Does the democratic principle of morality mean that all men should be equal an all things?
123296
Equal just means that we have equal rights it doesn't mean that everyone is equal in other ways, everyone is different. We all have different wants and needs.
82049
Humans are not perfect and can never be perfect. We are never fully in control of our own emotions, and the more opportunity we have for acting on our emotions the more likely we are to cause trouble. Therefore, all our ills stem from our imperfection and therefore prejudice, discrimination, and violence will never be eliminated.\n\nThat being said, they can be minimized. Prejudice, descrimination, and ultimately violence are expressions of the same problems: greed and a perception of differences, be they racial, gender, social, wealth, handicap, etc. Everybody has essentially insatiable wants: greed. To satisfy these wants, one group of people will inevitably resort to trying to take advantage of another: discrimination. The struggle of one group against another for dominance ensues time and again: violence.\n\nGreed is an immutable facet of the human being, as natural as hunger. Though greed can't be effectively curtailed, one might instead minimize differences between groups of people and thereby reduce the number of targets for prejudice, discrimination, and violence. To do this, one would have to create a single class of humans that is as all-encompasing as possible. The only way I think this is truly possible is for all governments and religions to be united as one (or, alternatively, eliminated) and either all wealth and means of attaining wealth to be as equally distributed as possible or hoarded for the state's exclusive use; either way, people are equally well (or poor) off. Attempted methods for creating a single group of people are myriad, ranging from Nationalism (allow only a single ethnic group to exist) to Communism (ascendancy of one all-encompasing economic class) to Anarchy (eliminate all major classes so everyone is equally insignificant) to various forms of utopianism too varied and unlikely to count.\n\nObviusly, these solutions don't seem very palatable to a democratic people, but prejudice and violence is the price we have to pay for diversity and freedom.
106414
I concur.  I feel like adherence to a prescribed moral principle removes personal responsibility.  I've felt that way (only perhaps less eloquent!) since I was eight.  If you are a good person because you adhere to the Bible / church values unquestioningly, you aren't actually a good person.  You are only truly good if you are the person choosing your own behavior.  I think fundamentally it boils down to manners - in greater or lesser dimensions.
675805
There are no absolutes.  You can't lump all men together. Just like you can't lump all women together.
73913
The problem with Democracy is that we have a country based on equality AND freedom.  Alexis DeToqueville wrote that it is impossible for us to be totally equal and totally free because the wills of men will always cross other's boundries.  If you are posing a question of whether or not it is more important to be "humane" than "democratic", then I believe that you might have something.  Ofcourse, democrats will undeniably stand up and say that democracy IS humane, but I guess that's all in the eye of the beholder.  Fascism shows itself on many different levels, from the workplace, to households, to governmental issues, but the one thing I can say about democracy is that it at least tries for a middleground on freedom and equality.  A goverment by the people, for the people, but it does seem that the people's voice is getting a bit weaker than it used to be.
642404
That's a very good question. Are morals relative? Even the ones we think are basic--Thou shall not kill, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,Don't put that in your mouth;you don't know where it's been!--can be violated if one feels he/she has just cause, and whichever society that individual happens to exist in has differing opinions on whether or not his/her actions were justified.\nI suppose the only ethical constant I can think of would be the 5-second rule. Unless it's an Oreo. Then all bets are off.
378338
The preamble as a whole signifies the rights of everyone that should be respected.
97014
No.  I was taught to behave myself, but at the same I was taught to think for myself.  For a good society people need act in a way that is conducive for each of us respecting each others rights.  If we think that we can do what we want without thinking of our fellow man then we might as well throw the key in the water bucket and ride off.  \n\nWe are going to have an anarchy if children aren't taught morals, or how to treat others with respect.
97992
No. I don't expect everyone to be like me! That would be very disastrous and boring! Imagine to be in a room where conversation would be the same, gestures, jokes, puns, etc will be the same. That would be very boring!\n\nTo wish everyone to be like ourselves is nihilistic, fatalistic, if not dictatorial.\n\nAll men are created equal: the same functional parts, the same amount of time, etc.  However, we must always respect individual rights and privacy.  And besides individual differences makes this world a more challenging and better place to live in.\n\nSo cheer up.  don't take it againts yourself or other people. Just take life easily with a few strides at a time.  Remember true contentment or true happiness is experienced only when you make someone truly contented and happy; thereby you reap the greatest of rewards - being happy by making somebody happy.
556219
I'm not quite sure what you are asking, but I do believe that all people are created equal.
478614
... fairly straight forward I believe.\n\nOne good man is worth ten [bad ones].\n\nA single man that knows what to do is as good as ten men that don't know what to do.
