When people give opinions or, in the case of politicians, declare positions, it is neither the opinion nor the position which is important, but what belief system lies behind it. If you examine the opinions or positions of each on a variety of problems, applying the perceived belief system of each, look for consistency in applying that system. If there is wavering or inconsistency as the question changes, the person is not reliable. Only those with reliable principles can be believed.
A principle is true under all conditions or it is not a principle. Some talk about "conflicting principles" but there can be none. The principal principle supersedes the pseudo principles. An example is the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill". Some think this is an absolute prohibition against killing but it doesn't specify human beings. Animal sacrifices were common in those times so at least we know it didn't apply to them. God also fought on the side of the Israelits in their battles in which human lives were taken. If there had been room on the tablet, I believe it would have read, "Tho shalt not kill anyone or any other living thing without good reason". If a "what if?" can't be answered in applying a principle, it is not a principle.
When a person says he/she is a social liberal but a fiscal conservative, they display a lack of understanding about the definitions of liberalism and conservatism. If you are a social liberal, you cannot be a fiscal conservative because that would cut off all the resources for social liberalism. The converse is equally impossible. If you are a fiscal conservative you cannot be a social liberal because the former deprives government of resources for liberal social programs. You can see, I'm certain, that if you are not all liberal or all conservative, you are confused and at odds with yourself, Either principle must be 100% or not at all. That's the way it is with principles.
A principle is true under all conditions or it is not a principle. Some talk about "conflicting principles" but there can be none. The principal principle supersedes the pseudo principles. An example is the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill". Some think this is an absolute prohibition against killing but it doesn't specify human beings. Animal sacrifices were common in those times so at least we know it didn't apply to them. God also fought on the side of the Israelits in their battles in which human lives were taken. If there had been room on the tablet, I believe it would have read, "Tho shalt not kill anyone or any other living thing without good reason". If a "what if?" can't be answered in applying a principle, it is not a principle.
When a person says he/she is a social liberal but a fiscal conservative, they display a lack of understanding about the definitions of liberalism and conservatism. If you are a social liberal, you cannot be a fiscal conservative because that would cut off all the resources for social liberalism. The converse is equally impossible. If you are a fiscal conservative you cannot be a social liberal because the former deprives government of resources for liberal social programs. You can see, I'm certain, that if you are not all liberal or all conservative, you are confused and at odds with yourself, Either principle must be 100% or not at all. That's the way it is with principles.
No comments:
Post a Comment