„However ignorant a person may be, he or she can always moralize. And it is the propensity to moralize that takes up most of the space for public discussion in contemporary society.“

Fonte: The Servile Mind: How Democracy Erodes the Moral Life, pp. 214-215
Contexto: For it is a conspicuous feature of democracy, as it evolves from generation to generation, that it leads people increasingly to take up public positions on the private affairs of others. Wherever people discover that money is being spent, either privately or by public officials, they commonly develop opinions on how it ought to be spent. In a state increasingly managed right down to small details of conduct, each person thus becomes his own fantasy despot, disposing of others and their resources as he or she thinks desirable. And this tendency itself results from another feature of the moral revolution. Democracy demands, or at least seems to demand, that its subjects should have opinions on most matters of public discussion. But public policy is a complicated matter and few intelligent comments can be made without a great deal of time being spent on the detail. On the other hand, every public policy may be judged in terms of its desirability. However ignorant a person may be, he or she can always moralize. And it is the propensity to moralize that takes up most of the space for public discussion in contemporary society.

Kenneth Minogue photo
Kenneth Minogue20
Australian political theorist 1930 - 2013

Citações relacionadas

Richard Dawkins photo
Theodore Roosevelt photo
C. Wright Mills photo
Irving Kristol photo
Northrop Frye photo
Perry Anderson photo
C. Wright Mills photo
Clarence Thomas photo

„There is no moral argument that justifies using the coercive powers of government to force one person to bear the expense of taking care of another“

—  Walter E. Williams American economist, commentator, and academic 1936

Liberty vs Socialism
Contexto: There is no moral argument that justifies using the coercive powers of government to force one person to bear the expense of taking care of another. If that person is too resolute in his refusal to do so, what is the case for imposing fines, imprisonment or death? You say, "Death! Aren't you exaggerating, Williams?" Say he tells the agents of Congress that he'll pay his share of the constitutionally mandated functions of government but refuse to pay the health costs of a sick obese person or a cyclist who becomes a vegetable, what do you think the likely course of events will be? First, he'd be threatened with fines, imprisonment or property confiscation. Refusal to give in to these government sanctions would ultimately lead to his being shot by the agents of Congress.

Gerald Ford photo
Nassim Nicholas Taleb photo

„You may never know what type of person someone is unless they are given opportunities to violate moral or ethical codes.“

—  Nassim Nicholas Taleb Lebanese-American essayist, scholar, statistician, former trader and risk analyst 1960

Fonte: Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder

Harry Hay photo
David Norris photo

„It does not say much for a person's morality if he is prepared to sacrifice what he believes in for a job.“

—  David Norris Irish scholar, independent Senator, and gay and civil rights activist 1944

28 May 2013 http://www.kildarestreet.com/sendebates/?id=2013-05-28a.7&s=speaker%3A210#g126

„No one was required to believe in the gods as Christians believe in their creeds. Socrates had always been scrupulous in observance of every accepted principle and practice of community life. However, from his questioning he had developed a civic and personal morality founded on reason rather than custom.“

—  Kenneth Rexroth American poet, writer, anarchist, academic and conscientious objector 1905 - 1982

Plato: The Trial and Death of Socrates (pp. 50-51)
Classics Revisited (1968)
Contexto: No one was required to believe in the gods as Christians believe in their creeds. Socrates had always been scrupulous in observance of every accepted principle and practice of community life. However, from his questioning he had developed a civic and personal morality founded on reason rather than custom. He envisioned it as subject to continuous criticism and revaluation in terms of the ever-expanding freedom of morally autonomous but cooperating persons, who together made up a community whose characteristic aim was an organically growing depth, breadth, intensity of experience — experience finally of that ultimate reality characterized by Socrates as good, true and beautiful.
The accusers were right. This is a new religion which bears scant resemblance to the old. Civic piety is founded on the recognition of ignorance and the nurture of the soil until it becomes capable of true knowledge — which is a state of being, a moral condition called freedom. The Greek city-state, not to speak of the tribal community, knew nothing of freedom in this sense, but only the liberty that distinguished the free man from the slave.

Robert Jeffress photo

„Rick Perry's a Christian. He's an evangelical Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ. Mitt Romney's a good moral person, but he's not a Christian. Mormonism is not Christianity. It has always been considered a cult by the mainstream of Christianity.“

—  Robert Jeffress Pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas 1955

2011-10-07
Pastor backing Perry: Romney not a Christian
Carrie
Dann
NBC News
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/10/07/8211096-pastor-backing-perry-romney-not-a-christian?lite

Friedrich Hayek photo

„Our basic problem is that we have three levels, I would say, of moral beliefs. We have the first instance, our intuitive moral feelings which are adapted to the small, person-to-person society where we act for people whom we know and are served by people whom we know. Then, we have a society governed by moral traditions which, unlike what modern rationalists believe, are not intellectual discoveries of men who designed them, but as a result of a persons, which I now prefer to describe as term of 'group selection.' Those groups who had accidentally developed such as the tradition of private property and the family who did succeed, but never understood this. So we owe our present extended order of human cooperation very largely to a moral tradition which the intellectual does not approve of, because it has never been intellectually designed and it has to compete with a third level of moral beliefs, those which the morals which the intellectuals designed in the hope that they can better satisfy man's instincts than the traditional morals to do. And we live in a world where three moral traditions are in constant conflict, the innate ones, the traditional ones, and the intellectually designed ones, and ultimately, all our political conflicts of this time can be reduced as affected by a conflict between free moral tradition of a different nature, not only of different content.“

—  Friedrich Hayek Austrian and British economist and Nobel Prize for Economics laureate 1899 - 1992

in 1985 interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11AXDT5824Y with John O'Sullivan
1980s and later

„Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Etiam egestas wisi a erat. Morbi imperdiet, mauris ac auctor dictum.“