Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

TSR National Liberal Party Q&A - Ask/Join here! Watch

Announcements
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I think there is a huge amount of prejudice in British society to be certain. But that being said I think that we should have been too slow to challenge particular prejudices in minorities especially acting in the interests of minorities in minorities e.g women, homosexuals, smaller sub faith etc.
    rge word should is throwing me here, do you mean we should challenge prejudice against them more or their prejudice?

    But I think in your example there is a ethical sub plot there- there is clearly a very real difference between killing s thousand innocents and a thousands guilty people. The motive which Wills the action is the case in point.

    For instance let's say I was brought up in a satanic society where killing innocents was seen as a moral good. The action of killing people is empirically bad (ie obvious trauma for victims, no rational purpose, psychological damage for survivors etc) what I believe doesn't change this truth.

    Now say you are faced with choosing between the lives of a thousand dictators and a thousand say, doctors. I think that a purely rationalistic choice (unless you desire to destroy or harm humanity*) the choice is obvious.

    * to try and cover my back with this, this too could be justified by a universal imperative sobI think that the universal inperative should be based on humanity so that we cannot self reason our own destruction but can only rationalise what will make us better.
    But then (I know I used the word innocent in my example) what is innocence and is anyone truly innocent?

    I would also argue that if you look at the past the mass-murder of other cultures was considered good as it would often let yours prevail. It was a commonly held belief and thus your idea of a universal imperative would have ment that the killing of innocent people was considered a good thing and a universal moral good.

    As they say "The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there" and I would argue that if your universal ethics are not immutable by time or place they can't be universal which leads me to belive that relativism is good.

    The rejection of it means that one tries to subject everyone else to their moral code. Which I can't support as it leads to the conclusion that one person has perfect morality which I cannot accept.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Hey to everyone new reading- I am covering the Home Sec brief.

    My main aim in this role Is in keeping people safe in the 21st century and on how to develop a cohesive and fair society that creates the best environment for us all to live in.



    I largely agree with the phase that 'prison is very expensive way to turn bad people worse' I aim to have a focus on rehabilitative justice for most crimes. There are however I believe crimes that are so foul and damaging that require far harsher sentenceing than at present- notably cases of child abuse. I look forward to working with A noble chance in bringing about a Radical reform of our justice system.

    I think the fact that we have the second highest number of jihadis in Europe is a national disgrace. I believe the root cause of this to be the policy of 'multi culturalism' and the lack of vision that our at present selfish and individualist lifestyles entail. Our values are universal and we reject relativism in all of its forms.

    I think that being in the EU is strongly in our national interest: a strong united Europe can allow us to better tackle international crime, combat terrorism and control our shared wider borders ( stopping migrants at Greece and Spain is a better option than On our doorstep )

    I am strongly in favour of drugs legislation and believe that purely drug related offences should be pardoned. I am strongly against elected police crime commissioners- an utter waste of time and money.

    Lastly I am strongly in favour (but I do not necessarily represent the views of my party) of banning the burka and 'faith' schools.
    Disagree with pretty much all of what you said. One thing I am surprised about is you don't like Multiculturalism but are committed to stay in the EU, which has open door immigration, so Multiculturalism is bound to happen. However, I am looking forward to debating you in your views.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    rge word should is throwing me here, do you mean we should challenge prejudice against them more or their prejudice?
    Both. All prejudice is bad. I think that in particularly among religious groups prejudice is an intrinsic part of their identity ( or if it is revoked IE opposition to homosexuality - then it constitutes to the inevitable decline of religious belief as it falls under the weight of its own contradictions.



    But then (I know I used the word innocent in my example) what is innocence and is anyone truly innocent?
    Now that sounds very totalitarian

    Sure people are completely innocent. You aren't responsible for the rise of ISIS say. I would also say that Babies are completely innocent of anything in that they gave no choice or even the capacity for choice

    I would also argue that if you look at the past the mass-murder of other cultures was considered good as it would often
    let yours prevail. It was a commonly held belief and thus your idea of a universal imperative would have ment that the killing of innocent people was considered a good thing and a universal moral good.

    As they say "The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there" and I would argue that if your universal
    ethics are not immutable by time or place they can't be universal which leads me to belive that relativism is good.

    The rejection of it means that one tries to subject everyone else to their moral code.

    Which I can't support as it leads to the conclusion that one person has perfect morality which I cannot
    accept.
    I think there may well into the future be
    a human descendent that may well
    have a perfect ethical behaviour.

    As for the point on historical development. I guess you could say that I have a teleological perspective- but I don't believe that the evolution of human progress via violent means to be a good thing or even a necessary thing but as a sort of prudence of a lesser of two evils. This still entails sn ethical choice for a better future.

    And it of course depends on the rational basis for the destruction of cultures. I think that Aztec society was deplorable and that humanity is better without it the same goes for North Korea.

