Capto Iugulum Background Thread
- Thread starter EQandcivfanatic
- Start date
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,284
The areas of Catholic philosophy this refers too is natural law theory. This conception has it that moral norms can be discerned from nature, and proceed from an objective font of order, namely natures God. Ergo, the "ethics of moralism" you refer too do not exclude God because it presumes a divine creator around whom the objective order of the universe is fixed. I'm not positing a godless morality and then adding God in on the sly.
-
If a woman wants to work so be it, she is not committing something objectively and gravely evil (ergo a mortal sin) and its a matter of her own conscience if she wants to listen to the Church's advice or not. Women in the workforce is a morally neutral subject, and the Church's considerations are solely on the effects it would have on the family and on society from that. Ergo the Church has no problem with women in the workforce based on their own merits, but it does have a problem based on the degree to which women in the workforce would degrade the maternal and domestic sphere, with corresponding problems. There simply is no dogma in the Catholic Church which posits that "Thou shalt forbid women enter into the workforce".
Therefore, Its precisely because Catholics (in CI) are keeping to their beliefs about the dignity of human beings, that women are not being forced into the home or encumbered with obscene restrictions. Evil has no rights, but one does have a right to make prudential decisions contrary to the Church's advice when it does not violate its dogma on faith and morals. That said the Church obviously thinks its better if the faithful do take its advice
-
@Crezth: All my comment was referring to is the fact that whenever (in my experience here and elsewhere) people speak of libertarianism they conflate it with the libertarian movement in the United States, and so "libertarianism" the ideology is often muddied in the popular mind with other attributes that do not actually pertain directly to it. Thus considering this experience, as I said, confusion is not unexpected. If you want to maintain that that statement was some judgement on your own character/intelligence as you seem to have done (and which it was not) and was condescending that's your choice and right. Its natural that people make opinions on the nature of other people, even in the absence of actual human to human contact, so I'm not too concerned at what opinions people make of me over the internet since I know its inevitable. Just as I have formed opinions (even as I try not to) of various people based occasionally on nothing other than writing style.
Anyways as to your list of questions, moralism in all instances tolerates catholics at least in the negative sense I mentioned. Moralist states thus far have permitted heathen to be heathen and heretic to be heretic which should answer your second question, whether that includes liberties associated with positive toleration depends on the state (one could tolerate the heathens/heretics presence and forbid them rights to proselytise, build temples and the like). The answer to your third question regarding protestant and jewish minorities would presumably depend on the circumstance, a carte blanche formula for when Catholic moralism becomes unfeasible does not exist, and each society has its on unique characteristics and circumstances. In the event of a majority of said groups, minority rule (as in white-ruled south Africa, and Zimbabwe) is possible, although the idiosyncrasies of such a circumstance are likely to be "less than ideal" to say the least. As to your last question, a Catholic moralist society cannot exist without Catholics, since if there are no Catholics then the characteristic that defines the first word of the phrase "Catholic moralist", is not present. A moralist society without Catholics would just be "moralism" generic, or if associated with a specific other religion "Anglican Moralism" or Eastern Orthodox Moralism" or something like that, although I would think Jewish, Islamic and atheist moralism are impossible since the first two have "revealed laws" which preclude a natural law based system, and because moralism's "framework" necessarily is predicated on the conception of the divine which wouldn't work with the atheists.
-
EDIT: I would suggest that a "Moralist Manifesto" (just like a "Conservative Manifesto) cannot reasonably exist, since it is not a fundamentally utopian construct (it lacks a teleology), and varies depending on whichever context it finds itself in. Moralism in Brazil adapts Brazilian traditions, in Chile Chilean traditions, in Colombia Colombian traditions and so forth. There is no one governmental, political paradigm which moralism "is", since moralism can exist within a plurality of political systems.
