Atheistic Morality

[Zzyzx]

My sister-in-law won't let her kids talk to me because I'm an atheist. My oldest nephew asked her "What does that matter?"

Apparently, I'm immoral just because.

Your oldest nephew has the right idea.  Most of us atheists have relatives who despise us.  We aren't YET a majority.  Someday, we will be.  Flat-Earthers USED to be a majority and they are not now.  Logic and science has passed them by.  

I tend to think of ethics as human-created guidelines from societal experience and morality as obedience to religious rules.  So I am ethical, but not "moral".  So, yeah, you are probably "immoral".  

By that line of thought, I would say "amoral".

Anyway, morals are governed by societal norms. What's immoral for one society isn't necessarily immoral for another. 

We beat this topic to death on TTA. Glad to see the horse is back lol

[Cavebear]

My sister-in-law won't let her kids talk to me because I'm an atheist. My oldest nephew asked her "What does that matter?"

Apparently, I'm immoral just because.

Your oldest nephew has the right idea.  Most of us atheists have relatives who despise us.  We aren't YET a majority.  Someday, we will be.  Flat-Earthers USED to be a majority and they are not now.  Logic and science has passed them by.  

I tend to think of ethics as human-created guidelines from societal experience and morality as obedience to religious rules.  So I am ethical, but not "moral".  So, yeah, you are probably "immoral".  

By that line of thought, I would say "amoral".

Anyway, morals are governed by societal norms. What's immoral for one society isn't necessarily immoral for another. 

We beat this topic to death on TTA. Glad to see the horse is back lol

What is "TTA"? I do see a difference between ethics and morality from the source.

[Cheerful Charlie]

Ask the first multicellular animal. Did it need to know addition to exceed a one-celled body?

While 1 + 1 = 2 was a human invention, it still meets the definition of an axiom:

(1) It is regarded as being established and accepted.  The concept of 1 + 1 = 2 has been in use by our society (and even before our society) for a long time and it is an accepted concept among society.

(2) It is self-evidently true.  If someone says they have two of something, we know what they mean.

Aren't both those examples simply restatements of facts in mathematical language? They are accepted because that is how we define those facts in order for our math to work in this universe.

That's not to say that in any language (mathematical or not) 1+1 =/= 2. But we have designed the definitions in our mathematical language .

For a long time we thought the sum of the interior angles of a triangle must be 180°. But that was because the unquestioned premise (i.e., axiom) was that geometry had to be planar. Once we considered three-dimensional geometry, it was obvious that axiom was an accepted starting-point for dealing with triangles, rather than an actual fact -- especially once we discovered that space-time is curved.

As Godel pointed out, one cannot prove the veracity of a system inside that system itself. That system will start with axioms that cannot be shown true inside that system.

We can prove math is true and reliable for first order logic.  It is second order logic where Godel bites us.

[Cheerful Charlie]

Your oldest nephew has the right idea.  Most of us atheists have relatives who despise us.  We aren't YET a majority.  Someday, we will be.  Flat-Earthers USED to be a majority and they are not now.  Logic and science has passed them by.  

I tend to think of ethics as human-created guidelines from societal experience and morality as obedience to religious rules.  So I am ethical, but not "moral".  So, yeah, you are probably "immoral".  

By that line of thought, I would say "amoral".

Anyway, morals are governed by societal norms. What's immoral for one society isn't necessarily immoral for another. 

We beat this topic to death on TTA. Glad to see the horse is back lol

What is "TTA"?  I do see a difference between ethics and morality from the source.

There are several kinds of morality.

Deontological  - Duty
I will not eat shellfish or pork.  Because the Bible commands me not to.

Pragmatic.  I will not rob or rape to avoid being sent to prison.

Virtue ethics 
I will not do anything that causes pain and suffering to other people.  Based on empathy and the realization we need to do this to have a good civilization.  If nobody had limits to what acts we all could do, it would be a most unpleasant world.

There is a thing that some sophisticated theologians tell us.  God is not a moral agent.  God owes us no moral obligations. To have obligations is to destroy God's sovereignty over all things. This to dodge the problem of evil.

But personal morality is adopting self imposed limits and to adopt obligations.  God then is amoral.  And cannot be good or have any of the sub-goodnesses God is said to have, mercy, compassion, justness, fairness.  God does not actualize his supposed infinite goodness.

[Cavebear]

I should probably stop bothering to distinguish between ethics and morality. The difference seems lost.

[Cheerful Charlie]

I should probably stop bothering to distinguish between ethics and morality.  The difference seems lost.