    I would say that universal ethics are immune to time.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LovepreetDhillon)
    Disagree with pretty much all of what you said. One thing I am surprised about is you don't like Multiculturalism but are committed to stay in the EU, which has open door immigration, so Multiculturalism is bound to happen. However, I am looking forward to debating you in your views.
    I believe that ultimately the EU is what you make it- the same with any democracy. The ECHR recently upholded France's right to ban the burka so I dont think it is necessaryily in favour of multiculturalism.

    As for open door immigration add you referring to free movement or the EU policy on refugees?

    For free movement I would regard must if Europe had having pretty much the same cultural values whilst mantaiming s distinct identity- thanks to the spread of enlightenment ideas chiefly.

    I have no problem with immigration so long as they subscribe or are integrated into the host culture which should be universal for reasons i have set out with Aph

    And look forward to arguing in the future
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Both. All prejudice is bad. I think that in particularly among religious groups prejudice is an intrinsic part of their identity ( or if it is revoked IE opposition to homosexuality - then it constitutes to the inevitable decline of religious belief as it falls under the weight of its own contradictions.




    Now that sounds very totalitarian

    Sure people are completely innocent. You aren't responsible for the rise of ISIS say. I would also say that Babies are completely innocent of anything in that they gave no choice or even the capacity for choice
    I wouldn't say totalitarian, just realistic. But babies under 2 I could accept are likely innocent.


    I think there may well into the future be
    a human descendent that may well
    have a perfect ethical behaviour.

    As for the point on historical development. I guess you could say that I have a teleological perspective- but I don't believe that the evolution of human progress via violent means to be a good thing or even a necessary thing but as a sort of prudence of a lesser of two evils. This still entails sn ethical choice for a better future.

    And it of course depends on the rational basis for the destruction of cultures. I think that Aztec society was deplorable and that humanity is better without it the same goes for North Korea.

    I would say that universal ethics are immune to time.
    you see that's the issue. You are judging the people by the moral standards of today and of yourself. That means that you are claiming to uphold universally Accepted morality. I belive that any such claim is farcical at the very best.

    As I have said to have a universal set of moral/ethical guidelines you need someone to set them. That will either result in one of two things.

    1) a vote of the populous and I think we can all agree that a popular vote doesn't make the voted for thing right.

    2) one person gets to claim moral superiority over everyone. Which is a very dangerous idea and I can see nothing which would give such a right to anyone.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Will you be revealing a full front bench team at some point? a noble chance Davij038 TheThiefOfBagdad
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Will you be revealing a full front bench team at some point? a noble chance Davij038 TheThiefOfBagdad
    Currently, we have

    Davij038 Justice and Home Affairs
    TheThiefOfBagdad Defence and Foreign Affairs
    whorace Education and Culture
    Hydeman Energy and Environment

    I think it would be a mistake to spread ourselves too thinly, so I am making a maximum of two more posts, combining two related briefs
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a noble chance)
    Currently, we have

    Davij038 Justice and Home Affairs
    TheThiefOfBagdad Defence and Foreign Affairs
    whorace (missing presumed dead) Education and Culture

    I think it would be a mistake to spread ourselves too thinly, so I am making a maximum of two more posts, combining two related briefs
    Fair enough. Thank you for the reply


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    I wouldn't say totalitarian, just realistic. But babies under 2 I could accept are likely innocent.



    you see that's the issue. You are judging the people by the moral standards of today and of yourself. That means that you are claiming to uphold universally Accepted morality. I belive that any such claim is farcical at the very best.

    As I have said to have a universal set of moral/ethical guidelines you need someone to set them.
    I disagree- we don't need somebody to tell us that stamping on a toddler is wrong- this is because of natural human empathy and of course scientifically observable truths that I outlined earlier which are not relative- IE that baby will feel pain etc





    That will either result in one of two things.

    1) a vote of the populous and I think we can all agree that a popular vote doesn't make the voted for thing right.

    2) one person gets to claim moral superiority over everyone. Which is a very dangerous idea and I can see nothing which would give such a right to anyone.
    I agree that point one is bad (but that is essentially relativism to me! )

    As for point two I disagree.

    I don't think one person can be empirically shown to be better than all others but I do think normativley we can show that some people are better than others. I don't think that say Jimmy Seville could ever be shown to be a more ethical person than that nurse that helped with the Ebola outbreak.
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a noble chance)
    Currently, we have

    Davij038 Justice and Home Affairs
    TheThiefOfBagdad Defence and Foreign Affairs
    whorace (missing presumed dead) Education and Culture

    I think it would be a mistake to spread ourselves too thinly, so I am making a maximum of two more posts, combining two related briefs
    Assuming the tragic death of whorace, in his stead can you give me a snapshot of what your education policy will look like? Specifically, I'm interested in the training and retention of teachers, the national curriculum and what kinds of schools you think should exist - and in what form?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a noble chance)
    Currently, we have