TheLastJacobite
No Commies
@Luckymoose You keeping bragging about how all the Moralist governments are democratically elected. And every time you do, I mentally insert "so far" because I feel that Moralism contains the dangerous mix of religious conviction, an overall "holier than thou" mentality and widespread popularity in the countries where it exists that makes it the perfect party for an individual to (eventually) use to create an authoritarian state. I feel that the Moralsist, at the rate they are going, will continue to impose religiously motivated legislation within their countries that will start out sensible (ban prostitution, ban the use of narcotics, they've already banned lewd movies) but will gradually become more restrictive and intrusive (ban short skirts/ dresses that create immoral thoughts, ban certain sexual acts that are unnecessary for procreation and thus immoral, start banning home produced books and movies that foster immortal thoughts and actions) until eventually, in the name of maintaining a Moral society, even more restrictive laws will be implemented (mandatory Catholic church attendance, national curfew, state censorship of all media) and at about that time, someone will be elected to high office and decide that, because he was elected democratically and has the full support of the populace and must struggle to keep up the fight against immoral thoughts and actions, further elections are unnecessary and simply stay in power indefinitely. And, chances are, he'll have popular support and the people won't mind...at first. And before you start saying "That's impossible, it could never happen to the perfect utopia that is Brazil!", it's important to remember that what Napoleon, Hitler and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (along with countless other dictators) have in common is that they were all elected democratically early in their careers.
EDIT: Oliver Cromwell would also be a good example; elected to defend the rights and religious spirit of the English people, then stays on as dictator "for the good of the nation"
EDIT: Oliver Cromwell would also be a good example; elected to defend the rights and religious spirit of the English people, then stays on as dictator "for the good of the nation"
christos200
Never tell me the odds
Napoleon was not elected. He couped the government.
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
I think you would find very quickly that the largest religion in the world is Christianity, and if you add Islam to that the number it far outweighs the rest of the world's population. Catholicism is even more successful here, because if I have it right (based on the list EQ provided) even the Germans are majority Catholic. I think this is even more so in CI, where places like China were occupied directly by European nations for decades. Not to mention Russia having the largest population on the planet.
A manifesto probably exists, I just haven't written it. We've been having Moralist International conferences annually for a decade. Muslims were invited to the last few. It isn't my fault everyone thinks it is Catholic exclusive. The one thing that everyone should understand is the Moralism exists to counter absolutism and proletarism. It is protectionist. CI is not our world, it is very much more religious than that. There is no need for a revivalist movement because in nations that have Moralism, the majority is Catholic. Catholicism doesn't require protestant style revivalism like the USA experienced in the 20's and 30's. It is just a way of life. It is much easier to play on the way of life in politics if that way of life isn't going anywhere.
I'm not saying this won't happen, TLJ. It very well could. But what I see Brazil as is a parallel to OTL USA and Britain in one package. It has the religious bits and all, but the tradition of democracy tends to outweigh support for a removal of the vote. Now, what is more likely to happen is that the party maintains majority and just passes whatever the hell they want for decades. I just don't see a coup being popularly supported in Brazil like it could be in other South American nations, or even Europe. Tradition is really important to the people. In nations like Egypt, France, or Germany, you have a tradition of autocrats. The transition is easy. In nations like OTL America or Britain, that doesn't fly without some serious repercussions. My two cents.
EDIT: I think Jehoshua is wrong about Jewish/Islamic/Atheist Moralism being impossible. Among other things.
christos200
Never tell me the odds
Russia is orthodox.
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
Which is Christian, my small minded friend.
TheLastJacobite
No Commies
An astute observation, but we're not talking about Russia...
Wrong on both accounts. Napoleon was brought on as a junior ruling member of the military Directory. He gained enough popularity to consolidate power and remove the other two members of the junta. And he actually was elected. Prior to crowning himself Emperor, he held a national referendum asking of the French people wanted him to be Emperor and they overwhelmingly said yes. Granted, the only other option on the ballot was to dissolve the nation of France, but it still counts as an election.
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,284
I'm not saying jews/muslims/atheists can't be moralist, but if they were to adopt its philosophical calculus (so beyond the surface policies) they would be ditching part of their respective beliefs systems (halakha/shariah/belief in the non-existence of a deity) to do so. So in this sense I think an "atheist moralism" or a "jewish moralism" is not possible.
That said I'm sure that moralism could inspire jews/muslims/atheists to produce a synthesised ideology that incorporates moralist elements within the framework of their respective beliefs. Although as I said, I doubt that such new schools of thought would possess the core ontological essence of moralism as it exists now.