Really, there is no difference.  Ethics is from the Greek.  Morality from Latin.

[Chas]

I should probably stop bothering to distinguish between ethics and morality.  The difference seems lost.

And you have to leave a space for mores, as well.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I should probably stop bothering to distinguish between ethics and morality.  The difference seems lost.

And you have to leave a space for mores, as well.

Custom and convention would like a seat at the table, too.

[mordant]

My sister-in-law won't let her kids talk to me because I'm an atheist. My oldest nephew asked her "What does that matter?"

Apparently, I'm immoral just because.

She thinks her kids will get atheist cooties from you.

[mordant]

I should probably stop bothering to distinguish between ethics and morality.  The difference seems lost.

I just tend to think of ethics as applied morality in a particular vertical. Similar to how technology is just science applied to a particular problem.

But you're right that in practice the terms are as often as not used interchangeably.

But lawyers and other professions have codes of ethics ... not a code of morals. Their ethics say that as a lawyer or whatever you must always do x and never do y or you're out on your ear.

That is where I derive the distinction from.

[SYZ]

I should probably stop bothering to distinguish between ethics and morality.  The difference seems lost.

Really, there is no difference.  Ethics is from the Greek.  Morality from Latin.

They are closely related concepts; morals refer mainly to guiding  principles, and ethics refer
to specific  laws and actions.  A moral tenet is an idea or opinion that’s driven by a desire
to be good. An ethical code is a set of rules that defines allowable actions or correct behaviour.

Ethics aren’t necessarily moral—and vice versa.

A moral action can be unethical. A defence lawyer who admits to the court that his client is
guilty may be driven by a moral desire to see justice done, but this is obviously unethical
because it breaches the attorney-client privilege.

[possibletarian]

This is my favourite definition (so far) of what morality is..

Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

get a religion, stick a god at the end of the chain and you have objective morality, though clearly that's not the only way to arrive there.

The objectivity of religious morality is simply faith based, and would require evidence of its god to be valid as truly objective, even then that does not tell us if the morality of a god is desirable or beneficial.

[skyking]

I should probably stop bothering to distinguish between ethics and morality.  The difference seems lost.

And you have to leave a space for mores, as well.

when camping, I try to leave space for 'smores too.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The objectivity of religious morality is simply faith based, and would require evidence of its god to be valid as truly objective, even then that does not tell us if the morality of a god is desirable or beneficial.

It is just as subjective, in my view, in that people cherry-pick which moral imperatives of a religion they observe, and which they ignore.

[possibletarian]

The objectivity of religious morality is simply faith based, and would require evidence of its god to be valid as truly objective, even then that does not tell us if the morality of a god is desirable or beneficial.

It is just as subjective, in my view, in that people cherry-pick which moral imperatives of a religion they observe, and which they ignore.

I agree I think Christians of a 150 years ago would be horrified at the way what they though of as clear instruction has been manipulated to suit today's society.  I have no doubt we are our own moral agents.

As regards objectivity i meant only in the 'outside of humanity' way, of course I agree if a god (even if it exists) is moral by it's nature, then it's beyond the control of that god what that is, therefore arbitrary.

[mordant]

The objectivity of religious morality is simply faith based, and would require evidence of its god to be valid as truly objective, even then that does not tell us if the morality of a god is desirable or beneficial.

It is just as subjective, in my view, in that people cherry-pick which moral imperatives of a religion they observe, and which they ignore.

Yes, and in addition, if those imperatives are derived from god, and god is whatever someone decides he is, and holy writ means whatever one says it means ... then the morality supposedly derived from god and holy write are also subjective.

I came out of the literalist / interrantist school of Biblical interpretation and was taught from the cradle that the word of god is drop-dead objective and we were SO lucky to have it so we weren't lost shades just making shit up.

Then they sent me to learn theology and I found out there's this thing called hermaneutics -- interpretive systems that are supposed to lead you to the correct interpretation of this supposedly objective Word. And there are many systems, and they conflict on important points. And the hermaneutic we were taught, was at odds even within our own tribe over what to take literally and what to take figuratively or metaphorically, or symbolically, or how to "resolve" certain ... inconsistencies in the text (apparent inconsistencies, we'd always say, because once you understood the correct interpretation, there was in fact no inconsistency).

From this I learned that everything is subjective, even to someone trying very had to be objective and literal. That language fails us as a precise way to convey meaning, and if you try to find some bedrock universal Truth -- that way lies madness. You have to accept that all knowledge is an approximation of an expression of reality.

