is a f'ing kook. End of story. If you want to discuss who was at fault, then ask that.

 

To be frank, I sort of expected better from you. You honestly seem like one of the last guys here that I would expect to post this thread.

Edited February 18, 2009 by detlef

[billay]

After spending all day in meetings, I was looking forward to reading what was in this thread. And, I'll say that I'm disappointed in the depth of the responses; I was expecting more.

 

I think that it's pretty obvious that (i) federal, state and local politicians were complicit in getting us here ... (ii) big, medium and small businesses were involved ... and ... (iii) individual citizens regardless of intellect, ability, faith, color or other distinguishing factor ... were all crucial pieces to the puzzle.

 

The fact of the matter is that lots of people made decisions that, in hindsight, many others are calling immoral. What grounds do they have for calling something immoral? Etc...

Like I said earlier, if you want to discuss how the lack of ethics and morals got us here, then that would be an interesting and important conversation to have. Clearly, there was willful turning of blind eyes to the ramifications that short term profit taking had on the nation as a whole, as well as numerous smaller populations/groups. As I was reminded recently;

 

The most important thing in the world is money

Until you have enough

But "enough" may a function of your character

 

Your post, however, framed the question as Christian morality vs. moral relativism, and painted moral relativism in a particularly inaccurate and unflattering light.

Edited February 18, 2009 by billay

[Azazello1313]

After spending all day in meetings, I was looking forward to reading what was in this thread. And, I'll say that I'm disappointed in the depth of the responses; I was expecting more.

 

I think that it's pretty obvious that (i) federal, state and local politicians were complicit in getting us here ... (ii) big, medium and small businesses were involved ... and ... (iii) individual citizens regardless of intellect, ability, faith, color or other distinguishing factor ... were all crucial pieces to the puzzle.

 

The fact of the matter is that lots of people made decisions that, in hindsight, many others are calling immoral. What grounds do they have for calling something immoral? Etc...

 

fwiw, I see a lot more shortsightedness and ineptitude leading to this crisis than I do immorality. if there is a villian, it is a nameless, faceless sort of demon which posessed us all to run down a hill into the lake (see mark chapter 5). or rather, we have seen the villian, and the villain is our own stupidity (to paraphrase...umm...someone else).

[westvirginia]

I think WV was suggesting the compromise the senator likely debated within himself.

 

I've heard a very similar argument from folks busted for falsifying expense reports. "All I do for the company they can sure take care of this for me..."

 

I might be talking more about "situational ethics" rather than "moral relativism", though. But see, when you don't hold up a standard of "this is wrong, and we don't stand for wrong", then you get what I've been arguing over since shrub took office. Politicians are getting ever more brazen, and the only difference between the lies of obamessiah and shrub and slick willie and so on, is one of degree. And the politicians will keep pushing the envelope out there and become more and more brazen until something stops them.

 

A man asked a woman, "Would you sleep with me for $1MM?" and she replies "Sure!"

He then asks her, "Would you sleep with me for a dollar?" to which she responds "What kind of woman do you think I am?"

He answers: "I thought we'd already established that, I was just haggling over price."

[detlef]

I've heard a very similar argument from folks busted for falsifying expense reports. "All I do for the company they can sure take care of this for me..."

 

I might be talking more about "situational ethics" rather than "moral relativism", though. But see, when you don't hold up a standard of "this is wrong, and we don't stand for wrong", then you get what I've been arguing over since shrub took office. Politicians are getting ever more brazen, and the only difference between the lies of obamessiah and shrub and slick willie and so on, is one of degree. And the politicians will keep pushing the envelope out there and become more and more brazen until something stops them.

 

A man asked a woman, "Would you sleep with me for $1MM?" and she replies "Sure!"

He then asks her, "Would you sleep with me for a dollar?" to which she responds "What kind of woman do you think I am?"

He answers: "I thought we'd already established that, I was just haggling over price."

I think billay made the difference between moral relativism and what you keep bringing up rather clear. You're not talking about moral relativism, you're talking about talking yourself into thinking that you're owed something you're not. In both the taxes and the expense report.

