(July 9, 2010 at 12:07 am)padraic Wrote: Bollocks. At the very least it was cynical pragmatism. Governments today do not make policy based on moral principe. This was even more the case C19th laissez faire Britain. (or rany other country)
I don't know enough about the history of abolitionism to argue with you about it, though the Wikipedia article, as far as I can see, doesn't suggest that it was entirely motivated by profit. However, are you seriously saying that no politician believes in his or her party's policies? That the Labour party in Britain doesn't have at least some commitment to socialist principles? Obama too must surely have known that his healthcare reforms would provoke a great deal of controversy and criticism, yet he tried to implement them anyway, which suggests that he had at least some moral conviction that it was right, and wasn't motivated entirely by his reputation. It seems like a pretty bold and unfounded statement to say that there are no morals in politics. No doubt there is a great deal of self-interest, but to say 'Governments today do not make policy based on moral principle' is somewhat simplistic.
'We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.' H.L. Mencken
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
