This is the man who, when he worked for the London Times as their EU correspondent, reportedly regularly filed his copy too late forit to be fact-checked.
Well, taking the testimony of people who do know Johnson personally, he's a complete shit. And that's coming from people who are (or were) related to him, not just his political enemies.
Unless anyone on here knows Mr Johnson personally, I don't think we should take it as read that he has no sense of right or wrong, moral compass, etc; the only thing we might say is that it would appear that his sense of right and wrong, moral compass, differs from that publicly espoused by the majority of people.
People’s actions and words show their moral compass.
There are innumerable things he’s said and done which show no moral compass, no sense of caring for others.
No need to live in the same house to observe this.
Time was, when it would have been regarded as outrageous, scandalous and shameful that a Prime Minister should live in open adultery in No 10, yet alone get his mistress up the duff.
That was a time before we came up with the idea that "slut-shaming" was a bad thing.
Time was, when it would have been regarded as outrageous, scandalous and shameful that a Prime Minister should live in open adultery in No 10, yet alone get his mistress up the duff.
That was a time before we came up with the idea that "slut-shaming" was a bad thing.
I really don't think trying to counter the misogynistic way female sexuality is portrayed has much to do with a man being able to be more open about his immoral ways.
Time was, when it would have been regarded as outrageous, scandalous and shameful that a Prime Minister should live in open adultery in No 10, yet alone get his mistress up the duff.
That was a time before we came up with the idea that "slut-shaming" was a bad thing.
Really? Slut-shaming was a double-standard about women enjoying sex as much as men enjoy sex. Not, in anyway shape or form, about fathering an indefinite number of children outside of a supposedly committed relationship. Simply put, you're reinforcing the bad thing (excusing a man's poor behaviour) under cover of virtue signalling. Well done.
A black, female socialist wouldn't stand a chance ... the slightest deviation from perfection will be pounced on with calls of how she's not leadership material.
Time was, when it would have been regarded as outrageous, scandalous and shameful that a Prime Minister should live in open adultery in No 10, yet alone get his mistress up the duff.
That was a time before we came up with the idea that "slut-shaming" was a bad thing.
Really? Slut-shaming was a double-standard about women enjoying sex as much as men enjoy sex. Not, in anyway shape or form, about fathering an indefinite number of children outside of a supposedly committed relationship. Simply put, you're reinforcing the bad thing (excusing a man's poor behaviour) under cover of virtue signalling. Well done.
Unless anyone on here knows Mr Johnson personally, I don't think we should take it as read that he has no sense of right or wrong, moral compass, etc;
I'm not entirely sure which would be worse; that he has no moral compass, or he has one and has ignored it to the extent he has.
The third option is that he has one and it's pointing in a different direction to yours.
If you believe he is acting morally you are welcome to outline the principles along which you believe he is doing so.
Self-interest and self-promotion, mostly. They may not be moral principles with which you agree, but that doesn't mean they aren't moral principles at all.
I think you need to look up the word "pre-marital". It means you're not actually married at the time of having sex, as opposed to not actually married to the person you're having sex with but are still married.
Unless anyone on here knows Mr Johnson personally, I don't think we should take it as read that he has no sense of right or wrong, moral compass, etc;
I'm not entirely sure which would be worse; that he has no moral compass, or he has one and has ignored it to the extent he has.
The third option is that he has one and it's pointing in a different direction to yours.
If you believe he is acting morally you are welcome to outline the principles along which you believe he is doing so.
Self-interest and self-promotion, mostly. They may not be moral principles with which you agree, but that doesn't mean they aren't moral principles at all.
No. Those are not 'moral principles' by any stretch of the definition. Character traits, yes. Moral principles, no.
Unless anyone on here knows Mr Johnson personally, I don't think we should take it as read that he has no sense of right or wrong, moral compass, etc;
I'm not entirely sure which would be worse; that he has no moral compass, or he has one and has ignored it to the extent he has.
The third option is that he has one and it's pointing in a different direction to yours.
If you believe he is acting morally you are welcome to outline the principles along which you believe he is doing so.
