Ship of Fools: Moral Obligation

Thread: Moral Obligation Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029524

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

In catechism I learned this about bearing false witness:

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

What does this mean?--Answer.

We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, [think and] speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything. (Luther's Small Catechism)

I imagine others learned something similar in their religious instruction.

Issue: Donald Trump refuses to correct comments from a supporter that Obama is Muslim. Gets criticized from both right and left about it.

Trump's response: I am under no moral obligation to defend Obama. And Obama would not defend me.

How does he know Obama would not defend him?

Aren't we obliged to defend our opponent regardless of what s/he would do if the tables were turned?

CNN Report

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Absolutely.

Under almost identical circumstances, when he was in far worse shape in the polls than Trump is, John McCain* chose quite differently, and honorably:

McCain defending Obama

*(I miss this guy-- McCain 1.0-- before he became a bitter, grumpy old man. Even if he has reason to be bitter).

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

It is idle to expect Trump to meet a moral obligation. Like hitching the cat up to the family car and expecting a tow.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I remember McCain defending Obama. It was a great response.

However, I am only using the example of Trump saying he is under no moral obligation to frame a larger question

Where do our moral obligations begin and/or end?

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

If Trump wants to be or to be seen as a major leader, then he needs to live up to the standard of behavior that is expected, including moral leadership (as in defending truth and denouncing falsehood).

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I remember McCain defending Obama. It was a great response.

However, I am only using the example of Trump saying he is under no moral obligation to frame a larger question

Trump seems to be under the impression that the questioner said something nasty or controversial about Obama, which isn't actually true. He said something demonstrably false.

quote:
Where do our moral obligations begin and/or end?

I voluntarily signed up for a moral system (Christianity) that imposes certain rules on my behavior that are not necessarily requirements for everyone. I wouldn't necessarily feel that I need to defend an enemy from a nasty subjective statement (Trump's hair is horribly ugly), but I would feel like I had to defend them from a statement that is nasty and false (Trump was born in Germany and has been a member of the Nazi party since he was a child).

Of course, being human, I get tired of fighting sometimes. So I'm more likely to defend people who are powerless than people (such as both Trump and Obama) who are powerful.

What moral obligation do people who don't claim any particular religious affiliation have towards each other? And why? Even when I was going through an agnostic phase I had a religious hangover (I still fundamentally believed that you should love your neighbor as yourself, I just couldn't have really told you why I believed that).

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I know this is a comment from a far away country and Donald Trump is not one of our politicians - though, for entirely understandable reasons, he has a particularly low standing in Scotland.

However, for what it's worth, a neighbour and good friend of mine said recently that he looks like a door-to-door salesman, and that if he came to her house selling brushes, she wouldn't buy one.

Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on :

I think our obligation is not to defend this politician or that in the mud-wrestle of election contentions, but a higher one altogether. It is to truth, first and foremost, whether that truth be convenient or inconvenient. Seems to me that any individual who cannot perceive such a principle ought be ruled out of the voter's consideration, automatically.

Cheers, PV.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

ISTM in politics today it is less about honesty and truth and more about hating the same people.

Personally, I thinks that sucks. I think this is why Corbyn is doing so well in this country, because he is honest. I don't agree with everything he says*, but I admire his honesty and openness, and I think that is what is needed in politics today.

There is a sense that people may not like Trump, but he is the most vocal person who hates the same as they do, so they support him.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Absolutely.

Under almost identical circumstances, when he was in far worse shape in the polls than Trump is, John McCain* chose quite differently, and honorably:

McCain defending Obama

*(I miss this guy-- McCain 1.0-- before he became a bitter, grumpy old man. Even if he has reason to be bitter).

Yes, what McCain did was great.

As to grumpiness, etc.: he may have gotten worse, but he's been that way for a long time. I initially chalked it up to his POW experience. But it turns out he was dubbed "McNasty" way back in high school.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Absolutely.

Under almost identical circumstances, when he was in far worse shape in the polls than Trump is, John McCain* chose quite differently, and honorably:

McCain defending Obama

*(I miss this guy-- McCain 1.0-- before he became a bitter, grumpy old man. Even if he has reason to be bitter).
Yes, what McCain did was great.

As to grumpiness, etc.: he may have gotten worse, but he's been that way for a long time. I initially chalked it up to his POW experience. But it turns out he was dubbed "McNasty" way back in high school.

But he used to have a lovely sense of humor. He was a frequent guest on Jon Stewart because he was smart, self-deprecating, fair-minded, reasonable. And hilarious-- whip-smart funny.

I chalk it up to Rove. As has been documented here among other places, Rove (on Bush's behalf) ran a particularly vicious attack on McCain in the 2000 So. Carolina primary race-- nasty, nasty lies ( the warm up for the "swift-boat" to come). In 2008 I think McCain decided to just go all in and play the game, signed on with Rove's proteges-- but then, as in the link above, found that bless his heart, he didn't have the stomach (or the lack of moral compass) for it. And, turned out, neither did the American voters-- at least not that time.

