Theories of moral sentiment. Adam Smith addresses ideas about self-control with regard to passions. While this assessment would tend to agree with the ideas expressed in this essay from 2010, for the privacy of relationships, and the government not be involved (due to privacy issues), I have questions. In other words, self-control and passion really involves an assessment of an individual’s ideas for promiscuity or no promiscuity. It brings forth an assessment of privacy regarding monogamous sexual relationships and three or more individuals involved in sexual relationships. The issue here is not about heterosexual or homosexual, as evangelical puritans, afraid that someone somewhere is having a good time. Such people feel as if they have a divine right to judge and use people like Trump, DeSantis, Rick Scott, and others to invoke their autocracy forcing people to live in their way.
Therefore, am I correct to say that Smith made a statement of “morality” which was in a broader context than addressing homosexual and heterosexual ideas?
After all, traditionalist puritanical autocrats put forth the ideas of Sodom and Gomorrah. S&G (Genesis 19), if one reads it carefully, is really about the broader context which is addressed by Smith. Passions described in the events of S&G are about hatred of immigrants (xenophobia?) and using rape to demonstrate the hatred of immigrants, whether male or female. Ironically, a parallel account of this activity is found at Judges 19 when a woman gets killed due to rape.
In reading Smith’s Theories of Moral Sentiment, one can come to the conclusions I address. Your 2010 article seems to want to address the idea of privacy. Is this meant as a means of “being nice” to the plutocratic autocratic puritans in America today?
In a sense, Trump, Putin, DeSantis, Rick Scott, and others are doing nothing to abide by what this article says, as they try to push to put government BACK into the privacy of homosexuals, push homosexuals back into segregated closets, and help to re-introduce strong blackmailing of gay folks.
These people use religion to push an old idea which is the basis for the letters of the “f” word: “fornication under consent of King (or queen).” In this case, we can say, “fornication under consent of aristocratic business leaders” and then we can easily say the lack of privacy is NOT in the hands of a libertarian anarchist type of government, as Citizens United pushes those with money to vote and control the government and predominate over the will of the people and democracy. They use the ways of anti-homosexual companies like Chick-Fil-A (and now I have heard of Walgreens, Disney, and others) which is putting money forth to political candidates. It is ending up being those with a love of money who are working to control society and push for “fornication under consent of aristocratic business leaders” like Chick-Fil-A and others.
In other words. Trump and Putin and others can do whatever they wish to do regarding fornication, groping of women, etc., but they wish to dispose of, through old bullying tactics, those who are gay.
In a sense, this says let us just skip past the fact that Trump does not live up to Adam Smith’s ideas on moral sentiment, whether sexual or in terms of economics. Thus, to handle this, simply be “kind and nice” in trying to speak about “no government intervention in private matters?” After more than a decade since this essay was written, what has been accomplished? What is the intent here and how do you intend to move forward for the sake of moral sentiment towards ALL human beings.
Silly me for concluding that theologian, Adam Smith, with his “moral sentiments,” did NOT endorse the love of money. Even Joe Scarborough and others have written about this, with regard to economics and commerce.
Thus, when I view a documentary about a wealthy man who pulled himself up by the bootstraps from nothing, George F. Johnson, identifies a need to have a “sense of morality,” I don’t take his words as an endorsement of morality with regard to sexual identity or racist ideas. It just happens that society at that time was immersed in Jim Crow and the idea of bullying gay folks. If I take Mr. Johnson’s remarks as being related to ideas to endorse human equality due to “morality,” am I correct with regard to Mr. Johnson? Is there someone who just wishes to embrace the puritanical ways who finds it more interesting to shoot holes in what I say because “it’s just an interpretation,” rather than doing what another Binghamton, NY, person said, “THINK.” That means to consider and “THINK.” When puritanical autocratic people, living in judgment like a god, shoot holes in what I say, they never work to consider what I say in the context of humanity, but these idiots uphold their traditionalism with examples of past hatred. It is good to seek traditions at time, especially when considering humanity, human justice, human equality, and human rights. It is despicable to seek traditionalism.
The examples of both Johnson and Watson were to attempt to endorse ideas of humanity among their employees and do so by making money on this basis, not on the basis of a predominance of love of money, which is evil and endorsed by Russian immigrant, Ayn Rand, and others who taught the generation under the age of those of the World War II generation.
What does the Adam Smith Institute think about what I say?