Self-interest and self-promotion, mostly. They may not be moral principles with which you agree, but that doesn't mean they aren't moral principles at all.
No. Those are not 'moral principles' by any stretch of the definition. Character traits, yes. Moral principles, no.
Oddly enough, that definition doesn't contain anything about what those principles actually are.
If resorting to a bald dictionary definition is literally the best you can do, then, well. Do better. That's not an argument. You're busy bleating on in Purg about free speech, try and justify Johnson's 'moral principles' where we can examine your thinking.
Time was, when it would have been regarded as outrageous, scandalous and shameful that a Prime Minister should live in open adultery in No 10, yet alone get his mistress up the duff.
That was a time before we came up with the idea that "slut-shaming" was a bad thing.
Really? Slut-shaming was a double-standard about women enjoying sex as much as men enjoy sex. Not, in anyway shape or form, about fathering an indefinite number of children outside of a supposedly committed relationship. Simply put, you're reinforcing the bad thing (excusing a man's poor behaviour) under cover of virtue signalling. Well done.
It's not that the Media should be slut-shaming Boris, it's that the very same people who regularly engage in slut-shaming are the ones telling everyone what a Great Guy and Wonderful leader he is.
Moreover, as others have alluded to, it's not simply about sexual promiscuity but integrity and fidelity. There are very good reasons that adultery is not a criminal matter in most countries these days. However, in normal times, a Prime Minister's personal integrity is the legitimate concern of voters. In the current crisis, his personal astounding dishonesty is arguably the biggest issue in our country.
So it is deeply sickening (not to mention disingenuous) when people use a prime example of his complete absence of trustworthiness to deflect from his complete unsuitability to his role and catastrophic failings.
If resorting to a bald dictionary definition is literally the best you can do, then, well. Do better.
You say "by any stretch of the definition" then criticise me for referring to the definition in my response?
That's not an argument. You're busy bleating on in Purg about free speech, try and justify Johnson's 'moral principles' where we can examine your thinking.
Sigh. I'm not trying to justify them, or get you to agree with them. I'm just pointing out that moral principles other than your own can - and do - exist. Yes, even if they're diametrically opposed to your own. Almost by definition, I wouldn't expect you to agree that such moral principles are good things. I'd just really like it if people could stop referring to those who have different moral principles to them as having no moral principles at all, as if their set of moral principles is literally the only one that can ever possibly exist or have existed. That's half of what that Purg thread has been about.
Ah, but how fortunate Our Glorious Leader is, to have such articulate apologists on board this Ship!
I still live in hope that His Magnificence will graciously condescend to step down, in order to spend more time with His families (acknowledgements to Doc Tor).
I'd just really like it if people could stop referring to those who have different moral principles to them as having no moral principles at all, as if their set of moral principles is literally the only one that can ever possibly exist or have existed.
Though even granting your argument that these are moral principles, I'm not entirely sure what difference it makes.
Or rather it only makes sense to make as an argument if you want to argue that 'having no moral compass' is somehow uniquely bad in a way in which acting out of pure 'self interest and self promotion' are not.
@Marvin the Martian please could you set out for me a set of moral principles, however alternative and however unlikely you feel it is that I'd be persuaded to adopt them personally, that would provide a rational basis upon which to structure a legitimate ethical framework for the life such as Mr Johnson appears to live. It would need to be consistent and to cover both his public and private life.
If you can do that, I'll reconsider whether to take more seriously what you're saying.
I think we established that MtM reckons that self interest and self promotion are moral principles. I'd question that, but they do explain Johnson's actions and choices quite well.
I'll accept that Mr Johnson demonstrates moral characteristics that could be labelled "self promotion" and "self interest". Whether or not one wants to call those principles is an irrelevant question. What interests me is, in what way do those make someone fit for a role in government? How can someone be a good servant (minister) and be only interested in oneself? Surely a position in government, and especially as PM, does rather require putting country before self?
I'll accept that Mr Johnson demonstrates moral characteristics that could be labelled "self promotion" and "self interest".
