A question for Tim56 and other Howard Lovers.

[Bombers 2003]

Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for Tim56 and other Howard Lovers.

Originally posted by otaku
what you may consider to be "morally right" other may consider to be "morally wrong"

Therefore, you have a difference of opinion.

U are the halfwit if you think tat morals arn't based on opinions.

Now, tell which is correct. Your opinion, or their opinion? and show me your judging criteria.

So Stealing from other people is perfectly acceptable is it?.OK,i'll employ a professional Burglar to break into your home and steal ALL your possesions,would u be happy with that?.
And so Plato,Thomas Aquinas,Montagne,Bertrand Russell were all "halfwits" for thinking Morality isnt just Opinion?.

 

[Mead]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for Tim56 and other Howard Lovers.

Originally posted by Bombers 2003
So Stealing from other people is perfectly acceptable is it?.OK,i'll employ a professional Burglar to break into your home and steal ALL your possesions,would u be happy with that?.
And so Plato,Thomas Aquinas,Montagne,Bertrand Russell were all "halfwits" for thinking Morality isnt just Opinion?.

no, that was just their opinion.

In essence, I think Bunsen is totally right. Morality and government do not mix, simply because society's definition of what is good, moral, and acceptable alters over time. Put in place a group of ministers who do what they think is morally right without regard to democracy, and you have to ask; will they ever end up in a situation where they feel it is morally right to ignore the majority of the Australian people, dissolve parliament, and rule by decree, to enforce their morality? This is the sort of thing that scares the bejesus out of me about people like Fred Nile, or for that matter Bob Brown.

Really, the only philosopher who got it totally right in terms of theory of government was John Stuart Mill- that governments should interfere as little as possible with their people- in other words, keep their governing to a bare minimum.

 

[otaku]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for Tim56 and other Howard Lovers.

Originally posted by Bombers 2003
So Stealing from other people is perfectly acceptable is it?.OK,i'll employ a professional Burglar to break into your home and steal ALL your possesions,would u be happy with that?.
And so Plato,Thomas Aquinas,Montagne,Bertrand Russell were all "halfwits" for thinking Morality isnt just Opinion?.

you really are a tosser arnt you?

try being objective for one instant. Now read meads post. He says it better than i can

 

[The invisible mullet]

As good an argument can be made for amorality and government not mixing as morality and government not mixing. I don't think Stalin or hitler (or Saddam for that matter) were driven by a moral code when they usurped their respective countries governments. On the other hand the Taliban are an example of a government being pretty damn awful, enforcing a strict moral code (although it appears their own practices neglected their own codes). Whatever the case might be the Howard Government pretends to have a "moral" code and then does the opposite to most elements of that code.

 

[RogerC]

I'm getting a great education in what people think their government should do.

I think it's true that government and morality don't necessarily mix, but neither are they mutually exclusive. Governments represent people, and if people are offended by lack of morality (however they view it) I think it should be reflected in the government they elect.

If the present Howard government have traded off ministerial accountability and honesty, then it must follow that they do so with the blessing of the majority of the people - and that those people believe these to be, at this point in time, less important than some other things. I think that shows a lack of foresight, but I concede I hold a minority opinion when I say that.

But I will say this: if you think this government, and the major opposition too if you like, is immoral or dishonest, by all means say so - and let it be reflected in who you vote for. Don't let anyone tell you a vote for a minor party is a wasted vote. It's not. It's your opinion on how you think this country should be run, and therefore it is valid.

One Nation is a perfect example of that. Once it got enough votes to make an impression, the Liberal-National Party co-opted some of its policies.

I think that, messy as it might be, proportional representation in parliament would be a more accurate reflection of the people who live in this country than the present two-party preferred model. Then we could get rid of this 'look how few votes Bob Brown got' mentality.

Too often we hear, at or near election time, that the only way to get your voice heard is to choose between Labour and Liberal. The temptation is to think only in terms of these two parties, at the risk of being marginalised. There's no harm in being marginalised.

At the very least, you can do something with your vote. Whinging on an internet forum doesn't actually do much more than sharpen your debating skills.

 

[bunsen burner]

Re: Re: Re: A question for Tim56 and other Howard Lovers.

Originally posted by moistie


It is vital that ministers and parliamentary secretaries do not by their conduct undermine public confidence in them or the government

Show me a Govt who has lived up to their ministerial responsiblity, and I'll show you someone who is delusional, or in this case a mirror.

