Originally posted by Soror Magna:
And I had to bring up Magdalen laundries ...
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:To which Eutychus replied
doctrines of
- internationalism (migrants good, Brexit bad)
- gender-bending (anything goes so long as you don't speak in favour of traditional gender roles)
- political correctness (can't believe anyone voted for Trump; free speech as long as you don't say what we don't like)
- anti-capitalism (profit is bad, small business has no rights and unlimited liability)
- anti-racism (racism is a huge sin that the whole white race should atone for)
and the general attitude that alternatives to this worldview are long-disproven crap that can be dismissed, part of the Bad Old Days that we're trying to get away from.
quote:I think he's right that there is a common thread, which is a sympathy with those classes of people deemed to be "under-privileged".
I'm increasingly convinced that traditional views, especially on moral issues, are bound up with particular concepts of power, and I'd say that covers just about everything on Russ' list above.
quote:Caricature - yes, certainly. A broad sketch that exaggerates the features to which one wishes to draw attention...
Originally posted by anteater:
Russ: I think your definition is a caricature..
4) Total bollocks. Who takes that view who is in your sights?
quote:The one where Noah rode a dinosaur to the Ark.
Originally posted by anteater:
Which age to you want to go back to?
quote:There's a quote from Chesterton that I think never gets old:
Originally posted by Russ:
I think he's right that there is a common thread, which is a sympathy with those classes of people deemed to be "under-privileged".
quote:From his introduction to Oliver Twist.
This is where Dickens's social revolt is of more value than mere politics and avoids the vulgarity of the novel with a purpose. His revolt is not a revolt of the commercialist against the feudalist, of the Nonconformist against the Churchman, of the Free-trader against the Protectionist, of the Liberal against the Tory. If he were among us now his revolt would not be the revolt of the Socialist against the Individualist, or of the Anarchist against the Socialist. His revolt was simply and solely the eternal revolt; it was the revolt of the weak against the strong. He did not dislike this or that argument for oppression; he disliked oppression. He disliked a certain look on the face of a man when he looks down on another man. And that look on the face is, indeed, the only thing in the world that we have really to fight between here and the fires of Hell.
... When he found that footmen and rustics were too much afraid of Sir Leicester Dedlock, he attacked Sir Leicester Dedlock; he did not care whether Sir Leicester Dedlock said he was attacking England or whether Mr. Rouncewell, the Ironmaster, said he was attacking an effete oligarchy. In that case he pleased Mr. Rouncewell, the Ironmaster, and displeased Sir Leicester Dedlock, the Aristocrat. But when he found that Mr. Rouncewell's workmen were much too frightened of Mr. Rouncewell, then he displeased Mr. Rouncewell in turn; he displeased Mr. Rouncewell very much by calling him Mr. Bounderby.
quote:I'll note that the classical economic justification for the competitive free market is that it gets rid of excessive profit. Any profit is a sign that there is room to cut prices for consumers. If prices are not being cut then there is market failure.
anti-capitalism (profit is bad, small business has no rights and unlimited liability)
quote:Not a criticism of anyone. It's trying to identify a cluster of attitudes that make up this "dominant ethos".
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is it a criticism of people on this forum, or people in the Labour party, or what?
quote:I admire Chesterton for his command of language, his chivalry, and his principled even-handedness. But not for the rigour of his analysis.
Dafyd quoted Chesterton:
His revolt was simply and solely the eternal revolt; it was the revolt of the weak against the strong. He did not dislike this or that argument for oppression; he disliked oppression. He disliked a certain look on the face of a man when he looks down on another man. And that look on the face is, indeed, the only thing in the world that we have really to fight between here and the fires of Hell.
quote:Help me understand how one can have a massive imbalance of power without there being misuse. I'm not seeing it.
Originally posted by Russ:
And whilst the strong will always be tempted to oppress the weak, we can't infer oppression from mere difference in strength. It is the misuse of strength that should be opposed, not its existence.
quote:You don't have a younger brother who's less capable than you are, whom you look out for ?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Help me understand how one can have a massive imbalance of power without there being misuse.
quote:Nope.
Originally posted by Russ:
You don't have a younger brother who's less capable than you are, whom you look out for ?
quote:If you believe in original sin you can infer oppression from difference in strength unless there's reason not to.
Originally posted by Russ:
And whilst the strong will always be tempted to oppress the weak, we can't infer oppression from mere difference in strength. It is the misuse of strength that should be opposed, not its existence.
quote:
His revolt was simply and solely the eternal revolt; it was the revolt of the weak against the strong. He did not dislike this or that argument for oppression; he disliked oppression. He disliked a certain look on the face of a man when he looks down on another man. And that look on the face is, indeed, the only thing in the world that we have really to fight between here and the fires of Hell.
quote:Original sin could conceivably imply that any sin you can think of will be committed by someone. Don't think it requires that every sin will be committed by everyone who has the opportunity. That seems to me too pessimistic a view.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If you believe in original sin you can infer oppression from difference in strength unless there's reason not to.
quote:Indeed. Are you saying that this belief in total depravity is what underpins that mindset ? If so, guess it's for me to thank you for the suggestion and wait and see if others agree with you.
I thought you were trying to draw a portrait of the progressive mindset, rather than trying to argue against it.
quote:Not sure I follow you. How does some people being stronger, cleverer, more charismatic than others depend on people misusing those advantages to oppress others ?
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused.
quote:Any of us might and most of us do from time to time.
Originally posted by hatless:
The first interesting question is why those unequal relations develop and persist. Surely it is more than bad people doing bad things, or something disturbing you can see in some people's faces? In most cases that come to mind it seems to be the desperate and violent maintenance of inequality because of fear of change. The strong hang on to the status quo, denying the just claims of the weak, out of terror at the consequences if power were rebalanced. It is not wickedness that makes them oppress, but a fearful hopelessness. Any of us might behave in the same way.
quote:This looks like a textbook example of victim blaming. It is not the responsibility of the weak to refuse to see the strong as their enemies. For the oppressed to do that unconditionally prior to repentance by the oppressor would be cheap grace. This kind of thinking did nothing to stop child abuse in the church or in secular institutions. It is a misreading of King to think it advanced the Civil Rights Movement. And so on.
Which raises the second interesting question. What can be done? If it is not a fault in the oppressor, but the influence of history and fear, then it's possible to free both the weak and the strong. Indeed, neither can be freed without the other. If the weak will refuse to see the strong as their enemies, then the strong can perhaps learn to embrace the weak as their liberators, and oppression can be dismantled.
quote:We talk of oppression when there are entrenched systemic features and when groups of people are involved. An individual might bully or be abusive or rob people, but racism, sexism, colonialism and so on operate at another level. Apartheid South Africa didn't come about through the chance concentration there of a lot of unscrupulous racists, it was the product of a long and complex history. By the time of fully fledged apartheid both black and white were inheritors of the situation and their place within it. We have inherited sexism, racism and prejudices of many sorts. It's really not just about bad people who treat each other unjustly and look at each other in a funny way. We grow up in a world that distorts our relationships and who we are.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Any of us might and most of us do from time to time.
Originally posted by hatless:
The first interesting question is why those unequal relations develop and persist. Surely it is more than bad people doing bad things, or something disturbing you can see in some people's faces? In most cases that come to mind it seems to be the desperate and violent maintenance of inequality because of fear of change. The strong hang on to the status quo, denying the just claims of the weak, out of terror at the consequences if power were rebalanced. It is not wickedness that makes them oppress, but a fearful hopelessness. Any of us might behave in the same way.
The naive might think that the 1% hang on to 20% of the country's wealth because it's nice to have money and status. The naive might think that men (not all men) hang on to male privilege because it's nice to have power and status and have someone do the housework after you. But no: it's all because they're afraid of what would happen if they let go. Glad to have that sorted out. One does wonder how oppression got started if it's all down to fear of the consequences of stopping.
You presume that the fear is so to speak sincere. It isn't. The fears arise in order to justify the oppression. Fears of what the gays or the poor or women or immigrants will do if given rights are created to justify the ongoing advantages to the privileged. The fearful hopelessness is itself culpable.
quote:This looks like a textbook example of victim blaming. It is not the responsibility of the weak to refuse to see the strong as their enemies. For the oppressed to do that unconditionally prior to repentance by the oppressor would be cheap grace. This kind of thinking did nothing to stop child abuse in the church or in secular institutions. It is a misreading of King to think it advanced the Civil Rights Movement. And so on.