So ... it turns out that we WERE lost shades just making shit up. Who knew!

[mordant]

The objectivity of religious morality is simply faith based, and would require evidence of its god to be valid as truly objective, even then that does not tell us if the morality of a god is desirable or beneficial.

It is just as subjective, in my view, in that people cherry-pick which moral imperatives of a religion they observe, and which they ignore.

I agree I think Christians of a 150 years ago would be horrified at the way what they though of as clear instruction has been manipulated to suit today's society.  I have no doubt we are our own moral agents.

As regards objectivity i meant only in the 'outside of humanity' way, of course I agree if a god (even if it exists) is moral by it's nature, then it's beyond the control of that god what that is, therefore arbitrary.

Exactly.

In the 1920s for example the bogeyman was these newfangled popular entertainments like radio, the revealing clothing worn by flappers, and of course the dances themselves. Later the radio became commonplace and even a vehicle for preaching, so it couldn't very well be all bad. Then the bogeyman was movies, and then television, and the skirts just got shorter and shorter, even for women who were "proper", "submissive" housewives. In other words, the definition of propriety shifted slowly enough that a few old-timers would decry it, but mostly the illusion of an immutable moral code was maintained within the adult lifetime of any one person.

So many things went by the wayside over the years: things like chaperoned dating. Other things got added to the list of no-nos that used to be okay: beards on men and smoking were distinct signifiers of rebellion when I was growing up in the 60s, but were unremarkable to most Christians for generations before. I suppose being "clean cut" became associated with wholesomeness through the shared experience of the world wars, and beards got associated with rebelliousness because of hippie culture and its conflict with corporate dress codes, a proxy for "respectable" jobs.

So Christians, like everyone else, would not agree from one era to the next on what was or wasn't acceptable. There was nothing special about Christian notions of morality except that it tended to be just a bit out of step with the evolution of morality and social norms in society at large. Christians were slow on the uptake, but uptake they ultimately did.

[Mark]

This is my favourite definition (so far) of what morality is..

Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

get a religion, stick a god at the end of the chain and you have objective morality, though clearly that's not the only way to arrive there.

The objectivity of religious morality is simply faith based, and would require evidence of its god to be valid as truly objective, even then that does not tell us if the morality of a god is desirable or beneficial.

I personally don't think of morality as a list of rules or decision tree for deciding what one should do in any circumstance.  I think it is one dimension of human behavior and one which takes place spontaneously.  It is true that we do sometimes come up with moral frameworks which express our intellectual take on what one ought to do in general.  But in actual practice our much ballyhooed reason functions, as Jonathon Haidt says in The Righteous Mind, more as a press secretary for what the moral impulse leads us to do with or without our best judgement.  He describes the relationship of reason to moral action as that of a rider on an elephant.  There is only so much a rider can do.  More often reason to put the best spin on the elephant's actions as possible.  That comes closer to describing the nature of human morality than all the bullshit human reason has come up with over the ages.  Doesn't mean we can't have standards, laws and consequences.  Sometimes you just have a shoot a bad elephant, rider and all.

[Glossophile]

Well, this thread has meandered into multiple interesting topics!  We have the original question, the interface between politics and morality, the definitions of "atheism" versus "agnosticism," and mathematical platonism vs. nominalism.  

Returning to the OP, I think much of what Alan seems to have been talking about can be traced to perceptions of self-evidency.  Any ethical and/or political stance is based on underlying premises, at least some of which the proponent is likely to perceive as self-evident.  Szuchow's words on the first page of this thread seem a good example of this.

If I would have to explain why I oppose fascism, gov making some people into second class citizens or bigotry in general then it would mean that I speak with particularly dim or bigoted individual. Some positions are self-explanatory at least if one values freedom of others. For example what is there to justify in being opposed to so called "pro-life" crowd? Not wanting women to being deprived of right to decide about their own body is justification enough.

I think the thought process, conscious or not, might be formalized something like this:

PREMISE 1: No rational, honest, and well-meaning interlocutor can deny a self-evident proposition.
PREMISE 2: If proposition P is true, then moral and/or political stance Q is justified.
PREMISE 3: Proposition P is self-evident.
PREMISE 4: By premise 2, any skeptic or opponent of Q must deny P.
PREMISE 5: From premises 3 and 4, any skeptic or opponent of Q must deny a self-evident proposition.
CONCLUSION: From premises 1 and 5 , any skeptic or opponent of Q must be irrational, dishonest, and/or ill-meaning.

