On Jul 25, 2009, at 12:17 PM, shag carpet bomb wrote:
> I've asked this question three times now, and everyone who thinks
> morality matters, that there is something wrong with carrol, have
> refused to answer me.
>
> What improves politics? What advantage do you get?
For me it's more a question of what you lose when you deny it. Every time you advocate something politically you are by definition saying it ought to be changed. Denying morality is essentially denying that there's any ought involved, which seems to me both bone-headed and needlessly arrogant. It essentially asserts that your morality is objectively true. Besides being wrong, it's a terrible way to persuade persuadable people to join your side.
If your question is, "Can't we voice political demands perfectly well without using moral buzzwords?" I'd say of course. The question of the left's moral principles is mainly a matter of self-critique and debate when we're disputing over what those defining principles ought to be, both in a particular case and in general. Which is something we do on this list all the time, from its birth throes in the Kosovo war to the recent debate over Iran.
Michael