Which raises the second interesting question. What can be done? If it is not a fault in the oppressor, but the influence of history and fear, then it's possible to free both the weak and the strong. Indeed, neither can be freed without the other. If the weak will refuse to see the strong as their enemies, then the strong can perhaps learn to embrace the weak as their liberators, and oppression can be dismantled.
In so far as there is anything in what you say, it is a half-truth, and not the primary half of the truth at that.
quote:When you say "undermine traditional gender roles" if what you are saying is people don't have the right to non-traditional roles, then yes, as a gay man I'm happy to subvert that oppression. If you're saying that those who prefer traditional gender roles for themselves but are happy to allow others non traditional roles aren't being allowed traditional gender roles, then I oppose that kind of undermining. I guess I can just create a group which believes in the lies and half truth propaganda of Fox News and their kind.
Originally posted by Russ:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Are you saying that those who pick traditional roles are disparaged or that you feel they should be privileged above others because of your religious beliefs?[quote]
Seems like you're not getting the point. I'm not putting forward a position, not looking to argue the merits of traditional gender roles.
I'm suggesting that one of the characteristics - of what for want of a better name I'm calling the social progressive mindset, please do suggest a better name - is a tendency to be in favour of anything that inverts or subverts or tends to undermine traditional gender roles.
Seems like you're saying to me is that you broadly agree with the positions that I'm listing - that you see capitalism and traditional gender roles as at least somewhat problematic, and racism as a big issue that white people collectively have to deal with.
Are you happy to be considered a member of this group that I'm identifying ?
quote:I'll settle for often enough that it becomes a problem you can't just blame on a few bad apples. As has been observed, original sin is one of the few aspects of Christianity that can easily be empirically confirmed.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Original sin could conceivably imply that any sin you can think of will be committed by someone. Don't think it requires that every sin will be committed by everyone who has the opportunity. That seems to me too pessimistic a view.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If you believe in original sin you can infer oppression from difference in strength unless there's reason not to.
quote:A belief in original sin is one possible motivation. C.S.Lewis believed in democracy because he thought humans were made in the image of God and therefore capable of ruling themselves, and he thought they were subject to original sin and therefore no one human being could be trusted to rule others. That doesn't mean all democrats would support democracy for that reason, but C.S.Lewis was still a democrat.
quote:Indeed. Are you saying that this belief in total depravity is what underpins that mindset ? If so, guess it's for me to thank you for the suggestion and wait and see if others agree with you.
I thought you were trying to draw a portrait of the progressive mindset, rather than trying to argue against it.
quote:I'm talking about power, to which wealth is one possible route.
quote:Not sure I follow you. How does some people being stronger, cleverer, more charismatic than others depend on people misusing those advantages to oppress others ?
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused.
Or are you only talking about wealth, and asserting that the only way for anyone to obtain or retain wealth is to oppress ?
quote:'Distorts our relationships and who we are' is a euphemism for 'makes us into bad people who treat each other unjustly'.
Originally posted by hatless:
We have inherited sexism, racism and prejudices of many sorts. It's really not just about bad people who treat each other unjustly and look at each other in a funny way. We grow up in a world that distorts our relationships and who we are.
quote:I think you need to reread Walter Wink on redemptive violence.
The fear of immigrants that right wingers feel, the white South Africans' fear of democracy and possible revenge, the fear the chauvinist feels if he were to let go of privilege and so much of his identity with it, I think these fears are real. They do not excuse injustice, of course, and perhaps there are mechanisms that exaggerate such fear, but I think it is 'sincere.'
quote:Which implies that it wasn't the direct result of trying to control a population.
I think the violence of the British in India, for example, was largely the result of the terror of being a very small number of people trying to control an immense population.
quote:Mandela notoriously never renounced the armed struggle.
We celebrate Gandhi, King, Mandela and Tutu rightly. They are not role models for every situation, but when it can be found, theirs is a better way.
quote:But the words "makes us" that you use still implies something going on beyond simply people choosing to be 'bad people who treat each other unjustly'. It suggests systems, powers etc. that cause people to act in these ways (otherwise they wouldn't be "made into bad people", they would just be bad people). Which, I think, was part of hatless' point. To suggest it's just about bad behaviour of people is to overlook these systems and powers that end up enslaving the oppressed and the oppressors (by bringing them to behave in ways that oppress and destroy).
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:'Distorts our relationships and who we are' is a euphemism for 'makes us into bad people who treat each other unjustly'.
Originally posted by hatless:
We have inherited sexism, racism and prejudices of many sorts. It's really not just about bad people who treat each other unjustly and look at each other in a funny way. We grow up in a world that distorts our relationships and who we are.
quote:That's a human perception not a reality. There's a whole spectrum between 99% resisting temptation and 1% succumbing all the way through to 1% resisting and 99% succumbing. Any arbitrary line you draw between a "few bad apples" perspective and a "systemic problem" perspective is just an arbitrary line. And those who resist temptation deserve better than to be lumped in with the abusers.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I'll settle for often enough that it becomes a problem you can't just blame on a few bad apples.
Originally posted by Russ:
Original sin could conceivably imply that any sin you can think of will be committed by someone. Don't think it requires that every sin will be committed by everyone who has the opportunity. That seems to me too pessimistic a view.
quote:I'm struggling to see how your assertions about power in general make sense in terms of specifics.
If you act to prevent power from being misused you do so by constraining and limiting power. Just as if you stop someone misusing a freedom they're no longer free in that respect so if you stop someone from misusing a power they no longer have that power.
quote:I'm talking about power, to which wealth is one possible route.
[QUOTE][qb] How does some people being stronger, cleverer, more charismatic than others depend on people misusing those advantages to oppress others ?
Or are you only talking about wealth, and asserting that the only way for anyone to obtain or retain wealth is to oppress ?
quote:You seem to want to divide humanity into "us good people" and "those bad people." As do most people, actually.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:That's a human perception not a reality. There's a whole spectrum between 99% resisting temptation and 1% succumbing all the way through to 1% resisting and 99% succumbing. Any arbitrary line you draw between a "few bad apples" perspective and a "systemic problem" perspective is just an arbitrary line. And those who resist temptation deserve better than to be lumped in with the abusers.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I'll settle for often enough that it becomes a problem you can't just blame on a few bad apples.
Originally posted by Russ:
Original sin could conceivably imply that any sin you can think of will be committed by someone. Don't think it requires that every sin will be committed by everyone who has the opportunity. That seems to me too pessimistic a view.
quote:My first shot on that one seems a bit wide of the mark.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Small businesses very rarely are capitalized. One can be pro-small-business but anti-capitalism.
quote:I think the point you are missing is that progressives are interested in worker rights not in an abstract fight between weaker and stronger parties. So "siding with the employee" happens whenever the worker is being exploited - be it by a large or small employer - because the progressive is more interested in the person and his rights rather than the capitalist who is earning money by investing his capital.
Originally posted by Russ:
The argument seems to be that "social progressivism" (or should it be just "progressivism" ?) is a bias to the powerless. So that the progressive mindset is quite happy to uphold the interests of small business against big business, perceived as having greater power. But will tend to side with the employee in any conflict with a small-business employer.
quote:Actually I believe empirical research shows that in various areas there are tipping points at which a perception that everyone is doing it, or that many people are doing it, makes an activity acceptable.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:That's a human perception not a reality. There's a whole spectrum between 99% resisting temptation and 1% succumbing all the way through to 1% resisting and 99% succumbing. Any arbitrary line you draw between a "few bad apples" perspective and a "systemic problem" perspective is just an arbitrary line.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I'll settle for often enough that it becomes a problem you can't just blame on a few bad apples.
Originally posted by Russ:
Original sin could conceivably imply that any sin you can think of will be committed by someone. Don't think it requires that every sin will be committed by everyone who has the opportunity. That seems to me too pessimistic a view.
quote:Shall we apply this to the playground example. In the playground all the strong children have the power to bully other children. Some of them don't bully other children even having the power. Now you come and introduce punishment for those who get caught. So some bullies stop being bullies for fear of punishment. You're removing some of the power to bully.