I'd hoped afterwards he'd go back to McCain 1.0 but instead he just seems to have gotten bitter. Can't really blame him-- the story of his fall is almost an epic Shakespearean tragedy. But I sure miss the old McCain.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
I think our obligation is not to defend this politician or that in the mud-wrestle of election contentions, but a higher one altogether. It is to truth, first and foremost, whether that truth be convenient or inconvenient.

That's the moral obligation I see in this situation. We can't defend every untruth in the world, (Someone is wrong on the internet!) but when others are about and a person is slandered, we should speak up in the interest of truth.

I'm interested in the definition of, "Bearing false witness," in the OP. I was never taught that. I have always taken that commandment quite simply. As in, don't say you saw John steal that bike if you didn't.

Posted by DangerousDeacon (# 10582) on :

In this case, Trump was the host or main guest - in other words, it was his event. The false comment was made as part of that event. In this sense it is NOT the same as some idiot making a comment on radio or in a newspaper. No human being could rebut every comment that is out there.

But in this case, as it was Trump's event, it was all about Trump and what he believes, and his failure to rebuke reasonably implies consent.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

quote:
I'm interested in the definition of, "Bearing false witness," in the OP. I was never taught that. I have always taken that commandment quite simply. As in, don't say you saw John steal that bike if you didn't.

In his explanation of the Ten Commandments, Luther tends to take a negative and turn it into a positive.

Thus: Do not steal, becomes do not take what is not yours, but also help you neighbour protect what is his/hers--in so many words.

It the case of Johnny.

You hear a rumor Johnny stole a bike.

You not only don't repeat the rumor, but you but what Johnny did in the best light. Ask if Johnny didn't buy the bike.

Probably also go to Johnny and ask what happened.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
ISTM in politics today it is less about honesty and truth and more about hating the same people.

Personally, I thinks that sucks. I think this is why Corbyn is doing so well in this country, because he is honest. I don't agree with everything he says*, but I admire his honesty and openness, and I think that is what is needed in politics today.

There is a sense that people may not like Trump, but he is the most vocal person who hates the same as they do, so they support him.

Does Trump give the impression of being honest and open in all he does?

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:

quote:
I'm interested in the definition of, "Bearing false witness," in the OP. I was never taught that. I have always taken that commandment quite simply. As in, don't say you saw John steal that bike if you didn't.
In his explanation of the Ten Commandments, Luther tends to take a negative and turn it into a positive.

Thus: Do not steal, becomes do not take what is not yours, but also help you neighbour protect what is his/hers--in so many words.

It the case of Johnny.

You hear a rumor Johnny stole a bike.

You not only don't repeat the rumor, but you but what Johnny did in the best light. Ask if Johnny didn't buy the bike.

Probably also go to Johnny and ask what happened.

Yes, I agree that's the right thing to do, but I would put all that under loving my neighbor as myself. To me, bearing false witness is still lying about what I saw.

Also, I'm not talking about gossiping about Johnny. I'm talking about being called to court and asked if I saw Johnny take the bike. By that point we would have to conclude that the owner complained of a theft.

Judging by the number of innocent people who are sitting on death row, a whole lot of straight forward bearing of false witness has been going on.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Lying also includes spreading rumors.

I think you hit the nail on the head, though, when you say putting the best construction on things is part of loving your neighbour.

The Anglican Catechism, I believe, says one must be able to defend the helpless. If Johnny is not there to defend himself, isn't he helpless?

Jesus, though, also had a tendency to expand the laws--You shall not commit adultery, but I tell you if you so much as look at another with lust, you have committed it.

[ 21. September 2015, 19:37: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor... but defend him

Issue: Donald Trump refuses to correct comments from a supporter that Obama is Muslim. Gets criticized from both right and left about it.

Trump's response: I am under no moral obligation to defend Obama. And Obama would not defend me.

Whether or not Obama would defend Trump is irrelevant.

But to a politician, what matters is getting elected. That goal causes lots of behaviors some of us dislike or think less than fully moral including:

-- avoiding taking pubic positions that might irritate some of the voters (such as those voters who believe Obama is a Muslim - not taking a side that alienates some voters is politically safer than endorsing or rejecting the false statement),

-- not answering the questions asked if perceived as not "on topic" for what the politician wants to communicate (listen to interviews, how often a politician is asked specifically A and answers K, totally unrelated to A, his goal being to not let the discussion get distracted from what he wants voters to focus on),

-- telling heartwarming fictitious stories as if true stories (a Reagan tactic),

-- manipulating statistics and inventing anecdotes (not just politicians of course),

-- lying about what they believe or plan to do if elected,

And so on.

The issue isn't specifically Trump but the political system that makes these tactics seem "necessary" for getting elected.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0