Besides, if we are going to litigate dictionary definitions, then I suspect that the definition of 'moral compass' uses 'morality' in a more colloquial sense, under which neither of the above would qualify.
How can someone be a good servant (minister) and be only interested in oneself? Surely a position in government, and especially as PM, does rather require putting country before self?
There are utilitarian arguments that would argue that someone with naked self-interest can nevertheless do "better" things than a someone well-intentioned but mistaken. Particularly if the universe aligns in a way that the naked self-interest of looking good enough to stay in power is more easily achieved by doing good things than by doing evil things and lying about them.
I make no representation that this applies in the case of Mr. Johnson. I have, as I suspect have you, met a number of well-intentioned idiots that have caused significant harm by their well-meaning interference, and we'd have all been better off if they'd have just stayed home in bed.
If resorting to a bald dictionary definition is literally the best you can do, then, well. Do better.
You say "by any stretch of the definition" then criticise me for referring to the definition in my response?
Yes. Yes I do. In the same way you completely misunderstand what 'pre-marital' means, you completely misunderstand what a 'moral principle' is. If I thought that Johnson had any principles which he consistently held, you might have a point, but his moral compass is simply a weathervane. He would do anything, say anything. He can be bought, sold, traded and used. He is an empty vessel, a vacuum, driven only by his temporary desires. He has no more moral principles than an amoeba. Stimulus-response is all he understands.
Sigh. I'm not trying to justify them, or get you to agree with them. I'm just pointing out that moral principles other than your own can - and do - exist. Yes, even if they're diametrically opposed to your own. Almost by definition, I wouldn't expect you to agree that such moral principles are good things. I'd just really like it if people could stop referring to those who have different moral principles to them as having no moral principles at all, as if their set of moral principles is literally the only one that can ever possibly exist or have existed. That's half of what that Purg thread has been about.
"And it harm none, do what you will" at least has "and it harm none". At the moment, we're discussing a set of moral principles akin to those in Aliens. And you don't see those things fucking each other over for a percentage.
Ethical egoism is a concept - but in general it would be difficult to distinguish someone who exclusively puts their own interests above all others from a psychopath.
Parents who can not put their child’s needs before their own, for example, would not be consider competent to parent a child. Arguably rape is an act of ethical egoism - so the use of the term ‘ethical’ in this context means, ‘a way someone makes choices’ rather than ‘this is virtuous’.
I'll accept that Mr Johnson demonstrates moral characteristics that could be labelled "self promotion" and "self interest". Whether or not one wants to call those principles is an irrelevant question. What interests me is, in what way do those make someone fit for a role in government? How can someone be a good servant (minister) and be only interested in oneself? Surely a position in government, and especially as PM, does rather require putting country before self?
I suppose the theory is a bit like the free market, a sort of emergent complexity of everyone’s self-interest interacting with each other’s somehow mystically produces the ‘right’ outcome.
"We have succeeded in avoiding the tragedy we saw in other parts of the world."
That makes sense if you treat deaths averted as a missed opportunity, I guess.
Yes, I heard that and blinked in disbelief. We are up there near the head of the table in numbers of deaths. And that’s just when you think of concrete numbers. When you make them into percentage of population I suspect we climb yet higher, a distinction no one wants. I am glad it is not worse, of course I am, but I am not sure there is room for congratulation on this front. Not by the government.
"We have succeeded in avoiding the tragedy we saw in other parts of the world."
That makes sense if you treat deaths averted as a missed opportunity, I guess.
Yes, I heard that and blinked in disbelief. We are up there near the head of the table in numbers of deaths. And that’s just when you think of concrete numbers. When you make them into percentage of population I suspect we climb yet higher, a distinction no one wants. I am glad it is not worse, of course I am, but I am not sure there is room for congratulation on this front. Not by the government.
How do I feel about a smiling moron who brazenly lies and casts himself as the national hero in our hour of need when in reality he has made - and is still making - things a helluva lot worse than they could have been.
"We have succeeded in avoiding the tragedy we saw in other parts of the world."
That makes sense if you treat deaths averted as a missed opportunity, I guess.
