Malevolent vs. benevolent dispositions and conservative political ideology in the Trump era

[2PhiloVoid]

I didn't bring up "consequentialism" because like my spell checker, I am not familiar with it. I could probably guess, but I knew better than to guess when people start capitalizing "isms".

ok

Autonomic, eh? Ever wonder if you still know how to breathe?

When I mentioned autonomic, I had in mind human emotions and involuntary thoughts (like doubts) that can often muddle the speed and clarity of the moral decision making process.

 

[Bradskii]

And what exactly constitutes "due consideration" within the deciding process according to your epistemological estimation?

You know...thinking about choices and choosing the one you like best.

These flowery, pseudo intellectual word salad responses are getting you nowhere.

 

[Hans Blaster]

ok


When I mentioned autonomic, I had in mind human emotions and involuntary thoughts (like doubts) that can often muddle the speed and clarity of the moral decision making process.

Not sure what emotional responses have to do with reasoned evaluation of morals or claims of absolutist moral authority.

 

[Bradskii]

Not sure what emotional responses have to do with reasoned evaluation of morals or claims of absolutist moral authority.

You're right. Absolutely nothing at all. I thought it didn't need to be explained that we're not talking about emotional responses to circumstances or knee jerk fight-or-flight reactions. This is meant to be about reasonable, considered approaches as to how we, individually, decide what is morally acceptable and what isn't.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You're right. Absolutely nothing at all. I thought it didn't need to be explained that we're not talking about emotional responses to circumstances or knee jerk fight-or-flight reactions. This is meant to be about reasonable, considered approaches as to how we, individually, decide what is morally acceptable and what isn't.

This thread has drifted so far it has merged with the *other* "morality" thread. Perhaps we should drop in all of the (likely) "True Christians" quoted in the text chains by Politico...

 

[Bradskii]

This thread has drifted so far it has merged with the *other* "morality" thread. Perhaps we should drop in all of the (likely) "True Christians" quoted in the text chains by Politico...

Yeah, I'm confusing what some people say in this thread with what they have said in t'other. Makes no sense in either most of the time...

 

[Larniavc]

Bene-volent, or male-volent?

Bene-gesserit?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not sure what emotional responses have to do with reasoned evaluation of morals or claims of absolutist moral authority.

Perhaps you're partly right. Maybe I should have used the term emotional "involuntary response" instead. Would this have been clearer to you if I had said this instead?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You're right. Absolutely nothing at all. I thought it didn't need to be explained that we're not talking about emotional responses to circumstances or knee jerk fight-or-flight reactions. This is meant to be about reasonable, considered approaches as to how we, individually, decide what is morally acceptable and what isn't.

Wrong.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This thread has drifted so far it has merged with the *other* "morality" thread. Perhaps we should drop in all of the (likely) "True Christians" quoted in the text chains by Politico...

Fine. I'll begin responding on this tangent over on the other thread.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The rise of Trump has led me to believe that America has become more and more callous with disregard to the most needy. I've recently been looking into this area and found this. It's relatively recent in a decently respected Journal. This snippet sums it up quite well.

• Conservative political ideology represented by symbolic and operational ideology and positive view of Trump
• Psychopathic traits and malevolent disposition predicted increased conservative political ideology
• Benevolent disposition predicted decreased conservative ideology--i.e., more liberal ideology
• Those viewing Trump favorably reported elevated malevolent and reduced benevolent dispositions, and less empathy

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0092656625000704?via%3Dihub

Clearly, this not saying that all Trump supporters are psychopaths.

At bottom, this issue is a clash between two Post-Enlightenment values and how they're not always conceptually compatible even though they're often cited as existing hand-in-hand: Rights VS. Equality

 

[Hans Blaster]

Fine. I'll begin responding on this tangent over on the other thread.

Any thoughts on my post #45?

 

[Bradskii]

Wrong.

You're doing it again: 'Oh no it isn't!'.

Make a positive claim for heaven's sake. Where are those colours nailed to the mast?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is going to depend on how benevolent you think the US government has been through history or most of the state governments.

I thought you already knew the answer to this from past discussions on this sort of topic.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I thought you already knew the answer to this from past discussions on this sort of topic.

Frankly I don't remember discussing the benevolence of the US government, let alone any state government, with you in the past.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Frankly I don't remember discussing the benevolence of the US government, let alone any state government, with you in the past.

Without getting into these political waters too deeply since politics isn't my specialization, I'll simply say I think the preamble of the U.S. Constitution should have read ... " .... to form a less imperfect nation .... " so as to emphasize that a lot of social and ideological improvement was, and still is, needed--- a lot more than what many of my fellow Americans over the past 250 years have thought was needed.

Admittedly, however, my definition of "benevolence" will be highly tempered and contoured by Biblical Theology rather than by Enlightenment principles.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Without getting into these political waters too deeply since politics isn't my specialization,

An odd thing to say in a thread about political leanings.

I'll simply say I think the preamble of the U.S. Constitution should have read ... " .... to form a less imperfect nation .... " so as to emphasize that a lot of social and ideological improvement was, and still is, needed--- a lot more than what many of my fellow Americans over the past 250 years have thought was needed.

"less imperfect" vs "more perfect". SMH.

Admittedly, however, my definition of "benevolence" will be highly tempered and contoured by Biblical Theology rather than by Enlightenment principles.

But, what is the answer to the question?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

An odd thing to say in a thread about political leanings.

"less imperfect" vs "more perfect". SMH.

But, what is the answer to the question?

Let's just say that "the answer(s)" I foster don't by any necessity comport with the all too common notions of either "assumed axiomatic simplicity" nor with "common sense." Which means that as I see it, the Left and the Right, under whatever party names they've gone by over the last 250 years, have always been in need of some deeper philosophical reassessing to do of their political mandates and moral assertions by which they think we all "should" live and interact with one another.

In other words, we're all running a bit short of the ethical and moral critical thinking that Jesus has ruled we "should" all live by and which brings about a benevolent and righteous society.

In even simpler terms for those who want that, I prefer the thinking of President James Madison over that of President Andrew Jackson.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Let's just say that "the answer(s)" I foster don't by any necessity comport with the all too common notions of either "assumed axiomatic simplicity" nor with "common sense." Which means that as I see it, the Left and the Right, under whatever party names they've gone by over the last 250 years, have always been in need of some deeper philosophical reassessing to do of their political mandates and moral assertions by which they think we all "should" live and interact with one another.

In other words,

You could have just skipped to this point...

we're all running a bit short of the ethical and moral critical thinking that Jesus has ruled we "should" all live by and which brings about a benevolent and righteous society.

Which are? (The man said a lot of stuff. I can't keep track of it all or know which ones you mean.)

In even simpler terms for those who want that, I prefer the thinking of President James Madison over that of President Andrew Jackson.

It's been a long time since I read Madison, and I've never read Jackson, so I don't know off the top of my head what their thinking was, nor what you are specifically referring to, nor does this even come close to answering my question. If you don't want to answer just say and go.