Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimbl420
It's exactly what I called it - Ideology.
|
Well, this is clearly wrong. There's no inherent ideology involved in nuts and bolts governing, in making policies that advance the functionality of the system we live in. The ideology comes in when you start talking about how best to keep the system running. One side wants a policy that sees lower taxes on corporations, suggesting that this will employ more people, put more money in their pockets and increase consumer spending. Another says, no, the best way to do this is to give tax cuts to the lowest income individuals themselves, and that will cause them to spend more money, leading to demand that spurs employment. That's ideology. The category of policy-making isn't.
The same is true of morality-based policy. That aim isn't inherently ideological, the ideology comes in when people start arguing about what specific policies should be pursued. One side says that it's right that we should have easy access to abortion, because women have a right to choose when it comes to their bodies. The other side says we shouldn't, because abortion is murder. Those are ideologies.
Quote:
|
I can also see and appreciate the virtue in both of the situations you describe. There's virtue in wanting to be fiscally responsible and there's virtue in wanting to reduce your carbon footprint. Which one is more moral again comes down to your IDEOLOGY.
|
Now you're equivocating on the meaning of "virtue". The term has multiple colloquial uses, and I'm using it in its moral sense.
It's not inherently virtuous to do practical things. There's an difference between doing something because it's sensible, and doing something because it's just the
right thing to do, morally speaking.
Paying off your credit card at the end of the month is sensible. Not lying to people is the right thing to do. Both are actions we would encourage, but there's a clear difference between them, qualitatively. That seems intuitively obvious to me. Do you not see that distinction?