Yes, I heard that and blinked in disbelief. We are up there near the head of the table in numbers of deaths. And that’s just when you think of concrete numbers. When you make them into percentage of population I suspect we climb yet higher, a distinction no one wants. I am glad it is not worse, of course I am, but I am not sure there is room for congratulation on this front. Not by the government.
Interestingly (full disclosure Green Party member so not carrying a torch for the PM, to him maybe) according to the Guardian today if you look at deaths per million we actually move down the table vs raw totals rather than up (we swap places with Belgium). But then they also make points about median ages per country and population densities which essentially amount to "it's too early to say"
I offer this not as a defence, but rather to more accurately focus the invective!
Also there was an article in the Guardian last week saying that country comparisons aren't worth doing as the way the numbers are calculated are so different. Belgium looks bad because they've counted all care home deaths as COVID-19 deaths, so almost certainly overstating their death rate. Italy and Spain have not been counting care home and home deaths, so their figures were more comparable with ours until we tried counting in care home deaths. But it's arguable that our care home deaths are still understated, as are those in France. link to article entitled "Is comparing Covid-19 death rates across Europe helpful?"
The only statistics that matter in the end are the excess deaths. The Institute of Actuaries run something called the Continuous Mortality Investigation (does what it says on the tin). They calculate the excess mortality to be some 45,000.
Unless anyone on here knows Mr Johnson personally, I don't think we should take it as read that he has no sense of right or wrong, moral compass, etc; the only thing we might say is that it would appear that his sense of right and wrong, moral compass, differs from that publicly espoused by the majority of people.
People’s actions and words show their moral compass.
There are innumerable things he’s said and done which show no moral compass, no sense of caring for others.
No need to live in the same house to observe this.
@TheOrganist I think you must be a better, kinder, more charitable, person than I am. I'm afraid I'm more incline to agree with @Boogie's assessment.
I would recognise that ISIS members have a moral compass, even though I don't share it. Ditto the IRA, Khymer Rouge, Viet Cong, Shining Path, and other similarly dreadful people.
Johnson has no sign of an over-arching moral or ethical framework. Not even Randian Objectivism.
I think Boorish has principles, it is the morality that is a problem. Maybe calling them immoral principles is closer. His moral compass points to self.
He has also proved he incompetent.
[Self-interest and self-promotion, mostly. They may not be moral principles with which you agree, but that doesn't mean they aren't moral principles at all.
It seems to me that if a purported moral principle doesn't at some point conflict with self-interest it's not so much a principle as what you were going to do anyway.
(Besides, it seems to me that a principle should be something you profess. If you profess admiration for people acting contrary to your principle that's at best hypocrisy.)
If he really feels the need to get back to work so soon, then he can’t have much faith in the rest of his cabinet. There again, that’s one area where you can’t really fault his judgment.
If he really feels the need to get back to work so soon, then he can’t have much faith in the rest of his cabinet. There again, that’s one area where you can’t really fault his judgment.
Indeed it is. Of course, it does beg the question who appointed them? I'll give Johnson his due, I do think he's smarter than most of his cabinet.
The problem is that he didn't appoint them on the basis of ability. I think it's not a reach to suggest that loyalty to the Brexit cause was the major criteria. It probably also shows Johnson's insecurity that he didn't appoint more capable people.
All of which is just another example of him putting self before country. The very definition of being unfit for his office.
Boris says "We took the right measures at the right time". But if they had taken them earlier, fewer people would have died. The worst thing is that this will go unchallenged in most of the media. In fact, it will probably become a thing, that Boris did the right thing.
If he really feels the need to get back to work so soon, then he can’t have much faith in the rest of his cabinet. There again, that’s one area where you can’t really fault his judgment.
Not necessarily. One area where the UK genuinely leads the world is in "presenteeism". We applaud women who are back in the office, stomach flat as a board, within weeks of giving birth. We express approval when people boast of being back at the desk after major illness. There is an overwhelming fear, at every level, that absence for any reason will be seen as weakness by colleagues and incompetence/ skiving by "management".
