Humor and respect

Most humor is based on showing some disrespect to someone or something. Unless we want to make all humor only about things or animals and never about people, we should accept that people can be disrespected for a joke; in fact, for innovation, surprise and greater enjoyment, the line into offensiveness probably has to be pushed farther and farther so that people don't get stalely familiar and uninterested. However, not all instances of disrespect are instances of hate. Of course, the emotional reality depends in large part on a person's perspective. It's therefore important to voice your perspective and not let one side pretends it's the only one.

Methods of moral decision-making

In the film El Crimen del Padre Amaro a woman comically describes one of her thought-action combinations to a priest and asks him, "¿Es pecado?"
Moral dilemmas occur in our lives but I think it's a mistake to just ask someone and accept his judgment. Each person's views are shaped by his or experiences and there's no reason to assume someone is morally superior to you. I'd even say accepting ethics from on down is in a sense an abdication of the better method.
The better method is to investigate the moral dimensions of the matter on your own, considering a variety of perspectives. You shouldn't think you're morally superior to others but rather try to view the situation apart from yourself. However, this is just one idea; self-interest is no crime and self-regard is actually important. In the end, after examining different perspectives, you can be secure that you know what's best for you as you have the most experience in being you.
Acceptance of uncertainty is fine, if in a certain issue different perspectives seem equally persuasive neutrality is fine, although you shouldn't give up examining perspectives as yours may change before you know it.
In some minor/personal matters, following instinct is a fine idea, but even what those matters are are influenced by individual perspective.

Interpretations and reactions to fiction

I recently watched the film Risky Business. Some critics felt that it glorified the main character's actions, which they considered unethical, while others responded that it was a satirical criticism of those values.
This is a good example of how preexisting values effect interpretation of events. I don't know what the intention was, but my interpretation was that the main character Joel underwent a lot of positive growth. Regardless of how you feel about things, honesty about yourself and about how you see the world is a good thing. Without it you're doomed to hypocrisy and self-conflict and inner self-degradation.
Some say he exploited his workers and yet I'd say he was just facilitating interaction between customers and workers; there is an ambiguous line that the workers worked until they were exhausted, but I interpreted, I think accurately, that this was willing (over)exertion. A lot of money was made in an unconventional fashion; everyone, true to the ideal of capitalism, participated in the venture because they felt it was in their best interests to do so.

I also read The Princess Diaries Volume IV. While better than the third book, this book also felt like it was going slowly and repetitively to take up space; protagonist Mia's low self-esteem was trying. Mia also seemed to display a serious problem in distinguishing fact from fiction. She acknowledges that she used to like clowns but after reading a horror novel had an aversion to them, somewhat acknowledging that this fear was unreasonable but clinging to it. She also seriously believes that certain clothes bring good luck.
In an observation that's clearly an opinion, she thinks that getting into an accident is better than boredom. Of course, the grass is always greener on the other side ...
After reading Jane Eyre, she adopts some of the title character's styles despite initially considering them to be mean, because of the resolution.
And yet the resolution could well have been very different. I would argue that chance is a large part of life, and authors have a responsibility to emphasize how easily other results could occur.

I also remember a previous book where Mia dismisses The Scarlet Letter because she dislikes the characters, considers them and their society to be boring. I personally considered the characters and their reactions to their society in the novel to be very interesting; not all the characters were admirable, but they were understandable. To dismiss a work for Mia's reasons is, I think, wrongheaded; authors don't necessarily approve of their characters or settings, in fact some are very critical. It is possible, although difficult, to create interest, commentary and reader reaction from boredom and oppression. Mia thought the characters were so boring the novel should have ended before it did, but Puritan rule did last for a long time. The proper response to disliking a setting is to analyze why there is this dislike and how things could be different-in the fictional world and in the all-too-flawed (but improvable) real world.

Three good values of economic conservativism

1. Government should not do too much, and what it does do, it should do efficiently.
2. People should not be dependent on the government.
3. People earn or are given wealth; the government doesn't have the right to take and redistribute it.

Profit

Looking at Wikipedia over the past few days, I was impressed at how Milton Hershey and Ted Turner were able to make money through creating types of products and were willing to give a good deal back through charity, the latter especially also enjoying his wealth and status. I do think that charity is optional but commendable.

Then on the other hand there's Ralph Reed; after years of working to enact conservative Christian principles into law, he privately wrote to Jack Abramoff in 1998 "now that I’m done with the electoral politics, I need to start humping in corporate accounts!"

He also liked and wanted money; a fine, fairly standard trait, but one that in this context, contrasted with how much he felt others should be constrained by Christian doctrines (the love of money is condemned in Christianity), illuminates sad hypocrisy.

Sacrifice and morality depend on having a choice so the dread and prohibition of vice relies on a fundamentally disrespectful view of mankind, that we must be safeguarded and controlled.

When people are motivated to compete in a market driven by makers, sellers and consumers, the most people can win in the most just manner.

On the other hand, when people make demands for sacrifices, they typically only mean of others, as is seen by the support for the idea of the government reducing health care prices. These supporters through their actions demand that health care providers make less for the betterment of the group while they themselves likely, understandably, focus mostly on improving their own conditions even though they could do less to improve the conditions of the lesser-off and the whole group. Making demands for others that you won't meet yourself is immoral, especially when the demand is to be put into binding law, that's an even higher form of hypocrisy than just a discrepancy between pronouncements and personal life.

Ideas of truth

When a relativist says that there is no absolute truth, a common, attempting-to-be-humorous refrain from non-relativists is that by implication, the relativist's claim isn't true.

Well congratulations to those who make that reply. But the reply just shows how different the perspectives are.

A true relativist would openly admit that relativism isn't eternally or unquestionably true. He or she would admit that the views he or she has is just his or her understanding of the world based on observations.

I would say that the idea of absolute truth doesn't make sense based on my observation that humans create all understandings.