The conclusion of this syllogism is what I suspect brings on the sometimes surprising fervor and contempt for opposing views that we often see in casual political discourse.  The problem is that the opponent in question may not hold to Premise 3.  However self-evident you may think a particular premise is, your opponent may not find it nearly as obvious.  For example, to a sufficiently fundamentalist Abrahamist (i.e. Christian/Muslim/Jew), a woman's right to corporeal self-determination is not the self-evident truth it would need to be in order to qualify as "justification enough."  From the fundie's perspective, it's more of a bald assumption that requires evidential support, much like what we routinely and rightly demand for their religious claims.  A failure to reckon sufficiently with this under-the-hood discrepancy is what I think leads to ta kind of knee-jerk attribution of ignorance and/or malice closer to the surface. 

As another example, I have more than once seen deniers of major historical tragedies (e.g. Holocaust, Columbia) treated with instant anger, revulsion, and even deplatforming upon revealing themselves as such.  They are reviled for essentially spitting on the graves of the relevant victims.  While I understand the sentiment, I don't think this typical reaction is really rational, and it's certainly not productive.  In order for the deniers to deserve this sort of condemnation, their transgression must be willful, and it can only be willful if they paradoxically accept the proposition that they, by definition, reject.  Critics often seem to react almost as if the tragedy-deniers had knowingly spat on those graves, thus deliberately disrespecting the lives and courage of those interred.  But the expectoration cannot be knowing, nor the disrespect deliberate, if from their perspective, there are no graves to spit on.  Now, can and should we criticize them harshly for covering their eyes while walking through the cemetery?  Absolutely!  But in that case, the only thing they're guilty of is obstinacy, not disrespect, and we need to respond appropriately.

Of course, we can argue about why certain premises really should be self-evident, but even then, any such argument must inevitably rest on deeper premises, and the only way to make progress in that regard (as in any discourse, really) is to trace the divergent lines of reasoning back to the most proximal point of agreement and rebuild from there.  The judgmentality to which political debates, especially those with an obvious moral aspect, seem so prone is, I think, a result of at least one party stopping too soon on the chain of premises.  It does no good to insist on arguing as if the last point of commonality is somewhere other than where it is.

On defining "agnosticism" and "atheism," I think alot hinges on how exactly we use the word "know(ledge)."  If knowledge requires absolute certainty, or the absence of even the most infinitesimal doubt, then aside from truths that ultimately reduce to pure definition, none of us can really claim to know anything beyond the existence of our own consciousness.  Thus agnosticism applies so broadly as to become virtually useless as an explicit stance.  Only if we define knowledge as something more akin to "belief(s) held with the maximum possible confidence in light of overwhelming evidential and logical support" does agnosticism then refer to any distinction that is at all useful.  In that case, it may perhaps be defined as a "failure to inspire any particularly high degree of confidence one way or another."

Of course, the definition of knowledge is a long-standing philosophical question, and claiming to have devised the definitive solution is far beyond my conceit.  I don't think it's too much to ask, however, that people be consistent in whichever definition they use, at least within the same discourse, and this is where we frequently seem to fail.  For most atheists/agnostics, maximum possible confidence seems sufficient to claim, for instance, that there are no leprechauns.  Many of the same people, however, invoke a lack of absolute certainty when defending their hesitance to make the exact same statement about gods.

As for mathematical platonism versus nominalism, I'm not the first person to opine that much of the debate seems to equivocate between the map and the territory.  In a manner of speaking, I'm a nominalist regarding the system itself and a platonist regarding the reality that it accurately describes (precisely because it was designed and honed to do so).

[Szuchow]

Well, this thread has meandered into multiple interesting topics!  We have the original question, the interface between politics and morality, the definitions of "atheism" versus "agnosticism," and mathematical platonism vs. nominalism.  

Returning to the OP, I think much of what Alan seems to have been talking about can be traced to perceptions of self-evidency.  Any ethical and/or political stance is based on underlying premises, at least some of which the proponent is likely to perceive as self-evident.  Szuchow's words on the first page of this thread seem a good example of this.

If I would have to explain why I oppose fascism, gov making some people into second class citizens or bigotry in general then it would mean that I speak with particularly dim or bigoted individual. Some positions are self-explanatory at least if one values freedom of others. For example what is there to justify in being opposed to so called "pro-life" crowd? Not wanting women to being deprived of right to decide about their own body is justification enough.