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
So, you're saying atheists and Jews lack morality? Morality isn't a Catholic only thing, Jehoshua. Halakha and Shariah could be applied to different forms of Moralism, and Atheists could use their own moral compass to guide the ideology. Morals existed before the Church and they will exist long after the Church.
I think it is key to express my beliefs here. I do not support Moralism as an ideology for the real world in any way. It is simply a creation for CI.
Grandkhan
Telvanni Master Wizard
Halakha is literally a code of laws to govern every day life. It is literally a system of rules to be followed to be in keeping with the Covenant between God and Abraham. If the core tenets of Moralism are to push society towards a more moral existence, then Halakha is 100% in keeping with that. While Halakha isn't meant to be forced on gentiles, various religious interpretations of the Torah dictate that Jews are meant to be way more strict about it in Zion, which (as various OTL movements would probably want) means making Halakha the guiding set of societal rules.
You argument is basically saying, Moralists have to be Catholic because to be a moralist you have to follow Catholic scripture and thus a moralist society must abandon Halakha and Sharia, which is a circular argument - Moralists must be catholic because only catholics can be moralist. The argument only works if the sole version of Moralism you accept as legitimate is the one the Pope pushes. Which is kind of bizarre given multiple people have made the point that Brazilian and Papal Moralism is different. Not accepting Brazilian Moralism as a legitimate form of moralism is like saying "Well, Maoists aren't real communists." which might be true from some kind of ideological angle but really isn't helpful for the argument.
Honestly, thinking about it Brazilian Moralism isn't really that out of touch with Jewish scripture (minus the democracy bit, anyway). Attempts at promoting social justice are enshrined into the Torah (see the bits about not harvesting every seven years, leaving the corners for the poor.) and the Levites had a very, very, very rudimentary form of payments to the poor (every three years a portion of the tithes they'd collect was given to the poor and orphans).
In all seriousness, if there is some kind of Zionist or Jewish nationalist movement in CI, it might well be a heavily religious one inspired by Brazilian Moralism.
You argument is basically saying, Moralists have to be Catholic because to be a moralist you have to follow Catholic scripture and thus a moralist society must abandon Halakha and Sharia, which is a circular argument - Moralists must be catholic because only catholics can be moralist. The argument only works if the sole version of Moralism you accept as legitimate is the one the Pope pushes. Which is kind of bizarre given multiple people have made the point that Brazilian and Papal Moralism is different. Not accepting Brazilian Moralism as a legitimate form of moralism is like saying "Well, Maoists aren't real communists." which might be true from some kind of ideological angle but really isn't helpful for the argument.
Honestly, thinking about it Brazilian Moralism isn't really that out of touch with Jewish scripture (minus the democracy bit, anyway). Attempts at promoting social justice are enshrined into the Torah (see the bits about not harvesting every seven years, leaving the corners for the poor.) and the Levites had a very, very, very rudimentary form of payments to the poor (every three years a portion of the tithes they'd collect was given to the poor and orphans).
In all seriousness, if there is some kind of Zionist or Jewish nationalist movement in CI, it might well be a heavily religious one inspired by Brazilian Moralism.
christos200
Never tell me the odds
Very wrong. He couped the government in 9 November 1799. He, along with Abbé Sieyès, couped the Government using military force.
Also, his election of Emperor was like the elections of North Korea or Communist China.
So, he took power using the military, not elections. Having popularity is not the same thing as winning elections. He was very loved by the majority of the people of France, but he never really held real elections.
I don't want to jump into the Moralist discussion, guys, but nobody ever elected Napoleon and Hitler to the office (although the rest of your argument may be valid, TheLastJacobite). Napoleon "elected himself" through a specifically rewritten Constitution of the Year VIII after the coup of 18 Brumaire. As for Hitler, he actually lost to Hindenburg in the democratic elections of 1932 (he got 35% of the votes, much less than Romney or McCain running against Obama), but since NSDAP held one third of all seats in the Parliament, Hitler blackmailed Hindenburg to give him a position of Chancellor, otherwise the Nazi would paralyze the Parliament by vetoing all laws. And after Hindenburg's death Hitler organized the Reichstag fire, blamed the communists, and took power to himself via the Enabling Act. A myth of Hitler's democratic election is one of the most popular misconceptions in modern history, even though it's so easy to look up.