And those who resist temptation deserve better than to be lumped in with the abusers.
quote:Yes, but nobody is suggesting that.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
To suggest it's just about bad behaviour of people is to overlook these systems and powers that end up enslaving the oppressed and the oppressors (by bringing them to behave in ways that oppress and destroy).
quote:What Chesterton was describing was Dickens making people face up to the truth of what has happened. That is what hatless was objecting to. Until you've described what has happened as morally wrong then you haven't given anyone any reason to seek a way out.
And while they need to face up to the truth of what's happened and what they've done, they also need release, a way out, a reassurance that the world isn't going to end if what they fear most happens, more than they need reminding that they're bad people doing unjust things.
quote:I was not for a moment objecting to Dickens making people face up to the truth of, for instance, child labour. I was objecting to Chesterton's, as I see it, superficial understanding of the injustices that Dickens clearly felt very passionately about. This was not a pretext to falsely justify a prior dislike of Chesterton, it was my reaction to the paragraph you quoted.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Yes, but nobody is suggesting that.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
To suggest it's just about bad behaviour of people is to overlook these systems and powers that end up enslaving the oppressed and the oppressors (by bringing them to behave in ways that oppress and destroy).
We're having this discussion because hatless doesn't like G.K.Chesterton and so cast about for pretexts he could use to justify his dislike regardless of whether or not the pretext is relevant or appropriate.
quote:What Chesterton was describing was Dickens making people face up to the truth of what has happened. That is what hatless was objecting to. Until you've described what has happened as morally wrong then you haven't given anyone any reason to seek a way out.
And while they need to face up to the truth of what's happened and what they've done, they also need release, a way out, a reassurance that the world isn't going to end if what they fear most happens, more than they need reminding that they're bad people doing unjust things.
quote:Yes. Just like the post-exilic prophets and Jesus.
Originally posted by Russ:
The argument seems to be that "social progressivism" (or should it be just "progressivism" ?) is a bias to the powerless.
quote:And Mary.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Yes. Just like the post-exilic prophets and Jesus.
Originally posted by Russ:
The argument seems to be that "social progressivism" (or should it be just "progressivism" ?) is a bias to the powerless.
quote:Jesus learned from the best.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:And Mary.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Yes. Just like the post-exilic prophets and Jesus.
Originally posted by Russ:
The argument seems to be that "social progressivism" (or should it be just "progressivism" ?) is a bias to the powerless.
"He has cast down the mighty from their thrones
And lifted up the lowly.
He has filled the hungry with good things,
And has sent the rich away empty."
quote:Dickens was a horrible person and Chesterton exaggerated to make a point. Not sure this is really news is it? One can enjoy the vigorous mental exercise of reading Chesterton's bombastic prose without thinking it is 100% accurate or the last word on a subject.
Originally posted by hatless:
I was not for a moment objecting to Dickens making people face up to the truth of, for instance, child labour. I was objecting to Chesterton's, as I see it, superficial understanding of the injustices that Dickens clearly felt very passionately about. This was not a pretext to falsely justify a prior dislike of Chesterton, it was my reaction to the paragraph you quoted.
quote:For sure GKC was of his time. I don't think that means his basic ideas were wrong (Distributism has a lot of contemporary resonances in a way that Marxism doesn't, IMO) or that they're not basically good hearted.
I think, in part because of the work of Walter Wink, Girard, Alison and others who have examined violence and scapegoating and their justifications, that we can have a better understanding of systemic injustices and more creative ideas about how to respond to them.
quote:This seems a long-winded way of saying you don't personally like something he wrote.
Chesterton is, like C S Lewis and Hauerwas, one of those I feel I ought to like, because thoughtful people commend them, but when I read them they leave me cold. I shouldn't expect too much from someone with Chesterton's dates and background. I like his comment about the one repeated rebellion, but nothing else registered much with me. Given that deeply felt injustice is what Dickens is about, a protest on behalf of the voiceless, an affirmation of the humanity of the poor and despised, and in some books an affirmation of the possibility of redemption for the oppressor - A Christmas Carol comes to mind - I find Chesterton's comments disappointing.
quote:It doesn't need more detail. In fact I can describe it in three words - don't hurt people.
Originally posted by Russ:
The premise of that thread was that the dominant ethos of the Ship these days is a mindset that is hostile to Traditional Christianity.
I'm interested in exploring and understanding that mindset - the point of view that forms that ethos - in a little more detail.
quote:The argument is that preventing someone from moving to a country hurts them by forcing them to stay in a dangerous situation. Brexit is seen as bad because the economic impact will lead to increased poverty. I make no comment as to the accuracy of either observation.
- internationalism (migrants good, Brexit bad)
quote:If "traditional gender roles" means subjugation of women and persecution of anyone who is LGBT, then yes they are considered bad. Because they hurt people.
- gender-bending (anything goes so long as you don't speak in favour of traditional gender roles)
quote:Political Correctness basically means "don't hurt people with words".
- political correctness (can't believe anyone voted for Trump; free speech as long as you don't say what we don't like)
quote:Capitalism is seen as bad to the extent that it involves the exploitation of workers, suppliers and/or consumers.
- anti-capitalism (profit is bad, small business has no rights and unlimited liability)
quote:This one should really go without saying.
- anti-racism (racism is a huge sin that the whole white race should atone for)
quote:Well of course. Because keeping things as they are inevitably means keeping power where it currently is.
Originally posted by Russ:
The argument seems to be that "social progressivism" (or should it be just "progressivism" ?) is a bias to the powerless.
quote:Cute but stupid. Carrots are not human beings and do not have human rights. Robbing people of a decent life and eating a carrot can only be on a par to someone who just doesn't care much for people. Like capitalists, I guess.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Being a living creature is by definition exploitive. I killed a carrot today, probably it was alive when I ate it.
quote:And I suspect you'll find that the "Hostility to Traditional Christianity" is not (as is often suggested) about the "Traditional Christian" beliefs in general, but in the propensity for "Traditional Christians" to use those beliefs as a weapon to hurt others. Which, personally, I don't find to be a particularly Christian idea, however traditional it may be in some groups.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:It doesn't need more detail. In fact I can describe it in three words - don't hurt people.
Originally posted by Russ:
The premise of that thread was that the dominant ethos of the Ship these days is a mindset that is hostile to Traditional Christianity.
I'm interested in exploring and understanding that mindset - the point of view that forms that ethos - in a little more detail.
The link to Christianity should be obvious.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:An ethic of "don't hurt people" sounds as if one shouldn't act in any situation unless one can make things better for everyone.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I can describe it in three words - don't hurt people.
quote:The argument is that preventing someone from moving to a country hurts them by forcing them to stay in a dangerous situation. Brexit is seen as bad because the economic impact will lead to increased poverty.[/qb][/quote]
- internationalism (migrants good, Brexit bad)
quote:No. Progressives can and do say hurtful things about those they perceive to have power or authority. Political correctness means going along with the progressive meta-narrative about who are the Oppressors and Victims and not saying anything remotely negative about the Victims.
Political Correctness basically means "don't hurt people with words".
quote:I'd agree that both authoritarian and libertarian viewpoints can stand in opposition to the progressive worldview. Which doesn't mean that any opposition is automatically from the extremes of that spectrum.
ISTM that opposition to this position comes from two main sources - those who think everybody else should believe, think and act exactly the same way as they do and those who want to be able to do whatever they want regardless of the impact on others.
quote:And if someone wields power and authority over other people, they fucking better well be ready for criticism when they use that power and authority to treat people badly. Or allow and encourage others to treat people badly. Or when they pretend that wielding power and authority has no impact on others. Or when they admit the impact but demand that their widdle feewings take priority. With great power ... well, you know the rest.
Originally posted by Russ:
... No. Progressives can and do say hurtful things about those they perceive to have power or authority. ...
quote:You're right, the link is obvious.
Originally posted by Russ:
...
Whereas progressives, so the argument goes, want to make things better for those classes of people perceived to be underprivileged or powerless. At the expense of those perceived to have wealth or power.
The link to Christianity should be obvious. ...
quote:
... He hath shewed strength with his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He hath put down the mighty from their seat: and hath exalted the humble and meek.