I think the thought process, conscious or not, might be formalized something like this:

PREMISE 1: No rational, honest, and well-meaning interlocutor can deny a self-evident proposition.
PREMISE 2: If proposition P is true, then moral and/or political stance Q is justified.
PREMISE 3: Proposition P is self-evident.
PREMISE 4: By premise 2, any skeptic or opponent of Q must deny P.
PREMISE 5: From premises 3 and 4, any skeptic or opponent of Q must deny a self-evident proposition.
CONCLUSION: From premises 1 and 5 , any skeptic or opponent of Q must be irrational, dishonest, and/or ill-meaning.

The conclusion of this syllogism is what I suspect brings on the sometimes surprising fervor and contempt for opposing views that we often see in casual political discourse.  The problem is that the opponent in question may not hold to Premise 3.  However self-evident you may think a particular premise is, your opponent may not find it nearly as obvious.

Problem is that some people are just shit-stains. It's not like examples I have chosen are some troubling moral conundrums; fascism is bad, treating some people as second class citizens is bad, and bigotry in general is bad too. If someone does not agree with these statements then as far as I am concerned that someone is a piece of shit, not worth pissing on much less discussing with.

I don't mean to say that nuance should be thrown of the window but simply sometimes there is no need for it. I will be first to admit that fascism had some attractive qualities to people back then like sense of community, or KDF if we talk about something more material. That however is a far cry from saying that fascism is good.

For example, to a sufficiently fundamentalist Abrahamist (i.e. Christian/Muslim/Jew), a woman's right to corporeal self-determination is not the self-evident truth it would need to be in order to qualify as "justification enough."

That's the problem of theist in question. It's neither my fault nor my problem that some people are taking their morals from barbaric mythology.

As a side note - I don't give a shit what believers -christians in particular -  think about morality. People worshipping space Hitler are in no position to pronounce moral judgments. 

From the fundie's perspective, it's more of a bald assumption that requires evidential support, much like what we routinely and rightly demand for their religious claims.

Fundies are free to delude themselves but there is no reason for sane people to care about them. Nor there is a reason for state to taking their mythology into consideration when making laws. 

To say it plainly - fundies can go fuck themselves. Times of theocracies have ended.

A failure to reckon sufficiently with this under-the-hood discrepancy is what I think leads to ta kind of knee-jerk attribution of ignorance and/or malice closer to the surface.

When some cock leakage masquerading as a person is saying that fascism is good or treating some people as second class citizens is all right then attributing either malice or ignorance to them is perfectly valid choice. To think that ideology responsible for death of millions is good one have to be fundamentally ignorant or simply evil.

As another example, I have more than once seen deniers of major historical tragedies (e.g. Holocaust, Columbia) treated with instant anger, revulsion, and even deplatforming upon revealing themselves as such.

Rightly so. It is theoretically possible to be ignorant of Shoah but since when normal reaction to ignorance is denial? People denying so well researched genocide are rightly scorned for appalling ignorance or what is more likely being fascist in disguise.

They are reviled for essentially spitting on the graves of the relevant victims.  While I understand the sentiment, I don't think this typical reaction is really rational, and it's certainly not productive.  In order for the deniers to deserve this sort of condemnation, their transgression must be willful, and it can only be willful if they paradoxically accept the proposition that they, by definition, reject.  Critics often seem to react almost as if the tragedy-deniers had knowingly spat on those graves, thus deliberately disrespecting the lives and courage of those interred.  But the expectoration cannot be knowing, nor the disrespect deliberate, if from their perspective, there are no graves to spit on.  Now, can and should we criticize them harshly for covering their eyes while walking through the cemetery?  Absolutely!  But in that case, the only thing they're guilty of is obstinacy, not disrespect, and we need to respond appropriately.

I disagree. Trying to deny things like Holocaust is sign of being shitty person and is rightly reviled, scorned and laughed about. I mean if one does not about Holocaust then normal reaction surely is asking for clarification and not starting slinging shit about Jewish lies? To deny Holocaust one must be aware of it (even if one deem it massive hoax that millions of people believe in) and if one is aware then there is no reason to treat such ignorance with kid gloves.

Having said that people who simply don't know that Shoah happened shouldn't be ridiculed but rather educated. 

Of course, we can argue about why certain premises really should be self-evident, but even then, any such argument must inevitably rest on deeper premises, and the only way to make progress in that regard (as in any discourse, really) is to trace the divergent lines of reasoning back to the most proximal point of agreement and rebuild from there.  The judgmentality to which political debates, especially those with an obvious moral aspect, seem so prone is, I think, a result of at least one party stopping too soon on the chain of premises.  It does no good to insist on arguing as if the last point of commonality is somewhere other than where it is.