    Davij038 Justice and Home Affairs
    TheThiefOfBagdad Defence and Foreign Affairs
    whorace (missing presumed dead) Education and Culture

    I think it would be a mistake to spread ourselves too thinly, so I am making a maximum of two more posts, combining two related briefs
    Business?
    Economy?
    Energy and the environment ?
    Wales , Scotland , NI ?
    International development?
    Local gov and communities?
    Health ?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    Business?
    Economy?
    Energy and the environment ?
    Wales , Scotland , NI ?
    International development?
    Local gov and communities?
    Health ?
    For obvious reasons we do not yet have enough active members to stretch this far, made all the more unrealistic by our lacking a sub-forum. Economy and Energy and Environment are the only further positions I plan to make for the time being.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I disagree- we don't need somebody to tell us that stamping on a toddler is wrong- this is because of natural human empathy and of course scientifically observable truths that I outlined earlier which are not relative- IE that baby will feel pain etc
    but the thing is you are assuming that empathy is right and that the causing of pain to others is wrong. That means your fundamental universal ethics rely on external assumptions which are not nessesarly true. Also I would argue that all humans are naturally greedy so is the pursuit of money, power, ect. Also a universally good thing no matter who you stamp on to do it?

    I agree that point one is bad (but that is essentially relativism to me! )

    As for point two I disagree.

    I don't think one person can be empirically shown to be better than all others but I do think normativley we can show that some people are better than others. I don't think that say Jimmy Seville could ever be shown to be a more ethical person than that nurse that helped with the Ebola outbreak.
    Actually I would argue that it is the exact opposite to relativism!!! If there are universal ethical values then a vote to decide them should find the values.

    Well I completely disagree. I see no reason to suggest that one person is better then another. Especially as all the people you could potentially ask will be bias.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    Assuming the tragic death of whorace, in his stead can you give me a snapshot of what your education policy will look like? Specifically, I'm interested in the training and retention of teachers, the national curriculum and what kinds of schools you think should exist - and in what form?
    Education is not something I have spent a great deal of time on and I am happy to delegate policy formulation to individual spokesmen.

    That being said, I think we need more teachers and I do not believe that people without formal teacher training should necessarily be excluded from the profession. Some of the worst teachers I had had training coming out of their ears, and some of the best had never been to university.

    I think grammar schools are fundamentally good but there needs to be a way of safeguarding against students who have all the material advantages of those at private schools being funnelled into them because of these advantages. Possible measures might include a prioritising of those from low-income and single parent households and those who have been in care.

    I think private schools should be retained on the basis that the advantages of private education are largely a red herring for much more important advantages possessed by most of the people who attend them socio-economically. Having been to one myself, I am of the informed belief that it is not better sporting facilities and class sizes of 9 instead of 16 which make much of a difference. The root of the problem if it is a problem is that the students come from functional, affluent families which endow strong levels of discipline and self-belief, in which exposure to learning and cultural enrichment is promoted from a young age and which offer their children one on one tuition in the holidays, paid or not. Getting rid of them would inflame an already overstretched state education system while removing none of the fundamental inequalities that give their students better life chances.
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a noble chance)
    Education is not something I have spent a great deal of time on and I am happy to delegate policy formulation to individual spokesmen.

    That being said, I think we need more teachers and I do not believe that people without formal teacher training should necessarily be excluded from the profession. Some of the worst teachers I had had training coming out of their ears, and some of the best had never been to university.

    I think grammar schools are fundamentally good but there needs to be a way of safeguarding against students who have all the material advantages of those at private schools being funnelled into them because of these advantages. Possible measures might include a prioritising of those from low-income and single parent households and those who have been in care.

    I think private schools should be retained on the basis that the advantages of private education are largely a red herring for much more important advantages possessed by most of the people who attend them socio-economically. Having been to one myself, I am of the informed belief that it is not better sporting facilities and class sizes of 9 instead of 16 which make much of a difference. The root of the problem if it is a problem is that the students come from functional, affluent families which endow strong levels of discipline and self-belief, in which exposure to learning and cultural enrichment is promoted from a young age and which offer their children one on one tuition in the holidays, paid or not. Getting rid of them would inflame an already overstretched state education system while removing none of the fundamental inequalities that give their students better life chances.
    Great, thanks for the response.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Now that leadership positions have been allocated will the party be nominating a member to represent them in the Crisis Committee?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Now that leadership positions have been allocated will the party be nominating a member to represent them in the Crisis Committee?
    I'm happy to do this
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a noble chance)
    I'm happy to do this
    Ok, please apply to the Crisis Committee usergroup and I'll add you.

    https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/pro...editusergroups
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I really hope that the formation of the National Liberal party will not have a large impact on the existing Liberal party.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    I really hope that the formation of the National Liberal party will not have a large impact on the existing Liberal party.
    Lol! Good luck
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 8, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    How are your GCSEs going so far?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.