He hath filled the hungry with good things: and the rich he hath sent empty away.
quote:I think that if someone has two yachts and they're forced to sell one it is stretching the meaning of the term 'hurt' to say they've been hurt. 'Hurt' generally suggests some harm more fundamental on the hierarchy of needs.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:An ethic of "don't hurt people" sounds as if one shouldn't act in any situation unless one can make things better for everyone.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I can describe it in three words - don't hurt people.
quote:Interesting choices of phrase there: 'perceived to be' and 'at the expense of'. So abolishing slavery could be described as 'making things better for a class of people perceived to be underprivileged at the expense of those perceived to have wealth or power'. Allowing married women to own property could be described as 'making things better for a class of people perceived to be underprivileged at the expense of those perceived to have wealth or power'.
Whereas progressives, so the argument goes, want to make things better for those classes of people perceived to be underprivileged or powerless. At the expense of those perceived to have wealth or power.
quote:Sorry, Soror Magna. I messed up.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:You're right, the link is obvious.
The link to Christianity should be obvious. ...
quote:No, "hurt" is literally to cause someone to feel physical pain, and by analogy to act against someone's interests or cause them some form of mental anguish.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think that if someone has two yachts and they're forced to sell one it is stretching the meaning of the term 'hurt' to say they've been hurt. 'Hurt' generally suggests some harm more fundamental on the hierarchy of needs.
quote:
Interesting choices of phrase there: 'perceived to be' and 'at the expense of'.
quote:Assuming you mean abolishing slavery without compensation...
So abolishing slavery could be described as 'making things better for a class of people perceived to be underprivileged at the expense of those perceived to have wealth or power'. Allowing married women to own property could be described as 'making things better for a class of people perceived to be underprivileged at the expense of those perceived to have wealth or power'.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...
I think you're asserting here a belief that those with above-average levels of wealth or power shouldn't mind if that wealth or power is taken away from them. ....
quote:I don't think it's necessarily incumbent on society to compensate people who have benefited from structural injustices when those injustices disappear.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Assuming you mean abolishing slavery without compensation...
So abolishing slavery could be described as 'making things better for a class of people perceived to be underprivileged at the expense of those perceived to have wealth or power'. Allowing married women to own property could be described as 'making things better for a class of people perceived to be underprivileged at the expense of those perceived to have wealth or power'.
quote:There are many kinds of hurt - physical pain is one of them, but it can also be economic, emotional, or physical in other ways. Not having enough to eat, being refused access to adequate medical care, having reduced retirement benefits, or not being able to have your loved ones visit you when you are dying in the hospital are all examples of hurt, even if some don't involve physical pain.
Originally posted by Russ:
No, "hurt" is literally to cause someone to feel physical pain, and by analogy to act against someone's interests or cause them some form of mental anguish.
The suggestion that anyone doesn't mind being "forced to" do anything seems to run contrary to your notion that power is a bad thing.
I think you're asserting here a belief that those with above-average levels of wealth or power shouldn't mind if that wealth or power is taken away from them. And therefore wanting to use language in a way that acknowledges as real hurts only those hurts that you think people oughtto feel.
quote:Anguish is 'Excruciating or oppressive bodily pain or suffering, such as the sufferer writhes under'. (OED).
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:No, "hurt" is literally to cause someone to feel physical pain, and by analogy to act against someone's interests or cause them some form of mental anguish.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think that if someone has two yachts and they're forced to sell one it is stretching the meaning of the term 'hurt' to say they've been hurt. 'Hurt' generally suggests some harm more fundamental on the hierarchy of needs.
The suggestion that anyone doesn't mind being "forced to" do anything seems to run contrary to your notion that power is a bad thing.
quote:I think that only things that are actually hurts should be described as hurts. I think that anyone who seriously thinks that the billionaire who loses a second yacht is hurt in a way comparable that someone struggling to make ends meet who loses their job and income is hurt is sociopathic.
And therefore wanting to use language in a way that acknowledges as real hurts only those hurts that you think people oughtto feel.
quote:There's not any evidence for this statement.
quote:
Interesting choices of phrase there: 'perceived to be' and 'at the expense of'.
Trying to be precise about what progressivism is and is not.
quote:Gandhi certainly acted against the interests of the British Empire.
It isn't benevolence to all. It isn't the equivalent of Gandhi's non-violent resistance to a violent regime.
quote:This is self-parody.
quote:Assuming you mean abolishing slavery without compensation...
So abolishing slavery could be described as 'making things better for a class of people perceived to be underprivileged at the expense of those perceived to have wealth or power'.
quote:I suggest you read a little bit about the protests against the Salt Law.
Originally posted by Russ:
Trying to be precise about what progressivism is and is not. It isn't benevolence to all. It isn't the equivalent of Gandhi's non-violent resistance to a violent regime.
quote:Here I think you're using "hurt" in the sense of "disbenefit". That seems to me an entirely normal usage,
Originally posted by Carex:
Clearly there are tens of students, perhaps over a hundred, who would not get checked for medical problems such as infections, diabetes, immunizations, etc. Denying them the access to medical care hurts them, to at least some degree.
quote:The argument on the other side is about religious belief. Some people have a religious conviction that contraception is morally wrong. Others would say that encouraging sex outside marriage is morally wrong, and that telling people how to avoid the unwanted consequences of an act constitutes encouragement.
What is the hurt on the other side?
quote:This thread isn't about Traditional Christianity. Feel free to start another.
Is that an important part of what you mean by "Traditional Christianity"?
quote:The relationship between the two is clearly in scope.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Yeah, this thread's about the opposite, so no reference to that can be made.
quote:That's not the interesting part. The interesting part is when people who have this religious conviction feel it is important to make other people without that religious conviction behave in accordance with the religious conviction.
Originally posted by Russ:
Some people have a religious conviction that contraception is morally wrong.
quote:Remember in Russworld the mental distress is hurt. And all hurt is morally equivalent.(*)
Originally posted by orfeo:
Conservative Christians are not disliked for wanting to live in accordance with their own conscience. They are disliked for refusing other people the same courtesy.
quote:The Magniificat bears some relation to the canticle of Hannah in 1 Samuel, which is subsequently echoed in the Prophetic writings. I struggle to see how it is an "idea in Judaism" that the rich and powerful are the beneficiaries of God's largesse. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, whose views on the subject seem reasonably salient, would very vehemently disagree with you on that point.
Seems to me that the Magnificat is a reaction against the idea in Judaism that if some people are rich and powerful then the all-powerful all-just God has put them there. This "prosperity gospel" type thinking is not confined to Judaism, and seems a natural consequence of monotheism. Rejecting this idea requires a particular "hands-off" type of God. Which Jesus gives us in the parable of the wheat and the darnel...
quote:Medical care is something that humans need (not all the time but every human needs medical care in their lifetime).
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Here I think you're using "hurt" in the sense of "disbenefit". That seems to me an entirely normal usage, and with that meaning your sentence is true - these students have lost out.
Originally posted by Carex:
Clearly there are tens of students, perhaps over a hundred, who would not get checked for medical problems such as infections, diabetes, immunizations, etc. Denying them the access to medical care hurts them, to at least some degree.
quote:You mean you realise progressives aren't clones of each other and aren't all obliged to sign on to the same list of dogmas? You surprise me.
And I don't see anything wrong with the point you're making or how you're making it. Although Dafyd may disagree...
quote:If someone believes that they have an interest in living in a well-run and more egalitarian society (people in more egalitarian societies generally have higher life expectancies) and they may experience distress from seeing people struggling to make ends meet on low wages then they are harmed by living in a less egalitarian society than they would like?
So I suggest to you that a parent may experience mental distress and count it as damaging to their interests for anyone to encourage their children in immoral behaviour.
quote:You seem to be doing quite a lot of condemning already.
I'm trying to clarify what this "dominant ethos on the Ship" is before we get too far into praising it or condemning it.
quote:Setting out rights that limit anyone's power over anyone else is correcting imbalances of power. Or maybe you mean something else? You mean setting out a system of rights that enshrines traditional power wielded over other people.
Originally posted by Russ:
Does progressivism take for granted that no class of people deserves relative power and therefore considers that any traditional imbalance of power should be reversed, counting this as progress ?
(Rather than, for example, setting out a system of rights to limit anyone's power over anyone else ?)
quote:Yes. I nearly went on to articulate this, but you've captured it perfectly. The hurt of watching people not live the same way that you do.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Remember in Russworld the mental distress is hurt. And all hurt is morally equivalent.(*)
Originally posted by orfeo:
Conservative Christians are not disliked for wanting to live in accordance with their own conscience. They are disliked for refusing other people the same courtesy.