Some things should be self-evident to any person with modicum of education and shred of moral fiber. If a person x is moral midget deeming fascism good then I see no sense in engaging such person in discussion.

[mordant]

Some things should be self-evident to any person with modicum of education and shred of moral fiber. If a person x is moral midget deeming fascism good then I see no sense in engaging such person in discussion.

I have no moral uncertainty about how wrong fascism is, but I have enough experience with different kinds of people to understand that they aren't so much total moral midgets for thinking fascists acceptable or rationalizable as that they have huge and sometimes willful blind spots. I say this because I have known people who fail to oppose fascism and, if not fascists themselves, are certainly fascistic and controlling about certain things. But those same people can be incredibly selfless and kind and loving in certain contexts. So to dismiss them as moral midgets across the board ends up being a convenient otherization that absolves us from treating them like human beings, thus making us guilty of what we accuse fascists of. Lowering ourselves to their level, if you will.

In other words as tired as I am of all this shit I do believe these people are reachable but the way you do it is difficult, time consuming, and uncertain.

If I lived closer to my fundamentalist brother, who said to me last time I saw him that Trump is "too brash" but fundamentally okay, I would ask him if he thought it merely "brash" for Trump to do [insert any one of his particularly hateful statements or acts here] or if Jesus would behave that way. It would wear him down and at some point he'd either have to exclude me, shut me down, or conceded some points. I know how to appeal to people like that because I used to be one of them.

This begs another question: how should we behave toward these people in a hypothetical world where Trump is out of office, totally discredited, and behind bars for multiple crimes? When such people would be distancing themselves from Trump and trying to re-enter polite society as if nothing had ever happened? Do we punish them forever? Go along to get along? Something else? If they are moral midgets do we never take them seriously in the marketplace of ideas ever again, or do we reward them for exhibiting some self awareness and contrition? Or would all such be an act?

It's a serious and important question, because it encompasses the tension between just moral outrage to take a clear stand against moral wrong, and human compassion and the possibility of reconciliation. We need to think about the terms of engagement because in all probability the best chance of truly changing hearts and minds on the right is when they are no longer in power and the immorality and unsustainability of their "thinking" is most prominently and self-evidently on display. This is where they might actually change their minds. If we have them in the box of "deplorables" or "unsalvagables" then they will more likely just resent being on the ropes rather than self-reflect profitably about it, and then they will just work to regain the upper hand.

It is my hope that when the right wing sees that liberal policies are to their benefit and don't result in the sky falling, they will embrace it even if they don't fully understand it. I for one will be willing to welcome them back into the human family at that point. I don't see a need to punish them if they lay down arms.

[Szuchow]

Some things should be self-evident to any person with modicum of education and shred of moral fiber. If a person x is moral midget deeming fascism good then I see no sense in engaging such person in discussion.

I have no moral uncertainty about how wrong fascism is, but I have enough experience with different kinds of people to understand that they aren't so much total moral midgets for thinking fascists acceptable or rationalizable as that they have huge and sometimes willful blind spots.

I beg to differ. People who find fascism acceptable whether by ignorance or malice are just scum. Perhaps when this ideology was first created and it crimes weren't committed one could have more charitable view of scum that supported it. Now however when crimes of fascism are so plain to see grace period has ended. If in XXI century person does not condemn fascism then that person is nothing more than deplorable pile of shit worthy only of contempt.

I say this because I have known people who fail to oppose fascism and, if not fascists themselves, are certainly fascistic and controlling about certain things. But those same people can be incredibly selfless and kind and loving in certain contexts.

Rudolf Franz Ferdinand Höß was allegedly loving father. This does not make him any less of shitstain, just like helping grannies across the street isn't a redeeming factor in modern day fascists.

So to dismiss them as moral midgets across the board ends up being a convenient otherization that absolves us from treating them like human beings, thus making us guilty of what we accuse fascists of. Lowering ourselves to their level, if you will.

Calling spade a spade isn't otherization, just unpleasant truth. I'm fucking sick of this coddling of fascists, of speaking crap about how naming them fascists is bad, how fighting with them lowers us to their level. Fascists and their sympathizers are scum that should be given no quarter in area of public opinion or courts of law. Civilization have right to protect itself and if some bleeding heart liberals or fascist sympathizers will feel bad about this then tough shit. Poland coddled it's fascists and it resulted in senator speaking about ethnic cleansing and minister of education deeming homosexuals to be subhumans. Why should I have any consideration for trash like this or walking sack of shit that support them?