495273
We all live in our society... most "great men" held the prejudices of their time.\nMartin Luther was a terrible anti-semite.\nSo was Richard Wagner, and Richard Strauss.\n\nCertainly the great minds of the Enlightenment weren't thinking about women when they said "all Men are created equal."  Thomas Jefferson held slaves and had sex with them.\n\nThat makes these people human. BUt their accomplishments are still very important to religion, culture, political thought.\n\nNobody's perfect (well, some people say one man was perfect, but he's a man-god.).  As long as we don't engage in "hero worship," thinking our founding fathers, or musicians, or philosophers, or movie stars, are perfect, holding some beliefs of the time does not destroy the person's other accomplishments.
596378
Yes, I think they should. We should all have equal rights, especialy if we are innocent in the things that we have been accused of.
36724
No.  In a nation founded on the principles of democratic participation, it is blind allegience is, in fact, actively unpatriotic.  In arguing for the unconditional, unciritical support of government policies one undermines the philosophy of individuality and civic participation on which a democracy is founded.  Last I checked, undermining the founding principles of your country was not an act of patriotism.\n\nAlso, I think that thompj64us has a point that supporting policies that will lead to the destruction of your country is distincly unpatriotic, even when those policies are written by government officials.\n\n_______________\nTo answer Andy's question (which by the way are actually irrelevant):\nNote that the "more or less" does not make sense as there is no point of compairison, and I will ignore it.  Also note that his compulsive use of "Democrats" is idiotic and irrational, as it implies that these acts are acceptable unless the person performing the action is a Democrat.\n\n>>>Is it more or less patriotic for Democrats to oppose the war?\n\nIt is patriotic to oppose a war that is hurting our country.  What is unpatriotic is supporting a war that will devastate international relations, cost the nation billions of dollars, and cost countless American and Iraqi lives.\n\n>>>Is it more or less patriotic for Democrats to bash their country \n>>>on foreign soil?\n\nIn a country that values free speech, it is unpatriotic to sensor the speech of others.  It is not, however, unpatriotic to speak in opposition to policies or practices with which one does not agree.  In a democracy, dissent is never unpatriotic.\n\n>>>Is it more or less patriotic for Democrats to have the same \n>>>talking points as the number 2 Al Queada operative?\n\nWTF?  I have no idea what you're talking about.  However, it is not inherent unpatriotic to have something in common with Al Queada or any other organization or nation.\n\n>>>Is it more or less patriotic for Democrats to hope that \n>>>America loses the war on terror so they can score political points?\n\nI don't think anyone is hoping we will lose the war.  However, I do believe that the harm done by the current administration can and will vastly exceed the cost of the war, and in that regard it may be in our best intrest as a nation to lose the war and elect someone competent.\n\n>>>Want to lose a war? Let a Democrat run it (aka Black HAwk Down)\n\nWant to invade a soveign nation on false pretexts, start a war that costs billions of dollars and countless lives, and find yourself stuck in that war with no exit plan in sight?  Let Bush run the country.  Leaders on both sides have made bad wartime decisions.  The current war in Iraq is certainly among the worst military fiascos our nation has seen, and the travesty is expounded by the fact that the evidence on which the war was started has since been demonstrated to have been deliberately and meticulously forged.\n\n__________\n>>>If the questions are so irrelevant then why take the time to \n>>>answer them? \n\nThey're irrelevant to the question of the patriotism blind allegience, but they're still insulting, and (as per my answers), the implications are incorrect.\n\n>>>The truth hurts doesn't it?\n\nIt might if you believe what you do and actually looked around, but apparently ignoring the turth helps or you'd be writhing in pain.\n\n______________\nAndy, perhaps you should brush up on your political philosophy.  You clearly have no concept of what patriotism even is.  Nor democracy for that matter.\n\nThe exchange of political ideas is a fundimental principle of democracy.  This includes the idea that our government might be making a mess of things.  To oppose this exchange is to oppose democracy. America is a democracy, and thus an enemy of democracy is an enemy of America.  To speak out against tho
297793
We are all the same flesh and blood so we all have a similar dignity in being human. No human should be treated as less than human.
487170
I measure a persons "worth" by some very basic standards; are they a man or woman of their word, do they take full responsibility for their own actions both good and bad, do they maintain their integrity in all situations or practice "situational ethics" and believe that the end justifies the means? It boils down to people that I trust vs. people that I would never turn my back on. And yes, on a practical everyday basis we have every right to place value on another human being. They all have every right to exist, but they're not entitled to be "valued" by anybody, thats an earned right.
644301
Oh, no.  We are all God's creatures and equal in worth and ability.  Cooooom by ya, my lord, cooooooom by ya.\n\nThanks for the points.  :D