So if gay people getting married causes a Conservative Christian mental distress then the gay people are hurting the Conservative Christian. that the hurt caused to a Conservative Christian by gay people getting married is morally equivalent to any hurt caused to gay people by not being allowed to marry.(*)
(*) Actually some forms of mental distress are not hurt. Any distress that might be felt by progressives over the suffering of other people is only perceived hurt over perceived suffering. And if your hurt is caused by something you've perceived it doesn't count.
In fact any hurt caused to gay people by not being allowed to marry is probably perceived so it might not count. But distress to religious conservatives by lurid imagining of orgies and anal sex is not caused by anything perceived so it definitely does count.
I'm not condemning or criticising Russ' views here. I'm just trying to state them precisely.
quote:I think you've got a good point here, but it's not quite a direct line. What's needed in the middle is a consumer desire to continue paying as little as possible for goods, and a burying of information about how those cheap prices are achieved.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So it isn't too hard to draw a straight line between the increase of worker rights at home and the increase of grinding poverty and exploitation in factories abroad.
quote:The other factor is producers of those goods wanting to maximise their profit. It isn't strictly the consumer's fault.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:I think you've got a good point here, but it's not quite a direct line. What's needed in the middle is a consumer desire to continue paying as little as possible for goods, and a burying of information about how those cheap prices are achieved.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So it isn't too hard to draw a straight line between the increase of worker rights at home and the increase of grinding poverty and exploitation in factories abroad.
quote:Well, yes - it is part of a system in which capitalist owners of enterprises have been forcing down labour costs throughout supply chains in order to maximise profits.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think you've got a good point here, but it's not quite a direct line. What's needed in the middle is a consumer desire to continue paying as little as possible for goods, and a burying of information about how those cheap prices are achieved.
quote:It seems to me that the alternative is basically Cuba.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Brilliant. Your penultimate para, to confirm: that objective is a delusion? Because, as you point out, someone has to be poor for us to be rich? As Basil of Caesarea, was it, said? Therefore even Gordon Brown's 'third way'; the poor are our biggest market, is doomed? The poor we will always have with us?
quote:I don't think there is any truth in that. If we want equality in our supply chains, then we'd need to have radically different lives. Not just the 1%.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The alternate isn't Cuba. It is a state where the rich exist, but not with the staggering inequities in our current system.
quote:I don't think your realise just how much wealth the top 1% have. But I was not merely speaking of them. I forget the exact figures, but it is something like the top 10 or 20 % have 80% of the wealth. much could be changed just by lowering that. Those in the middle would need change, but not radically.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I don't think there is any truth in that. If we want equality in our supply chains, then we'd need to have radically different lives. Not just the 1%.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The alternate isn't Cuba. It is a state where the rich exist, but not with the staggering inequities in our current system.
quote:Where does wealth come from? Most of the history of wealth is taking from the many to benefit the few. The whole purpose of divine, and divinely appointed, rulers is to justify this.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If we want all the extras beyond the minimum, it is absolutely my belief that we're taking them from someone else.
quote:Actually I do know how much the 1% have and I do know how much the rest of the top 20% (which, by the way, includes almost everyone in Western Europe and North America) would have to change in order to redistribute the funds in order that the poorest could have access to the basics of healthcare, schooling, sanitation etc. And it would require a radical change.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I don't think your realise just how much wealth the top 1% have. But I was not merely speaking of them. I forget the exact figures, but it is something like the top 10 or 20 % have 80% of the wealth. much could be changed just by lowering that. Those in the middle would need change, but not radically.
quote:Economics is magic and capital is wishful thinking. As terms, they mean almost nothing, hence the idea of continuous growth is a misnomer anyway. The reality is that in order for the richer to be able to afford to buy things, poorer people have to make them in conditions where they'd never achieve the lifestyle and never be able to afford the thing they're making.
People act as if the system were closed, as if there was only so much money to go round. And that is why the monetary system works, so change to something significantly different would be difficult.
But I'm not suggesting this. Just that the rich pay more.
quote:Obviously there are more-severe and less-severe physical pains, and it seems reasonable to say the same about the wider forms of "hurt" - mental distress and damage to interests.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Remember in Russworld the mental distress is hurt. And all hurt is morally equivalent.(*)
quote:The point is that it's a moral conviction. We humans can all be live-and-let-live about each other's different customs. But when we perceive those customs to be morally wrong (e.g. so-called "honour-killings") we feel that something should be done to prevent this wrong.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:That's not the interesting part. The interesting part is when people who have this religious conviction feel it is important to make other people without that religious conviction behave in accordance with the religious conviction...
Originally posted by Russ:
Some people have a religious conviction that contraception is morally wrong.
Conservative Christians are not disliked for wanting to live in accordance with their own conscience. They are disliked for refusing other people the same courtesy.
quote:To which the counterpoint is it's somewhat problematic to use secular law as a tool to enforce one's own moral convictions. The thing about harm is that it involves objective demonstration of harm. The thing about morals without harm is that it boils down to a form of "because I said so".
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:The point is that it's a moral conviction. We humans can all be live-and-let-live about each other's different customs. But when we perceive those customs to be morally wrong (e.g. so-called "honour-killings") we feel that something should be done to prevent this wrong.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:That's not the interesting part. The interesting part is when people who have this religious conviction feel it is important to make other people without that religious conviction behave in accordance with the religious conviction...
Originally posted by Russ:
Some people have a religious conviction that contraception is morally wrong.
Conservative Christians are not disliked for wanting to live in accordance with their own conscience. They are disliked for refusing other people the same courtesy.
The suggestion is that progressives hold a moral philosophy in which wrong is equated with hurt/harm. And therefore any objection to a harmless activity, while it may be a religious objection, is not acknowledged as a moral objection.
quote:On the Dead Horse's Thread you were using 'moral' to mean 'in accordance with a set of public procedural rules that everyone agrees upon'. Which is precisely not what you're using it to mean here.
Originally posted by Russ:
The point is that it's a moral[/b] conviction. We humans can all be live-and-let-live about each other's different customs. But when we perceive those customs to be morally wrong (e.g. so-called "honour-killings") we feel that something should be done to prevent this wrong.
quote:Progressives also regard justice and fairness as moral values, and liberty. Some (the more socialist) would regard community/solidarity as a value; some (the more libertarian) would not.
The suggestion is that progressives hold a moral philosophy in which wrong is equated with hurt/harm. And therefore any objection to a harmless activity, while it may be a religious objection, is not acknowledged as a moral objection.
quote:I agree that there's something problematic here.
Originally posted by orfeo:
it's somewhat problematic to use secular law as a tool to enforce one's own moral convictions. The thing about harm is that it involves objective demonstration of harm. The thing about morals without harm is that it boils down to a form of "because I said so".
If you don't want people to do something you think is morally wrong, by all means persuade them. But if you don't persuade them, or can't, I'm not sure the law of the land should be invoked to do your moral persuading for you.
quote:No.
Originally posted by Russ:
You seem to be arguing that:
- progressives believe that there is some well-defined level of severity of harm that counts as a hurt
- that it's morally OK to act in a way that causes small harms to people, so long as this doesn't add up to a hurt
- people in those classes deemed under-privileged or powerless are more fragile, so harm to them is more likely to count as a hurt than comparable harm to someone who is wealthy or powerful.
Have I understood your ethical position correctly ?
quote:The silence in answer to this question is deafening.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:On the Dead Horse's Thread you were using 'moral' to mean 'in accordance with a set of public procedural rules that everyone agrees upon'. Which is precisely not what you're using it to mean here.
Originally posted by Russ:
The point is that it's a moral[/b] conviction. We humans can all be live-and-let-live about each other's different customs. But when we perceive those customs to be morally wrong (e.g. so-called "honour-killings") we feel that something should be done to prevent this wrong.
Now it's possible that you've changed your mind after reflecting upon that thread. Or it's possible that on that thread you were using a purely tactical definition.
quote:Maybe you'd better expand on the contradiction you perceive, because I see none.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:On the Dead Horse's Thread you were using 'moral' to mean 'in accordance with a set of public procedural rules that everyone agrees upon'. Which is precisely not what you're using it to mean here.
Originally posted by Russ:
The point is that it's a moral[/b] conviction. We humans can all be live-and-let-live about each other's different customs. But when we perceive those customs to be morally wrong (e.g. so-called "honour-killings") we feel that something should be done to prevent this wrong.
quote:I can only speak for myself, but "we" do not think that.
