Thread by @JefferyIrvinPhD

This video exemplifies the complicated problem with taking a moral stand and then arguing from there that legal, political, or "extra-legal" action should be taken, especially when you believe "the other" does not share your morality.

https://twitter.com/SethCotlar/status/1345149447294992384

That Jesus and Satan are bandied about is evidence this is not really about freedom or serious questions about the accuracy of public health pronouncements. It's just about imposing your own moral universe on everyone else.

These people want to impose on everyone what the great writer Jim Harrison called "monomoralism". This is the idea that there is only one, narrowly defined moral worldview to which all should be forced to adhere. In the U.S. that monomoralism is largely Christianity.

This is a mistake the left (some also Christian) makes too, arguing that because something is morally good it should be the law. The reality is more complicated in a democratic and pluralistic society.

Laws should be based on the complicated interplay of humankind's universal sense of fair play and our reasoned assessment of how a society can deliver the greatest happiness and safety without trampling on the individual.

This requires hard work, lots of thought, and constant communication. However, it should never result in one moral view coming to dominate all others via law.

Clue: if you think "the answer is easy" and it's just morality, you're wrong.

If you start from the simple notion that "those people over there are evil" you are left with few options politically, especially when you discover you are in the minority. This situation cannot continue if you want to keep a democracy.

I have often pointed out that the @GOP, in the main, represents white racism, religious chauvinism, and plutocracy. I do not believe Republican voters are evil; they're just wrong-headed and ultimately politically self-immolating. At worst, GOP politicians are self-seeking.

Do I believe they'll change? Maybe not the old cusses, but most will. Many will just die of old age. Racism, state-imposed religious orthodoxy, and plutocracy may all be immoral but the chief argument against them is that they simply do not work in a pluralistic democracy.

So, if dialogue is to be had we must first identify and isolate the shit-stirrers, like these people. 🙄

We then accept all those we do talk to as our moral equals, even if they don't subscribe to our more narrow morality. From there we can build a more pluralistic democracy.