Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
You suggested that we come to some definition of "common morality". I suggested one method of, at least on a gross level, measuring where those mores lie. You suggested nothing. And, I'm the one that's arrogant?
Look, if you want a determination, but you can't offer an approach, and you think that any sugestion of an approach is arrogant, you don't leave us with much room to progress on your path. How would YOU measure, define, or arrive at a common morality?
|
Sigh. I knew I should have clarified.
The reference to "breath-taking arrogance" was not directed at you. It was directed at George Bush, who I was both quoting and paraphrasing in the paragraph above it with regard to his contention in a recent interview that there was no need to hold anyone in his administration accountable for mistakes in Iraq, etc. because his recent election victory was the "accountability moment", and he won.
I thought that was arrogance, but may be wrong. It may just be blindness. Its really no shock that every corporation he ran went bust (save for the baseball franchise, where he enjoyed an antitrust exemption and effective regional monopoly). But -- he knows how to get elected, and how to bust people's balls.
To answer your question, I don't think that our elections are well-suited for measuring or defining the common morality. Morality in the general sense, as opposed to certain demogogued issues, has damn little to do with our elections, our election process, or politics in general.
I think our common morality is probably shaped, defined, and redefined from time to time, by a slow process of education, shared experience and public dialogue (of which elections may be a tiny part). However, I'm not sure we (i.e. Americans) could reach agreement on definitions beyond the most basic generalities -- which would be nearly useless in practical terms (because we'd disagree on the details). (i.e. "Murder is wrong." "Free speech is good.")
S_A_M
