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

6 most common political ‘tribes’ in the UK Watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    In a lot of ways yes. We are only really more technologically advanced- and socially less racist and homophobic, other than that we’ve degraded our culture for the most part.

    How is basing morality on character laughable? Or more selfish? Genuinely don’t see how you can think there’s no difference between two citizens- 1 who wants rob, rape and kill everyone but is too scared of the consequences and the other who wouldn’t dream of doing such things.

    When we tell children to be good we mean for them to be a good person to want to do good deeds and not only to do good deeds because we are threatened or rewarded

    Now as for your argument that the only basis for morality should be the outcome for the collective (‘for the greater good’) is hugely problematic as a number Of thought experiments have shown - not to mention where thinking of this sort has been used to justify or excuse every conceivable human sin from the Khmer Rouge to the covering up of child grooming in Rochdale.

    The wider you cast a unit for the purpose of calculating morality the more likely you are to include ‘bad eggs’ who game the system, that’s why moral conservatives are pro family as it’s the ideal medium between egoism and collectivism.

    The idea of virtue is the basis for western society and long may that last.
    But you simply assume in a society where no moral rules are enforcers that miraculously people will be "good". The guy who wants to rape and kill will want to rape and kill in either scenario, but st least in one he is prevented from doing it.

    The end in those examples of yours wasn't good so not sure how relevant they are.

    It's not that I disagree with you. A society where everyone was selfless and caring from their own volition would be amazing, but that's never gonna happen. Even if you try to teach people from infant onward to be like that.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    But you simply assume in a society where no moral rules are enforcers that miraculously people will be "good". The guy who wants to rape and kill will want to rape and kill in either scenario, but st least in one he is prevented from doing it.
    No i don’t at all. I just think on average more people are good than bad. I think that ‘moral rule enforcers’ should be as limited as possible
    Lest they get too powerful and greedy. All power corrupts.

    It's not that I disagree with you. A society where everyone was selfless and caring from their own volition would be amazing, but that's never gonna happen. Even if you try to teach people from infant onward to be like that.
    A perfect society is never going to happen. But one that protects liberty and virtue is a far better and more human way to live than


    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.tel...s-last-ye/amp/
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    No i don’t at all. I just think on average more people are good than bad. I think that ‘moral rule enforcers’ should be as limited as possible
    Lest they get too powerful and greedy. All power corrupts.



    A perfect society is never going to happen. But one that protects liberty and virtue is a far better and more human way to live than


    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.tel...s-last-ye/amp/
    Exactly, and all I am saying is that socialism is far better at that than capitalism, which is essentially allowing those with capital to reduce everyone else's surplus all in the name of "free market". Now economically of course it has shown to work best of what we have yet seen, but that doesn't mean one has to blindly follow it.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Evil English Defence League covered with ....
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Exactly, and all I am saying is that socialism is far better at that than capitalism, which is essentially allowing those with capital to reduce everyone else's surplus all in the name of "free market". Now economically of course it has shown to work best of what we have yet seen, but that doesn't mean one has to blindly follow it.
    I’m not sure I follow you, but are you arguing that capitalists steal other people’s wealth? If it’s in a free society that is simply wrong - capitalism CREATES wealth and doesn’t steal it. It’s not a zero sum game.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I’m not sure I follow you, but are you arguing that capitalists steal other people’s wealth? If it’s in a free society that is simply wrong - capitalism CREATES wealth and doesn’t steal it. It’s not a zero sum game.
    No, I did not say it's stealing, I am saying that wealth creation is overwhelmingly for the ones with capital. Sure there are some trickle down effects, e.g. the brand new TV's now in 10 years will be even cheap for the lower classes so overall there is progress.

    It's the same idea as price discrimination, where seller extracts as much consumer surplus as possible.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    There is no common political 'tribes' or 'tribes' at all, dogmatism juxtaposes modern politics. Electoral psychology proves voting is based on the public's socialisation and their reaction to events at any given time. Voting is indicative of crises, or the lack of. To claim the UK maintains groups subscribing to narrow political ideologies, is to paint broad brush strokes across voters who do not comprehend complex political agenda and are single issue, or reactionary voters. As much as I am fascinated by political theory, those politically aware often overstate its place against an ever-changing reality.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    I am saying that wealth creation is overwhelmingly for the ones with capital..
    I wouldn’t say it’s overwhelming but that point I can agree to broadly.

    But the general point is what is the most moral way to change this trend? Now I think we can agree that to have an obscene amount of wealth is wrong. But so is forcing people to do something they don’t want to so long as they have not harmed a real person in some way.

    To me it’s virtually never right unless a national emergency for the government to take more than half your earnings whether your bill gates or a janitor.

    (not paying tax is too impersonal to count- the impersonal nature of big government is where a lot if the problems lie I think)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I wouldn’t say it’s overwhelming but that point I can agree to broadly.

    But the general point is what is the most moral way to change this trend? Now I think we can agree that to have an obscene amount of wealth is wrong. But so is forcing people to do something they don’t want to so long as they have not harmed a real person in some way.

    To me it’s virtually never right unless a national emergency for the government to take more than half your earnings whether your bill gates or a janitor.

    (not paying tax is too impersonal to count- the impersonal nature of big government is where a lot if the problems lie I think)
    Well it is. Because you can't look at what we have and conclude it isn't, as what we have, is far from pure capitalism. We have a lot regulations and state intervention actually.

    And well yes, I never said one should adopt pure socialism either. And I would even say that already 40% is quite high taxes. What one needs is a far more efficient government. But that's another story.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=yudothis;74483268We have a lot regulations and state intervention actually.[/quote]

    Well yeah and lots of it doesn’t seem to be working morally.


    And well yes, I never said one should adopt pure socialism either. And I would even say that already 40% is quite high taxes. What one needs is a far more efficient government. But that's another story.
    So you’re not advocating for socialism you’re advocating for a mixed economy.

    The government does too much it’s insane and they can’t msnage it clearly. The government should do a lot less but a lot better. And it can do this and be very efficient the problem is that socialists then think the state is best at everything just as libertarians conclude that just because the market is better st a lot if things it’s the answer.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    On what plant is Celtic nationalism left wing? Many are opposed to abortion and total social conservatives.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ganjaweed Rebel)
    On what plant is Celtic nationalism left wing? Many are opposed to abortion and total social conservatives.
    There might be some but judging by the policies and elected politicians of plaid, Sinn Fein and the SNP there aren’t that many of them.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Well yeah and lots of it doesn’t seem to be working morally.




    So you’re not advocating for socialism you’re advocating for a mixed economy.

    The government does too much it’s insane and they can’t msnage it clearly. The government should do a lot less but a lot better. And it can do this and be very efficient the problem is that socialists then think the state is best at everything just as libertarians conclude that just because the market is better st a lot if things it’s the answer.
    You seem to conflate the government with the public sector. They are not one and the same. Lots of areas are deferred and the government isn't required to do all that much with them. Such as the BBC, or the Judiciary for a clearer example.

    I don't think the government is best at everything. I do think that the public sector in many areas can produce a far better and more accessible service than the private sector.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I’m not sure I follow you, but are you arguing that capitalists steal other people’s wealth? If it’s in a free society that is simply wrong - capitalism CREATES wealth and doesn’t steal it. It’s not a zero sum game.
    What do you mean by wealth?

    How does wage labour and the profit motive in capitalist production not represent the theft, or at the very least the appropriation of, of the value of the workers labour?


    It is always worth taking into account that significant amounts and probably the vast majority of State actions disproportionatly benefit the owners of land and capital.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.