Originally posted by Russ:
The quote above says that when we perceive something as a moral issue we tend to think it belongs in that framework of public rules, rather than being up for negotiation between people with different visions.
quote:What's problematic is your understanding of what I said. I did NOT advocate using the law at all, so how many people you persuade is not a step towards "okay, we can make it a law now". You've started talking about "enforcement" when my entire point was to not have enforcement.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I agree that there's something problematic here.
Originally posted by orfeo:
it's somewhat problematic to use secular law as a tool to enforce one's own moral convictions. The thing about harm is that it involves objective demonstration of harm. The thing about morals without harm is that it boils down to a form of "because I said so".
If you don't want people to do something you think is morally wrong, by all means persuade them. But if you don't persuade them, or can't, I'm not sure the law of the land should be invoked to do your moral persuading for you.
Who, for example, are the "them" you think have to be persuaded ?
Everybody ? Every individual has to be persuaded that something is morally wrong before it's OK to enforce a legal prohibition on them ? Don't think you mean that.
A majority ? You can believe in vox populi , that anything the majority choose to enforce is OK. But until relatively recently in historical terms the majority believed in the criminalisation of homosexuality. I don't think the progressive position is that gay sex became OK at the point where 50% of the population agreed...
What's the alternative ? The consensus of people who think like you do (and everybody else doesn't matter) ? I'm not convinced that's what you mean either...
quote:Seems like we're using language differently here ?
Originally posted by orfeo:
We're specifically talking about things that are merely against some people's morals, not objectively harmful. So my response is it's simply not appropriate to have a law against whatever it is.
If people don't like the thing, then they're free to not do it themselves.
quote:But you might want the government to enforce a system whereby the victims of my lies and adultery can claim recompense from me ? And make me pay the costs of such a private prosecution ?
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If you want to be a promiscuous liar, I will consider you an immoral piece of shit and choose to have nothing to do with you, but I have no interest in the government punishing you for it.
quote:Possibly, but not simply because of your feelings of pain over the event and everything to do with the fact that we don't want to live in a society where people abuse each other.
Originally posted by Russ:
But you might want the government to enforce a system whereby the victims of my lies and adultery can claim recompense from me ?
quote:I can't think of a situation whereby the law takes into primary account someone's hurt feelings other than maybe - at a stretch - defamation. Even there it isn't about hurt feelings as much as some material hurt that is caused by the lies.
And make me pay the costs of such a private prosecution ?
quote:I'm not really understanding why you keep generating all these "what-if" examples. They don't seem to have much relationship to real life.
Which is a different way of managing the process, but still part of the public framework of rules ?
quote:This would be an irregular verb:
Originally posted by Russ:
IIRC, I was saying on That Other Thread that the public rules - the law of the land - should "track" objective morality, conceived as a system of basic rights that apply equally to everyone (or perhaps basic wrongs that we should all refrain from). Rather than being the means for imposing one group's vision of the good life on other people.
The quote above says that when we perceive something as a moral issue we tend to think it belongs in that framework of public rules, rather than being up for negotiation between people with different visions.
quote:No, that is not how I'm using "morals". And I'm struggling to understand how you reached that conclusion.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Seems like we're using language differently here ?
Originally posted by orfeo:
We're specifically talking about things that are merely against some people's morals, not objectively harmful. So my response is it's simply not appropriate to have a law against whatever it is.
If people don't like the thing, then they're free to not do it themselves.
You're identifying wrongdoing with causing harm, and using "morals" to refer to people's preferences amongst non-wrong actions ?
Which I might describe as "customs" and agree with you that people should be free to not do it themselves but not free to make that decision for their neighbours.
Whereas in Russ-speak, "immoral" is synonymous with "wrong", the things we shouldn't do (in the absolute rather than the prudential sense of "should").
For want of a better way of distinguishing morally wrong from the sort of wrong that is factually incorrect.
quote:I agree that people don't agree. Don't think I've ever said otherwise. But clearly my choice of words is making you think that's what I mean.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:No, that is not how I'm using "morals". And I'm struggling to understand how you reached that conclusion.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Seems like we're using language differently here ?
Originally posted by orfeo:
We're specifically talking about things that are merely against some people's morals, not objectively harmful. So my response is it's simply not appropriate to have a law against whatever it is.
You're identifying wrongdoing with causing harm, and using "morals" to refer to people's preferences amongst non-wrong actions ?
I honestly no longer know what you mean by "morals", and that's not just because of our dialogue, other people are clearly having difficulty with you on this subject as well.
The problem being that you keep veering into a proposition that everyone shares the same morality. The same view of what is wrong. And this is simply untrue. A person's morals describe what they consider right and wrong, but it is just impossible to assert that everyone agrees on that.
quote:No I'm not saying that.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Now you're saying that, 'Don't use contraception' is a contribution to public rules and not a means for imposing one person's vision of the good life.
quote:I'm not rejecting that outright. I'm asking who negotiates with whom. And wanting that negotiated position to track objective morality. Despite recognising that we perceive this imperfectly.
You're rejecting the liberal paradigm in which people with irreconcilable visions of the good life negotiate rules that enable them as far as possible to live together in accordance with their respective visions of the good life.
quote:That seems to be what those whose vision involves a morality based on harm are simultaneously doing and criticising others for.
But if someone thinks their vision of the good life gives rise to moral issues then they're allowed to set that up as a rule for everyone else.
quote:How is that an "intermediate" position? All you're doing is shifting between different entities interfering with individual, personal choices. Is there a huge distinction between "you're not allowed to decide this for yourself, the decision rests with wider society" and "you're not allowed to decide this for yourself, the decision rests with your family and/or community"? Yes, there are a wide variety of outside entities other than individuals who could theoretically be vested with decision-making authority on all sorts of questions, but if you're going to frame the question in terms of personal choice versus not personal choice, anything other than letting individuals decide for themselves counts as "not personal choice".
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm saying that there are people who believe that contraception is a moral right/wrong issue and not a personal choice issue.
I'm not one of them.
And those people are no more inherently wicked than anyone else.
It might seem like society has a binary choice - to go along with or reject the proposition that contraception is a personal choice issue.
But there's an intermediate position, which is for the wider society to recognise that people disagree and therefore to allow families or communities to make their own choices, insofar as that is possible.
quote:Is it possible that this is a clumsy attempt to equate a government-supported civil court system wherein people can claim damages for contractual breaches with a morality police?
Originally posted by Russ:
But you might want the government to enforce a system whereby the victims of my lies and adultery can claim recompense from me ? And make me pay the costs of such a private prosecution ?
Which is a different way of managing the process, but still part of the public framework of rules ?
quote:You are however willing to allow that describing contraception as a moral/right wrong issue is not an error of meaning. You think that 'morality' means a system of basic rights, so that 'moral wrong' is defined as a violation of a right. The use of contraception is not a violation of a right.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I'm saying that there are people who believe that contraception is a moral right/wrong issue and not a personal choice issue.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Now you're saying that, 'Don't use contraception' is a contribution to public rules and not a means for imposing one person's vision of the good life.
I'm not one of them.
quote:Nobody else on this thread has been talking in these terms. Why are you thinking about people being inherently wicked?
And those people are no more inherently wicked than anyone else.
quote:There's something problematic about saying that people disagree and therefore communities make their own choices. What happens if the people within the families or communities disagree?
It might seem like society has a binary choice - to go along with or reject the proposition that contraception is a personal choice issue.
But there's an intermediate position, which is for the wider society to recognise that people disagree and therefore to allow families or communities to make their own choices, insofar as that is possible.
quote:That's interesting. Presumably you think that negotiations might not track objective morality. Now if there is a possibility of tracking objective morality then a process of debate and discussion ought to converge upon it. So you think that depending on who is negotiating there is a possibility of the negotiating process being thrown off, presumably because some of the participants have the power to throw the process off. If some participants are able to throw off the process by irrelevant inducements (argument by threats or argument by bribes) then negotiations won't track objective morality. Is that what you're arguing?
quote:I'm not rejecting that outright. I'm asking who negotiates with whom. And wanting that negotiated position to track objective morality. Despite recognising that we perceive this imperfectly.