In other words as tired as I am of all this shit I do believe these people are reachable but the way you do it is difficult, time consuming, and uncertain.

I don't believe that scum willing to support fascist is reachable. Time for talking passed long ago - not that there was much to talk about, fascism is thoroughly discredited - now it is turn for the law to do it's thing, or perhaps even revolution.

This begs another question: how should we behave toward these people in a hypothetical world where Trump is out of office, totally discredited, and behind bars for multiple crimes? When such people would be distancing themselves from Trump and trying to re-enter polite society as if nothing had ever happened? Do we punish them forever? Go along to get along? Something else? If they are moral midgets do we never take them seriously in the marketplace of ideas ever again, or do we reward them for exhibiting some self awareness and contrition? Or would all such be an act?

It's a serious and important question, because it encompasses the tension between just moral outrage to take a clear stand against moral wrong, and human compassion and the possibility of reconciliation. We need to think about the terms of engagement because in all probability the best chance of truly changing hearts and minds on the right is when they are no longer in power and the immorality and unsustainability of their "thinking" is most prominently and self-evidently on display. This is where they might actually change their minds. If we have them in the box of "deplorables" or "unsalvagables" then they will more likely just resent being on the ropes rather than self-reflect profitably about it, and then they will just work to regain the upper hand.

I'm no politician and so I don't need to pretend that people I find to be abhorrent should be forgiven in the name of gaining more votes. As far as I am concerned people who supported fascism when it's crimes lies bare for decades aren't worthy of being shat on, much less of forgiveness or being treated with respect. 

What reconciliation can be with people deeming you subhuman? What reconciliation can be with people who cheered when politicians called for ethnic cleansing? Scum like this should be held in contempt and ridiculed every time it's possible. Poland already tried to sweep things under the carpet after WWII and it resulted in pogroms, explosion of antisemitism in late sixties and the same antisemitism being alive even now.

It is my hope that when the right wing sees that liberal policies are to their benefit and don't result in the sky falling, they will embrace it even if they don't fully understand it. I for one will be willing to welcome them back into the human family at that point. I don't see a need to punish them if they lay down arms.

It's not in my power to make fascists to not be a part of human family. I however see need to punish them when they will lay down arms and no reason at all to welcome them.

[mordant]

Some things should be self-evident to any person with modicum of education and shred of moral fiber. If a person x is moral midget deeming fascism good then I see no sense in engaging such person in discussion.

I have no moral uncertainty about how wrong fascism is, but I have enough experience with different kinds of people to understand that they aren't so much total moral midgets for thinking fascists acceptable or rationalizable as that they have huge and sometimes willful blind spots.

I beg to differ. People who find fascism acceptable whether by ignorance or malice are just scum. Perhaps when this ideology was first created and it crimes weren't committed one could have more charitable view of scum that supported it. Now however when crimes of fascism are so plain to see grace period has ended. If in XXI century person does not condemn fascism then that person is nothing more than deplorable pile of shit worthy only of contempt.

I say this because I have known people who fail to oppose fascism and, if not fascists themselves, are certainly fascistic and controlling about certain things. But those same people can be incredibly selfless and kind and loving in certain contexts.

Rudolf Franz Ferdinand Höß was allegedly loving father. This does not make him any less of shitstain, just like helping grannies across the street isn't a redeeming factor in modern day fascists.

So to dismiss them as moral midgets across the board ends up being a convenient otherization that absolves us from treating them like human beings, thus making us guilty of what we accuse fascists of. Lowering ourselves to their level, if you will.

Calling spade a spade isn't otherization, just unpleasant truth. I'm fucking sick of this coddling of fascists, of speaking crap about how naming them fascists is bad, how fighting with them lowers us to their level. Fascists and their sympathizers are scum that should be given no quarter in area of public opinion or courts of law. Civilization have right to protect itself and if some bleeding heart liberals or fascist sympathizers will feel bad about this then tough shit. Poland coddled it's fascists and it resulted in senator speaking about ethnic cleansing and minister of education deeming homosexuals to be subhumans. Why should I have any consideration for trash like this or walking sack of shit that support them?

In other words as tired as I am of all this shit I do believe these people are reachable but the way you do it is difficult, time consuming, and uncertain.

I don't believe that scum willing to support fascist is reachable. Time for talking passed long ago - not that there was much to talk about, fascism is thoroughly discredited - now it is turn for the law to do it's thing, or perhaps even revolution.