Compassion? Won't even bother with this.

Just a difference of opinion where the line should be drawn. I don't believe you are the appointed morality judge.

I think you're well aware of my views here, bunsen burner.

It seems you're hiding behind your (half reasonable) views about TPVs and children not being detained, but refuse to address issues that you believe in such as non-mandatory detention of asylum seekers.

Seems like you've taken a stance but won't address related issues that weaken your argument.

 

[bunsen burner]

Re: Re: Re: A question for Tim56 and other Howard Lovers.

Originally posted by Bombers 2003
WTF,Do u REALLY consider what we have at the moment "a good economic climate".

Do you really consider we're in a bad economic environment? Low inflation, low unemployment, excellent standard of living, growth, limited poverty, and plenty of opportunity for anyone who's willing to put in some hard work.

Open your eyes and remove that chip from your shoulder.

Where the Hell is Social Justice in this "good Economic Climate"?.

See above. It's not the Govt's job to mollycoddle every single minority group. Across the board, everyone has access to education, a health system, and a police force etc.

U are a halfwit if u think[?] Morality is hard to judge as it's based on "opinion".

My judgement is different from yours. In fact, no two people have the same judgement on orality on every single issue. So who's the halfwit?

 

[DEVO]

I think it is most important that we vote John Howard out at the next election, not because of his economic and social policies or because of his moral stance on what ever issue is front page news, but because what will more than likely happen in the middle of his next term... his retirement.

We cannot have Peter Costello as our next Prime Minister. The guy is an arrogant, smug, thoughtless p***k, who makes Keating look like Hawke. Then you have to ask yourself, who would be the Treasurer. More than likely Tony Abbott.

Can you imagine the crap this country would get if it's leaders were Costello and Abbott.

 

[Mead]

Originally posted by DEVO
I think it is most important that we vote John Howard out at the next election, not because of his economic and social policies or because of his moral stance on what ever issue is front page news, but because what will more than likely happen in the middle of his next term... his retirement.

We cannot have Peter Costello as our next Prime Minister. The guy is an arrogant, smug, thoughtless p***k, who makes Keating look like Hawke. Then you have to ask yourself, who would be the Treasurer. More than likely Tony Abbott.

Can you imagine the crap this country would get if it's leaders were Costello and Abbott.

The odd thing is that personally I'm actually more comfortable with Costello being PM than Howard.
Same strong management skills and minimalist theory of government, but more of a small l liberal and less socially conservative than Howard. Admittedly, it'd probably take a lot to stop me voting liberal (although Colin Barnett has managed to do exactly that at a state level) but I'd be far more comfortable going to the polls with Costello as the liberal leader rather than Howard.

 

[The invisible mullet]

"Across the board, everyone has access to education, a health system, and a police force etc."

Actually they don't. Access and affordability are at the heart of the healthcare and education debates in this country. This Government is ripping the heart out of the public healthcare system and making universities largely unaffordable (some universities may have up to 50% of their students paying full fees).

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by DEVO
I think it is most important that we vote John Howard out at the next election, not because of his economic and social policies or because of his moral stance on what ever issue is front page news, but because what will more than likely happen in the middle of his next term... his retirement.

We cannot have Peter Costello as our next Prime Minister. The guy is an arrogant, smug, thoughtless p***k, who makes Keating look like Hawke. Then you have to ask yourself, who would be the Treasurer. More than likely Tony Abbott.

Can you imagine the crap this country would get if it's leaders were Costello and Abbott.

I'd prefer Costello to Howard.

You don't just vote someone out because you don't like them - you actually have to like them less than the next guy. You could at least come up with who you think is a better alternative to Costello.

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by The invisible mullet
"Across the board, everyone has access to education, a health system, and a police force etc."

Actually they don't. Access and affordability are at the heart of the healthcare and education debates in this country. This Government is ripping the heart out of the public healthcare system and making universities largely unaffordable (some universities may have up to 50% of their students paying full fees).

These are 2 of Howard's policies that I don't agree with (amongst others such as the selling off of Telstra).

The health system at the moment is fair. There's a lot of conjecture about the new policy that they are trying to get through. Let's not make judgement until we definitely know what's happening. If Labor got their sh*t together and presented a solid candidate, I'd definitely look at voting for them. What they've got at the moment just doesn't cut it.

Primary school and secondary school are more or less free. I definitely disagree with Howard's university policy. Although university shouldn't be free, it should be heavily subsidised.