As a society we demand of our leaders that they dispense with normal reactions to illness, bereavement or family crisis and be very publicly "in harness". Remember those headlines when our monarch tried to put family first when her grandsons lost their mother? Never mind that she was endeavouring to comfort two traumatised children, the press and members of the public were savage in their condemnation of her absence from London. No British leader will ever feel comfortable behaving "normally" or as common sense should dictate after that.
Comments
People’s actions and words show their moral compass.
There are innumerable things he’s said and done which show no moral compass, no sense of caring for others.
No need to live in the same house to observe this.
I'm not entirely sure which would be worse; that he has no moral compass, or he has one and has ignored it to the extent he has.
The third option is that he has one and it's pointing in a different direction to yours.
That was a time before we came up with the idea that "slut-shaming" was a bad thing.
I really don't think trying to counter the misogynistic way female sexuality is portrayed has much to do with a man being able to be more open about his immoral ways.
Really? Slut-shaming was a double-standard about women enjoying sex as much as men enjoy sex. Not, in anyway shape or form, about fathering an indefinite number of children outside of a supposedly committed relationship. Simply put, you're reinforcing the bad thing (excusing a man's poor behaviour) under cover of virtue signalling. Well done.
Good point. I suspect that the tabloids would be hounding her to kingdom come, and getting saucy snaps for their lubricious front pages.
Similarly if he were a black man, I suspect.
A black, female socialist wouldn't stand a chance ... the slightest deviation from perfection will be pounced on with calls of how she's not leadership material.
Isn't that how you want the tabloids to be treating Johnson?
If you believe he is acting morally you are welcome to outline the principles along which you believe he is doing so.
I thought it was to publicly humiliate or shame (a woman) for engaging in promiscuous or premarital sex. You know, like Johnson does. If women aren't to be publicly shamed or humiliated for such acts (a position with which I agree) then surely men shouldn't be either?
Self-interest and self-promotion, mostly. They may not be moral principles with which you agree, but that doesn't mean they aren't moral principles at all.
No. Those are not 'moral principles' by any stretch of the definition. Character traits, yes. Moral principles, no.
Noun
1. moral principle - the principles of right and wrong that are accepted by an individual or a social group; "the Puritan ethic"; "a person with old-fashioned values"
Synonyms: ethic, value orientation, value-system
2. moral principle - the principle that conduct should be moral
Oddly enough, that definition doesn't contain anything about what those principles actually are.
That just doesn't make sense. Why would I want the tabloids to do anything?
If resorting to a bald dictionary definition is literally the best you can do, then, well. Do better. That's not an argument. You're busy bleating on in Purg about free speech, try and justify Johnson's 'moral principles' where we can examine your thinking.
You're missing the point here.
It's not that the Media should be slut-shaming Boris, it's that the very same people who regularly engage in slut-shaming are the ones telling everyone what a Great Guy and Wonderful leader he is.
Moreover, as others have alluded to, it's not simply about sexual promiscuity but integrity and fidelity. There are very good reasons that adultery is not a criminal matter in most countries these days. However, in normal times, a Prime Minister's personal integrity is the legitimate concern of voters. In the current crisis, his personal astounding dishonesty is arguably the biggest issue in our country.
So it is deeply sickening (not to mention disingenuous) when people use a prime example of his complete absence of trustworthiness to deflect from his complete unsuitability to his role and catastrophic failings.
AFZ
You say "by any stretch of the definition" then criticise me for referring to the definition in my response?
Sigh. I'm not trying to justify them, or get you to agree with them. I'm just pointing out that moral principles other than your own can - and do - exist. Yes, even if they're diametrically opposed to your own. Almost by definition, I wouldn't expect you to agree that such moral principles are good things. I'd just really like it if people could stop referring to those who have different moral principles to them as having no moral principles at all, as if their set of moral principles is literally the only one that can ever possibly exist or have existed. That's half of what that Purg thread has been about.
I still live in hope that His Magnificence will graciously condescend to step down, in order to spend more time with His families (acknowledgements to Doc Tor).
Though even granting your argument that these are moral principles, I'm not entirely sure what difference it makes.