[westvirginia]

I think billay made the difference between moral relativism and what you keep bringing up rather clear. You're not talking about moral relativism, you're talking about talking yourself into thinking that you're owed something you're not. In both the taxes and the expense report.

 

You're missing my point - I'm saying that because of moral relativism, it can become a very slippery slope. I've not talked myself into anything - I'm pointing out what I see. Now abortion isn't one of my hot buttons at all (I think it should be legal, but subscribe to Mother Theresa's interpretation, it's a poverty to kill a child just because it's inconvenient), but billay used the example, so lets just go with it. He gives two easily distinguishable examples - the nun raped while ministering to prisoners on death row versus the chick who just doesn't want to be bothered with birth control for the sixth time. What if those examples were closer? The "health of the mother" argument, for example? Well, what if the mother decides that she's too anxious about having this baby and is afraid for her mental health? Clearly more of a comfort level issue than a true health issue? And then there are the late-term abortions, "partial-birth". IIRC, you can get every test you need to get on a baby in the first two trimesters, yet we allow it? The pro-choice crowd will fuss about a slippery slope, and they're probably right, but then they won't buy that same argument when it comes to the 2nd amendment?

 

Again, this is NOT a debate on abortion - this is about the slippery slope thing, and Muck's original posting. Do we not, in fact, make it easier to take the next step, and the next, and the next and so on, once we forgive that first one? I think the fact we have tax cheats for SecTreas and White House CoS, not to mention three others that almost made it would indicate we do. Fifty years ago this would have been so embarassing the president would have excoriated the cheats. Today it's just an "oh, well" attitude?

[Ursa Majoris]

fwiw, I see a lot more shortsightedness and ineptitude leading to this crisis than I do immorality. if there is a villian, it is a nameless, faceless sort of demon which posessed us all to run down a hill into the lake (see mark chapter 5). or rather, we have seen the villian, and the villain is our own stupidity (to paraphrase...umm...someone else).

Pretty much what I said earlier. Shortsightedness, laziness and stupidity rather than mass outright criminality (though there's some of that in there too).

[detlef]

You're missing my point - I'm saying that because of moral relativism, it can become a very slippery slope. I've not talked myself into anything - I'm pointing out what I see. Now abortion isn't one of my hot buttons at all (I think it should be legal, but subscribe to Mother Theresa's interpretation, it's a poverty to kill a child just because it's inconvenient), but billay used the example, so lets just go with it. He gives two easily distinguishable examples - the nun raped while ministering to prisoners on death row versus the chick who just doesn't want to be bothered with birth control for the sixth time. What if those examples were closer? The "health of the mother" argument, for example? Well, what if the mother decides that she's too anxious about having this baby and is afraid for her mental health? Clearly more of a comfort level issue than a true health issue? And then there are the late-term abortions, "partial-birth". IIRC, you can get every test you need to get on a baby in the first two trimesters, yet we allow it? The pro-choice crowd will fuss about a slippery slope, and they're probably right, but then they won't buy that same argument when it comes to the 2nd amendment?

 

Again, this is NOT a debate on abortion - this is about the slippery slope thing, and Muck's original posting. Do we not, in fact, make it easier to take the next step, and the next, and the next and so on, once we forgive that first one? I think the fact we have tax cheats for SecTreas and White House CoS, not to mention three others that almost made it would indicate we do. Fifty years ago this would have been so embarassing the president would have excoriated the cheats. Today it's just an "oh, well" attitude?

I'm missing it because it's not very good. And I'm not saying that you talked yourself into anything. I'm saying you are describing one talking oneself into doing something they shouldn't through shameless rationalization. Yes, the slippery slope, I get it. However, I also have a hard time believing you even subscribe to the all or nothing, black and white theories that you're talking about here considering your inclination towards personal freedoms. So, seriously, I'm basically certain you are fishing here.

 

Are you implying that you agree with abortion in the situation billay gives but are concerned that others would chose to do so in situations not so dire? Well then, you have just given in to his point. It's just that you fear others lack the moral compass to draw the line in the right place. Well, welcome to the club. The club that is prepared to witness wrong doing because suffering that is better than having good people forced into hyper ridged law.