Just a point on Howard spending heaps of funding on private schools: I disagree with this too, but it is a minor issue compared to others. Howard's idea is that it will give more middle class families access to private schooling. This is all well and good, but the money should all be spent on the public school system. The Govt should provide the best possible education system it can afford and let the private schools fend for themselves. If that means that only the wealthy can afford private schooling, then so be it.

The Howard Govt has many flaws, but at the moment, no one in Labor can offer a better package.

 

[DEVO]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
I'd prefer Costello to Howard.

You don't just vote someone out because you don't like them - you actually have to like them less than the next guy. You could at least come up with who you think is a better alternative to Costello.

I come from Canberra. We haven't voted Liberal in 50 years.

Personally I want Keating back, as I think he was the greatest Prime Minister we've ever had, but as I'm not going to get my wish, I'll have to settle for Beazley.

 

[Tim56]

Personally I want Keating back, as I think he was the greatest Prime Minister we've ever had

Why?

 

[Tim56]

Costello doesn't have a great public image, but find me one treasurer who has. The man will be a fine PM.

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by DEVO
I come from Canberra. We haven't voted Liberal in 50 years.

I question anyone's intelligence who stick to one particular party like it's a football team. Liberal and Labor aren't much different these days. The actual person in power is much more important than what party they represent.

Have a look at Bob Carr, he and John Howard are very similar. One is a Lib, the other from Labor.

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by DEVO

Personally I want Keating back, as I think he was the greatest Prime Minister we've ever had

So great he only lasted one term? You can certainly have your opinion that he was the greatest, but history won't see it that way.

but as I'm not going to get my wish, I'll have to settle for Beazley.

I doubt you'll be getting your wish here either.

 

[B2..]

I'd be half happy with Costello as PM, as opposed to the one we have. I sense some sort of social responsibility there behind the smirk, and I don't think he'd be as driven by the polls as JWH.

I'm also optimistic that some of brother Tim's compassion must have rubbed off on him - I think it has something to do with their upbringing.

God help us if Abbott ever gets to be PM.

Originally posted by DEVO
We cannot have Peter Costello as our next Prime Minister. The guy is an arrogant, smug, thoughtless p***k, who makes Keating look like Hawke. Then you have to ask yourself, who would be the Treasurer. More than likely Tony Abbott.

 

[Bombers 2003]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
So great he only lasted one term? You can certainly have your opinion that he was the greatest, but history won't see it that way.

I doubt you'll be getting your wish here either.

Actually he had 2 terms,as he finished Hawke's 3rd term.

 

[Bombers 2003]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for Tim56 and other Howard Lovers.

Originally posted by Mead
no, that was just their opinion.

In essence, I think Bunsen is totally right. Morality and government do not mix, simply because society's definition of what is good, moral, and acceptable alters over time. Put in place a group of ministers who do what they think is morally right without regard to democracy, and you have to ask; will they ever end up in a situation where they feel it is morally right to ignore the majority of the Australian people, dissolve parliament, and rule by decree, to enforce their morality? This is the sort of thing that scares the bejesus out of me about people like Fred Nile, or for that matter Bob Brown.

Really, the only philosopher who got it totally right in terms of theory of government was John Stuart Mill- that governments should interfere as little as possible with their people- in other words, keep their governing to a bare minimum.

And i supose u agree with Margaret Hilda Thatcher that there is NO SUCH thing as Society.John Stuart Mill wrote absolute crap.What's wrong with Plato,Thomas Aquinas,Montagne and Bertrand Russell.

 

[Fevola4God]

Can someone fill me in on why the higher education policy is bad?

If it does get implemented, then I get a loan to cover my university fees that doesn't need to be paid until I earn $30,000, and if I can't afford it, the government pays it off. The amount it takes from my annual income is small, and I really can't understand what's so bad about it.

 

[pazza]

The fact that the universities can apply their own fee structure for each course is part of the problem with it. Universities could charge up to $100000 for 3 year degree. Students say that by doing this, university study will become for those who are able to afford it...instead of for being the brightest students. A brain drain could then occur as a result. Our status as an intelligent nation is at stake.

 

[jeka]

Originally posted by Bomber 2003
Where the Hell is Social Justice in this "good Economic Climate"?.U are a halfwit if u think[?] Morality is hard to judge as it's based on "opinion".