Or rather it only makes sense to make as an argument if you want to argue that 'having no moral compass' is somehow uniquely bad in a way in which acting out of pure 'self interest and self promotion' are not.
Hell, No. There isn't enough brain bleach in the world for me to be able to cope with seeing saucy snaps of Johnson.
If you can do that, I'll reconsider whether to take more seriously what you're saying.
Besides, if we are going to litigate dictionary definitions, then I suspect that the definition of 'moral compass' uses 'morality' in a more colloquial sense, under which neither of the above would qualify.
There are utilitarian arguments that would argue that someone with naked self-interest can nevertheless do "better" things than a someone well-intentioned but mistaken. Particularly if the universe aligns in a way that the naked self-interest of looking good enough to stay in power is more easily achieved by doing good things than by doing evil things and lying about them.
I make no representation that this applies in the case of Mr. Johnson. I have, as I suspect have you, met a number of well-intentioned idiots that have caused significant harm by their well-meaning interference, and we'd have all been better off if they'd have just stayed home in bed.
"And it harm none, do what you will" at least has "and it harm none". At the moment, we're discussing a set of moral principles akin to those in Aliens. And you don't see those things fucking each other over for a percentage.
Parents who can not put their child’s needs before their own, for example, would not be consider competent to parent a child. Arguably rape is an act of ethical egoism - so the use of the term ‘ethical’ in this context means, ‘a way someone makes choices’ rather than ‘this is virtuous’.
That makes sense if you treat deaths averted as a missed opportunity, I guess.
I suppose the theory is a bit like the free market, a sort of emergent complexity of everyone’s self-interest interacting with each other’s somehow mystically produces the ‘right’ outcome.
I have no confidence that this works.
Yes, I heard that and blinked in disbelief. We are up there near the head of the table in numbers of deaths. And that’s just when you think of concrete numbers. When you make them into percentage of population I suspect we climb yet higher, a distinction no one wants. I am glad it is not worse, of course I am, but I am not sure there is room for congratulation on this front. Not by the government.
Indeed. Fuck that. As I was saying a couple of days ago:
AFZ
Interestingly (full disclosure Green Party member so not carrying a torch for the PM, to him maybe) according to the Guardian today if you look at deaths per million we actually move down the table vs raw totals rather than up (we swap places with Belgium). But then they also make points about median ages per country and population densities which essentially amount to "it's too early to say"
I offer this not as a defence, but rather to more accurately focus the invective!
https://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/30/coronavirus-deaths-how-does-britain-compare-with-other-countries
Johnson has no sign of an over-arching moral or ethical framework. Not even Randian Objectivism.
He has also proved he incompetent.
(Besides, it seems to me that a principle should be something you profess. If you profess admiration for people acting contrary to your principle that's at best hypocrisy.)
If he really feels the need to get back to work so soon, then he can’t have much faith in the rest of his cabinet. There again, that’s one area where you can’t really fault his judgment.
Indeed it is. Of course, it does beg the question who appointed them? I'll give Johnson his due, I do think he's smarter than most of his cabinet.
The problem is that he didn't appoint them on the basis of ability. I think it's not a reach to suggest that loyalty to the Brexit cause was the major criteria. It probably also shows Johnson's insecurity that he didn't appoint more capable people.
All of which is just another example of him putting self before country. The very definition of being unfit for his office.
AFZ
Not necessarily. One area where the UK genuinely leads the world is in "presenteeism". We applaud women who are back in the office, stomach flat as a board, within weeks of giving birth. We express approval when people boast of being back at the desk after major illness. There is an overwhelming fear, at every level, that absence for any reason will be seen as weakness by colleagues and incompetence/ skiving by "management".
As a society we demand of our leaders that they dispense with normal reactions to illness, bereavement or family crisis and be very publicly "in harness". Remember those headlines when our monarch tried to put family first when her grandsons lost their mother? Never mind that she was endeavouring to comfort two traumatised children, the press and members of the public were savage in their condemnation of her absence from London. No British leader will ever feel comfortable behaving "normally" or as common sense should dictate after that.