|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The role of christianity in the UK general election
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If the choice were actually founded on Gospel principles, rather than on what could be used to allow ConEvos to be useful idiots who could be relied upon to go to the polls to support an ideology of "greed is good" so long as the politicians mouthed the right anti-abortion and anti-gay platitudes, then a politically active Christianity is not just desirable but essential. Take, for example, the Jubilee 2000 debt campaign - deeply rooted in Christian principles but also clearly of the political left. Economically there is huge overlap between the two.
This.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Religion should not be part of the State. The very few benefits are massively outweighed by the problems.
That's fine, as long as you don't think any secular moral code or ideology, such as humanism, should be part of the State. That seems to raise problems.
quote:
Morality in voting is difficult. But ISTM, not rocket surgery. Moral voting is that which benefits the most, immoral voting is that which restricts the most. Granted, however, that this is not always completely straight-forward.
I think that last sentence is something of an understatement.
One question is what counts as a 'benefit' or a 'restriction'. (Is 'restricts' really the antonym of 'benefits'?)
But also, discrimination in favour of a majority arguably benefits the most. That doesn't make it moral necessarily. If you believe people should have rights, you believe that there are some things that ought not to be voted for even if they benefit the most people.
Strict utilitarianism, Rawlsian maximin(*) and even strict equality of distribution all have claims to benefit the most. Arguments between them are ongoing.
(*) Rawlsian maximin is the theory that you find out under which proposed distribution of welfare and rights the least well-off person is best off, and pick that distribution. You judge a society by how rich the poorest person in it is.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