You're rejecting the liberal paradigm in which people with irreconcilable visions of the good life negotiate rules that enable them as far as possible to live together in accordance with their respective visions of the good life.
quote:So you're recognising that morality is included within visions of the good life and derives from visions of the good life? But you don't think imposing morality is the same as imposing a vision of the good life?
quote:That seems to be what those whose vision involves a morality based on harm are simultaneously doing and criticising others for.
But if someone thinks their vision of the good life gives rise to moral issues then they're allowed to set that up as a rule for everyone else.
quote:I had the impression some people were trying to paint conservatives as nasty oppressive people imposing their ideas on others and progressives as nice freedom-loving people who don't.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Russ, i don't know where that remark about people being non-people or wicked came from. It certainly didn't come out of anything I said.
quote:I queried why people wish to make others live in accordance with their own views, yes.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I had the impression some people were trying to paint conservatives as nasty oppressive people imposing their ideas on others and progressives as nice freedom-loving people who don't.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Russ, i don't know where that remark about people being non-people or wicked came from. It certainly didn't come out of anything I said.
Having carefully framed the issue as lying outside of any areas where they believed there to be moral duties which other people ought to comply with.
Probably wasn't you...
quote:Which sounds reasonable until the townsfolk show up at the door insisting the parents use birth control from now on ... please ... we've seen your other kids ... it's the community's choice.
Originally posted by Russ:
...
I'm saying that there are people who believe that contraception is a moral right/wrong issue and not a personal choice issue.
I'm not one of them.
And those people are no more inherently wicked than anyone else.
It might seem like society has a binary choice - to go along with or reject the proposition that contraception is a personal choice issue.
But there's an intermediate position, which is for the wider society to recognise that people disagree and therefore to allow families or communities to make their own choices, insofar as that is possible....
quote:And the answer is because they think their views are both true/correct and refer to morals (i.e. what is right or wrong) rather than custom & culture.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I queried why people wish to make others live in accordance with their own views, yes.
quote:Interesting argument. Does criminalising murder have no effect on those who believe murder is wrong ? So the only people it affects are those who don't ?
those people who believe contraception is morally wrong won't be using it. A ban has no effect on them. The people it affects are all the other people who would willingly use contraception.
quote:I don't think we must ban it for everyone.
Many of your comments seem to veer to the notion that the mere knowledge that OTHER people are using contraception is of such distress to those who think contraception is wrong, that we must ban it for everyone. Which to me is putting their "rights" far too highly.
quote:No, not just the same as I do.
Originally posted by Russ:
And the answer is because they think their views are both true/correct and refer to morals (i.e. what is right or wrong) rather than custom & culture.
Just the same as you do.
quote:Said
Dafyd talking about
the liberal paradigm in which people with irreconcilable visions of the good life negotiate rules that enable them as far as possible to live together in accordance with their respective visions of the good life.
quote:Seems to me that negotiation implies each side conceding something in order to secure some corresponding concession from the other side.
Presumably you think that negotiations might not track objective morality. Now if there is a possibility of tracking objective morality then a process of debate and discussion ought to converge upon it.
If some participants are able to throw off the process by irrelevant inducements (argument by threats or argument by bribes) then negotiations won't track objective morality. Is that what you're arguing?
quote:I apologise if I have mischaracterised your position. My impression was that you were one of several people arguing that other people ought to both live by your motto "do no harm" and abide by your judgment as to what constitutes harm.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Because here's the thing about me: I don't have such blinding confidence in the rightness of all my views that I believe other people ought to live by them.
And that, Sir, is the whole point.
quote:Really? You don't think it might imply trying to find a position of mutual gain?
Originally posted by Russ:
Seems to me that negotiation implies each side conceding something in order to secure some corresponding concession from the other side.
quote:There is no such thing as a disinterested party when it comes to ethics. So if only a conversation between disinterested parties can track objective morality tracking objective morality becomes impossible.
I don't see why such a process should converge on the right answer. Because it's not a conversation between disinterested parties.
quote:Would a situation in which community B practices honour killings on both community A and community B not be even further from morality?
Isn't it in the interests of community A to concede for example community B's right to practice "honour killings" on community B's members, as a trade-off for accepting some less-morally-serious point which more directly affects community A ?
quote:No, we are NOT all in the same boat, because once again (aside from the whole mischaracterisation thing) you are utterly failing to grasp that granting permission for things to happen is not imposing.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I apologise if I have mischaracterised your position. My impression was that you were one of several people arguing that other people ought to both live by your motto "do no harm" and abide by your judgment as to what constitutes harm.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Because here's the thing about me: I don't have such blinding confidence in the rightness of all my views that I believe other people ought to live by them.
And that, Sir, is the whole point.
And then fooling yourselves that you're not trying to impose anything on anyone.
I'm really not wanting to single you out. Just to make the point that all of us humans are in the same boat.
Sorry if I've not appreciated what you're saying.
quote:I'm waiting for Abp Glenn to say that if the plebiscite passes, SSM will become compulsory. His missive on the topic, handed out on Sunday in obedience to his request, was just plain silly. Not what you'd expect from someone with his academic qualifications.
Originally posted by orfeo:
If people believe that allowing things to happen is "imposing" that thing on those who would prefer it not happen - whether that thing is contraception, gay marriage, whatever - then my goodness no wonder they walk around feeling persecuted all the time. It must be hell living in a world where billions of people are not clones of oneself.
quote:The ethic I advocated was "cause no harm", not "cause no distress". If someone is distressed that other people want to live their lives in a different way than them (when that distress is the only negative consequence for them) then that's their problem.
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm saying we should not estimate that distress at zero. Not kid ourselves that we follow an ethic of "cause no distress".
quote:And how, precisely, are you assigning people to community membership here? Is this "I don't care what brown people do to each other as long as they keep it in their own areas?"
Originally posted by Russ:
Isn't it in the interests of community A to concede for example community B's right to practice "honour killings" on community B's members, as a trade-off for accepting some less-morally-serious point which more directly affects community A ?
quote:That too. But if there are no concessions and no tradeoffs required then that suggests an absence of underlying conflict. Which is the opposite of what Chesterton is saying...
Originally posted by Dafyd:
You don't think it might imply trying to find a position of mutual gain?
quote:I'm not saying it's impossible; I'm saying it's not a guaranteed outcome of a negotiation process. Because people can talk from their disinterested moral intuition or they can talk from their perceived self-interest and their partisan sympathies and their attachment to their own culture's way of doing things.
There is no such thing as a disinterested party when it comes to ethics. So if only a conversation between disinterested parties can track objective morality tracking objective morality becomes impossible.
quote:You're right - granting permission is not imposing.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:you are utterly failing to grasp that granting permission for things to happen is not imposing.
Originally posted by Russ:
And then fooling yourselves that you're not trying to impose anything on anyone.
quote:You forgot your other favorite example, using the power of the state to limit parent's "right" to send their kids to racially segregated public schools. Sort of like the "freedom of choice" of not being able to find a hotel room or restaurant that will serve 'your kind', "freedom" is being considered only from one side. In a lot of cases the 'libertarian' case for freedom of choice is just a euphemism for siding with the powerful.
Originally posted by Russ:
Say after me - progressivism is not libertarian. It's not about increasing freedom of choice.
quote:Chesterton is talking about a different situation and answering a different question.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:That too. But if there are no concessions and no tradeoffs required then that suggests an absence of underlying conflict. Which is the opposite of what Chesterton is saying...
Originally posted by Dafyd:
You don't think it might imply trying to find a position of mutual gain?
quote:What you call our 'disinterested moral intuition' is nothing but the unacknowledged sediment of what you are pleased to call 'our perceived self-interest our partisan sympathies and attachment to our culture's way of doing things'. There isn't any other route to objective truth here.
quote:I'm not saying it's impossible; I'm saying it's not a guaranteed outcome of a negotiation process. Because people can talk from their disinterested moral intuition or they can talk from their perceived self-interest and their partisan sympathies and their attachment to their own culture's way of doing things.
There is no such thing as a disinterested party when it comes to ethics. So if only a conversation between disinterested parties can track objective morality tracking objective morality becomes impossible.
quote:Yes we know libertarianism isn't about increasing freedom of choice. We know libertarianism is about keeping freedom of choice in the hands of the people who already have choices. What's your point in raising such a banal observation?