It is social justice for people to have access to work, to be be able to fulfil their right earn a living according to their ability . Easier in a good economic climate than one with rising unemployment.

But this isn't the social justice you are refering to is it.
As Hayek put it

"When government interference is demanded in the name of social justice this now means, more often than not, the demand for the protection of the existing relative position of some group. "Social Justice" has thus become little more than a demand for the protection of vested interests and the creation of new privilege...."

I'm afraid that appears to be your definition of social justice
and again

Originally Posted by Bomber 2003
And i supose u agree with Margaret Hilda Thatcher that there is NO SUCH thing as Society.John Stuart Mill wrote absolute crap.What's wrong with Plato,Thomas Aquinas,Montagne and Bertrand Russell.

The full Thatcher quote
I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

You refer to society as a constant entity, but it is an abstraction used to collectivise the, often disparate, views of individuals who comprise that society. In which case the voting results of a general election would reflect "society" attitudes and morals as a best objective measure. Of course individuals change their viewpoint and when sufficient change their mind you have a critical mass which does change the "view of society". But the change has come from the individuals that comprise a society not the society itself.

As for John Stuart Mill writing crap I assume you disagree with the basic tenent of Utilitarianism?

...to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people

In terms of morality it seems you believe in absolute morality. As you have stated that you don't believe that morality is based on opinion, as your exampling of stealing. It is extremely difficult to define what is moral without contrasting against what is immoral.

IMO what is immoral is

any action or lack of action that contravines the rules of accepted behaviour.

( a pretty poor definition I know)

However the validity of the rules of accepted behaviour depends on your opinion/culture/religion etc.

Ablsolutism is dead in a post-modernist era. As such my veiws can be summed up as below.


"If the individual is to be free to choose, it is inevitable that he should bear the risk attaching to that choice and that in consequence he be rewarded, not according to the goodness or badness of his intentions, but solely on the basis of the value of the results to others."


I apologies the long winded nature of the post.

 

[Bombers 2003]

Originally posted by jeka
It is social justice for people to have access to work, to be be able to fulfil their right earn a living according to their ability . Easier in a good economic climate than one with rising unemployment.

But this isn't the social justice you are refering to is it.
As Hayek put it

"When government interference is demanded in the name of social justice this now means, more often than not, the demand for the protection of the existing relative position of some group. "Social Justice" has thus become little more than a demand for the protection of vested interests and the creation of new privilege...."

I'm afraid that appears to be your definition of social justice
and again







You refer to society as a constant entity, but it is an abstraction used to collectivise the, often disparate, views of individuals who comprise that society. In which case the voting results of a general election would reflect "society" attitudes and morals as a best objective measure. Of course individuals change their viewpoint and when sufficient change their mind you have a critical mass which does change the "view of society". But the change has come from the individuals that comprise a society not the society itself.

As for John Stuart Mill writing crap I assume you disagree with the basic tenent of Utilitarianism?

...to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people

In terms of morality it seems you believe in absolute morality. As you have stated that you don't believe that morality is based on opinion, as your exampling of stealing. It is extremely difficult to define what is moral without contrasting against what is immoral.

IMO what is immoral is

any action or lack of action that contravines the rules of accepted behaviour.

( a pretty poor definition I know)

However the validity of the rules of accepted behaviour depends on your opinion/culture/religion etc.

Ablsolutism is dead in a post-modernist era. As such my veiws can be summed up as below.


"If the individual is to be free to choose, it is inevitable that he should bear the risk attaching to that choice and that in consequence he be rewarded, not according to the goodness or badness of his intentions, but solely on the basis of the value of the results to others."


I apologies the long winded nature of the post.

In fact no i believe in relative Morality,in other whats acceptable at one culture isnt acceptable in a different Time.Eg
When people critisce Child marriage in Mohammad's time they forget,or dont know,that a number of English rulers married Womyn a lot younger then themselves.A example king John's wives were at least 10-15 yrs younger then he was.In fact 1 was under 10 when they were married and he was over 35.

 

[otaku]

Originally posted by Bombers 2003
In fact no i believe in relative Morality,in other whats acceptable at one culture isnt acceptable in a different Time.Eg
When people critisce Child marriage in Mohammad's time they forget,or dont know,that a number of English rulers married Womyn a lot younger then themselves.A example king John's wives were at least 10-15 yrs younger then he was.In fact 1 was under 10 when they were married and he was over 35.

so you are now saying morality IS based on opinion??


lack of consistency here...