This begs another question: how should we behave toward these people in a hypothetical world where Trump is out of office, totally discredited, and behind bars for multiple crimes? When such people would be distancing themselves from Trump and trying to re-enter polite society as if nothing had ever happened? Do we punish them forever? Go along to get along? Something else? If they are moral midgets do we never take them seriously in the marketplace of ideas ever again, or do we reward them for exhibiting some self awareness and contrition? Or would all such be an act?

It's a serious and important question, because it encompasses the tension between just moral outrage to take a clear stand against moral wrong, and human compassion and the possibility of reconciliation. We need to think about the terms of engagement because in all probability the best chance of truly changing hearts and minds on the right is when they are no longer in power and the immorality and unsustainability of their "thinking" is most prominently and self-evidently on display. This is where they might actually change their minds. If we have them in the box of "deplorables" or "unsalvagables" then they will more likely just resent being on the ropes rather than self-reflect profitably about it, and then they will just work to regain the upper hand.

I'm no politician and so I don't need to pretend that people I find to be abhorrent should be forgiven in the name of gaining more votes. As far as I am concerned people who supported fascism when it's crimes lies bare for decades aren't worthy of being shat on, much less of forgiveness or being treated with respect. 

What reconciliation can be with people deeming you subhuman? What reconciliation can be with people who cheered when politicians called for ethnic cleansing? Scum like this should be held in contempt and ridiculed every time it's possible. Poland already tried to sweep things under the carpet after WWII and it resulted in pogroms, explosion of antisemitism in late sixties and the same antisemitism being alive even now.

It is my hope that when the right wing sees that liberal policies are to their benefit and don't result in the sky falling, they will embrace it even if they don't fully understand it. I for one will be willing to welcome them back into the human family at that point. I don't see a need to punish them if they lay down arms.

It's not in my power to make fascists to not be a part of human family. I however see need to punish them when they will lay down arms and no reason at all to welcome them.

Well we're clearly not in agreement on this topic, so I'll just address this one point with a clarification:

I'm no politician and so I don't need to pretend that people I find to be abhorrent should be forgiven in the name of gaining more votes.

Nothing I said had in mind even partially the gaining of more votes. I'm after hearts and minds. Votes are an expression of that, and will come organically AFTER hearts and minds are reached and changed, but most probably not on a politically convenient timeline. So there is no politically pragmatic reason in my view to seek to change votes to our liking.

People hold these positions because they think they are preserving (conserving = conservative) values and principles, however inconsistent or incoherent they may be, that are existentially critical to their way of life. In this, they are just like you and I: they love their families and communities and will do what they see as necessary to protect and nurture them.

That doesn't make them right or ethical or self aware. It doesn't excuse them and it certainly doesn't excuse their tactics. It just explains them. It also gives us the space to see them as something a bit more elevated than "shitstains" or "scum", which is always a very dangerous place to go in your thinking. If your objective is civil society, that necessarily has to find a place for all in that society, at least over the long term.

[Szuchow]

Nothing I said had in mind even partially the gaining of more votes. I'm after hearts and minds. Votes are an expression of that, and will come organically AFTER hearts and minds are reached and changed, but most probably not on a politically convenient timeline. So there is no politically pragmatic reason in my view to seek to change votes to our liking.

I'm after nothing. I don't delude myself into thinking that what I say will change anything, especially when I live in a country with fascists in power and candidates for president office willing to suck fascist collective cock.

People hold these positions because they think they are preserving (conserving = conservative) values and principles, however inconsistent or incoherent they may be, that are existentially critical to their way of life. In this, they are just like you and I: they love their families and communities and will do what they see as necessary to protect and nurture them.

It does not really matter why they hold such positions. I mean why should I care that some ignorant bag of dicks is supporting fascists for what he deems noble reasons? End result is the same - more support for the fascists and this isn't something that can be tolerated.

Loving one family counts for shit when one is fascist. It's simply isn't enough counterweight.

That doesn't make them right or ethical or self aware. It doesn't excuse them and it certainly doesn't excuse their tactics. It just explains them. It also gives us the space to see them as something a bit more elevated than "shitstains" or "scum", which is always a very dangerous place to go in your thinking. If your objective is civil society, that necessarily has to find a place for all in that society, at least over the long term.

I'm perfectly aware that some people are attracted to authoritarian policies, I merely don't give a shit about their reasons. I also don't think that it gives space to see them as anything but bags of shit. Lastly for civil society to exist fascists should be expunged from it.

[mordant]

... for civil society to exist fascists should be expunged from it.

How do you foresee that happening then? How does one "expunge" them?