UPD: Little correction. The Reichstag fire took place before Hindenburg's death, but after he resigned from the office because of health issues.
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
That would be hilarious.
Lord of Elves
Suede-Denim Secret Police
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,976
I think, like many people have pointed out, that moralism's issue is that it apparently wants to be some kind of social democracy-inside-Catholicism type deal, but that the insistence (or at least pretension towards) on religiously-ordained moral codes and their enshrining in law pushes it towards a more authoritarian, fascist-esque bent. As Crezth said, you guys either need to make some sort of conscious decision on all of your parts about what kind of ideology you plan to implement under the banner of moralism, or have someone iron out a manifesto because you can't have both under the same tent without some kind of conflict. One has to triumph over the other.
That said, I can see the historical appeal of having moralism in its current state as a young and undefined ideology with various voices and groups trying to force it into some kind of box. But like it or not, ideological boxes exist for a reason, and moralism isn't some kind of unparalleled and unique ideology that was magically dreamt up in an NES and has no OTL counterpart. You guys have to decide if you're some kind of Christian social democrats/collectivists or (shudder) Catholic Islamists.
It is of course entirely possible to follow down the path that proletarism has, in which various states implement differing visions of a Revolutionary society, and really only agree on the most basic principles of Mathusian writings. But then you have no central authority on what moralism is, and Lucky would have to step down from his position as self-ordained ideological godhead
That said, I can see the historical appeal of having moralism in its current state as a young and undefined ideology with various voices and groups trying to force it into some kind of box. But like it or not, ideological boxes exist for a reason, and moralism isn't some kind of unparalleled and unique ideology that was magically dreamt up in an NES and has no OTL counterpart. You guys have to decide if you're some kind of Christian social democrats/collectivists or (shudder) Catholic Islamists.
It is of course entirely possible to follow down the path that proletarism has, in which various states implement differing visions of a Revolutionary society, and really only agree on the most basic principles of Mathusian writings. But then you have no central authority on what moralism is, and Lucky would have to step down from his position as self-ordained ideological godhead
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
Considering I am shaping Brazilian Moralism, I think I have a right to be the ideological godhead. It isn't as simple to characterize on real-world ideologies, because none existed with the same success or exact thoughts as presented in Brazilian Moralism. It is a hodgepodge. Proletarism is just syndicalism with a militarist streak. It isn't even proper communist like everyone wants it to be.
Lord of Elves
Suede-Denim Secret Police
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,976
Well, you would think that as the first successful Revolutionary State, Scandinavia would have a greater degree of influence over the development of subsequent Revolutionary societies. The degree to which Scanditarianism represents a vaguely internationalist-militarist (we must have a strong army to defend the Revolution and spread it to other states) syndicalist movement is greatly overshadowed by the degree to which other Revolutionary States have gone in dramatically-different directions with the Mathusian principles. EQ told me a few days ago that Mathis would have disliked Scanditarianism greatly, and I suppose on the basis that Scanditarianism rejects the idea of a democratic Revolution he would, but in my opinion I have interpreted proletarism in a way that is true to the ideology and also avoids falling into the category of "lol proletarism is just EQcommunism".
You run the risk of ending up powerless in the affairs of your movement -- as apparently I am -- if you do not categorize and make official the principles and intentions of the moralist ideology.
You run the risk of ending up powerless in the affairs of your movement -- as apparently I am
-- if you do not categorize and make official the principles and intentions of the moralist ideology.
J.K. Stockholme
Right Opposition
@LoE: it's Mathis, Charles Mathis, not Malthus or Mathus.
Lord of Elves
Suede-Denim Secret Police
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,976
I'm aware of that. I'm intentionally referring to Mathis' writings as the "Mathusian writings" or "Mathusian principles" because I like the extent to which Mathis' name resembles Malthus'. Historical irony.
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
You run the risk of ending up powerless in the affairs of your movement -- as apparently I am
Scandinavia sits in Northern Europe, has no blue water projection capabilities, and has lost every conflict it participated in this century. Of course no one listens to you.
It doesn't bother Brazil in the slightest if other people change Moralism. It never planned to force Moralism on anyone. Cause, well, that isn't very Christian. 