Originally posted by Russ:
Say after me - progressivism is not libertarian. It's not about increasing freedom of choice.
quote:Are you arguing that there's no route to objective truth? Or that there is a route and it doesn't involve an effort to be more objective by setting aside one's own partisan sympathies ?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There isn't any other route to objective truth here. The more you think you're speaking from moral intuition the more you're the prisoner of your own assumptions.
quote:At the point where she first felt her life was in danger, certainly. From the outset, from before she was first tempted to the deed that incurred the wrath of her extended family ? ?
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Because I'm going to have just the teensiest suspicion that the victim of an "honour killing" would quite like to have benefitted from the rest of our society's prohibition on killing people.
quote:Don't think I'm wedded to it. I see it as a possible compromise between irreconcilable views. Something that might result from a genuine negotiation.
If you're really wedded to your bullshit community private law nonsense...
quote:You might be interested in this piece of news (a group of Muslim women in India successfully fight against Muslim cultural practice in Indian civil court).
Originally posted by Russ:
I don't know the answer. I oscillate between the cynical view that we humans tend to be in favour of tight-knit communities with their own distinctive customs until what we want to do falls foul of the "social rules" of such a community.
quote:The conservative's favourite example relies on an unstated assumption that the role of "baker" and the role of "moral guardian" are readily interchangeable.
Originally posted by Russ:
When courts compel religiously-minded bakers not to distinguish between a sacrament and a blasphemy (as they see it), that's imposing not permitting.
quote:It involves increasing and widening one's sympathies rather than setting them aside.
Originally posted by Russ:
Are you arguing that there's no route to objective truth? Or that there is a route and it doesn't involve an effort to be more objective by setting aside one's own partisan sympathies ?
quote:Which is what we have nation states for.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Shifting from negotiations between people to negotiations between communities means treating communities as monolithic blocks with no overlap or intermingling.
quote:I may be understanding-impaired tonight, or sarcasm impaired. But are you saying the answer to this is "yes"???
Originally posted by Russ:
Isn't it in the interests of community A to concede for example community B's right to practice "honour killings" on community B's members, as a trade-off for accepting some less-morally-serious point which more directly affects community A ?
quote:So what's the difference between the impartiality of setting aside one's own greater sympathy for one side and the impartiality of widening one's sympathies to include both sides equally ?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:It involves increasing and widening one's sympathies rather than setting them aside.
Originally posted by Russ:
Are you arguing that there's no route to objective truth? Or that there is a route and it doesn't involve an effort to be more objective by setting aside one's own partisan sympathies ?
quote:Because some will use any sympathy you show them to bolster their power - and are very likely to use it to beat you later.
Originally posted by Russ:
So what's the difference between the impartiality of setting aside one's own greater sympathy for one side and the impartiality of widening one's sympathies to include both sides equally ?
quote:What's the difference between making a judgment after listening to both sides and making a judgement after listening to neither side?
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:So what's the difference between the impartiality of setting aside one's own greater sympathy for one side and the impartiality of widening one's sympathies to include both sides equally ?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It involves increasing and widening one's sympathies rather than setting them aside.
quote:You had that point. I pointed out you didn't have any other way of tracking the right answer.
I think it's the same as the point we had a short while ago about the negotiated answer not necessarily being the right answer.
quote:I don't think 'unprincipled' means what you're ostensibly claiming to mean by it.
Seems like there's something unprincipled about your approach.
quote:As a conservative believer in objective morality of course I deny that.
I think you're denying that there is a right answer that someone without sympathies - a robot judge - could reach on the basis of principles or rules.
quote:I'm not asking you to have equal sympathy with Nazis. I'm saying that Nazis have the same moral rights as any other human being. And that judging justly requires you to set aside your anti-Nazi sympathies and decide on the basis of a framework of moral rights and duties which is applicable to everyone.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You are either with the Nazis or against them. You can't say "oh I think they have a point, because there are two sides in the argument of whether black people are fully human and endowed with human rights" - because that's saying that you support their concepts of racial superiority.
These are not questions where the answer is to give both sides equal sympathy.
quote:I don't believe in free speech as an absolute, I believe it should always be weighed against the damage it does and the circumstances in which things are said.
Originally posted by Russ:
If you believe in rights such as free speech and a fair trial but would deny those rights to Nazis, how are you any better than they are ?
quote:Yes. Not because I believe this would be a good outcome. But to make the point that a negotiated morality wouldn't necessarily resemble morality as we understand it.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Russ--
quote:I may be understanding-impaired tonight, or sarcasm impaired. But are you saying the answer to this is "yes"???
Originally posted by Russ:
Isn't it in the interests of community A to concede for example community B's right to practice "honour killings" on community B's members, as a trade-off for accepting some less-morally-serious point which more directly affects community A ?
quote:All you're doing is illustrating Poppers Tolerance Paradox, which Conservatives like to do as if they're pointing out something progressives have never thought of, the daft twats. It's boring, we already know about it. We know that a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance, which would include things like honour killings. We already know we desire to "enforce" tolerance, because as Popper observed you can't maintain a tolerant society otherwise.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Yes. Not because I believe this would be a good outcome. But to make the point that a negotiated morality wouldn't necessarily resemble morality as we understand it.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Russ--
quote:I may be understanding-impaired tonight, or sarcasm impaired. But are you saying the answer to this is "yes"???
Originally posted by Russ:
Isn't it in the interests of community A to concede for example community B's right to practice "honour killings" on community B's members, as a trade-off for accepting some less-morally-serious point which more directly affects community A ?
It also serves as a point against the ridiculous notion that progressives are nice people who don't want to impose their moral convictions on others.
I do try not to employ sarcasm. This was just a rhetorical question.
quote:Is anyone here arguing against laws that prohibit lying, intimidation, use of force and ultimately killing ? You don't need special anti-Nazi laws to prohibit these things.
Originally posted by hatless:
What makes someone a Nazi or a fascist is not only opinions about racial superiority and inferiority, but their willingness or eagerness to use violence alongside their arguments. They lie, intimidate, use force and ultimately kill on behalf of their opinions...
...We always twist arguments to serve our secret agendas, but there comes a point when one side wishes to exclude the other from the debate, when debate is no longer the appropriate way forwards. When people actually dehumanise others, justify injustice, and sympathise with physical violence then we need to oppose them not just in debate but by rallying support and wider opinion against them.
quote:Just 'cos it's something that many people would consider a right.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I've never said anything about a fair trial, not sure why you are bringing that up.
quote:I don't see anything wrong with that if you can formulate that "damage" as an impartial rule that applies equally to everyone regardless of where your sympathies lie.
Basically Nazis have rights as people, but given that they want to use those rights to inflict damage onto other people... ...then those who are the subject of the bile deserve to be protected from them.
quote:Sure. And do you want an example of something that is settled and not worth discussing? Nazism. It's bad. We've discussed why it's bad. It's not worth discussing whether you might be able to make a case for a civilized person being able to hold Nazi beliefs, because you can't.
Originally posted by Russ:
- exclusion from debate - have you never read on these boards a comment that dismisses a point of view as something that's all been settled and isn't worth discussing ?
quote:The difference, of course, is that lilBuddha's opinions of Tories are based on what they do, and on the policies that they support, rather than on what they are. Being a Tory (or a Nazi, or a Communist, or a Socialist) is not in any way comparable to being black, or being gay, or being Jewish.
- dehumanise others - have you read lilBuddha on Tories ?
quote:Umm, yes? But one of them can be. (If you want a clue, it's usually not the Nazi.)
justify injustice - wherever two people are disagreeing about what is just they can't both be right
quote:I think there is a legal line where people are prevented from attacking witnesses if they're defending themselves. I don't know the details but it seems fair enough to me.
Originally posted by Russ:
Just 'cos it's something that many people would consider a right.
But perhaps you think that giving Nazis a fair trial would mean letting them speak in their own defence and someone might feel hurt by that and so it shouldn't be allowed ?
quote:
If you're prepared to make one right conditional on your judgment of harm, why not all rights ?
quote:I don't understand where you are going here.
Rights are what you allow to everyone including your enemies.
I don't see anything wrong with that if you can formulate that "damage" as an impartial rule that applies equally to everyone regardless of where your sympathies lie.
quote:A point that relies on the assumption we could find something we'd want to trade honour killings for because we're so utterly self-centred that we don't give a shit what is happening in community B.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Yes. Not because I believe this would be a good outcome. But to make the point that a negotiated morality wouldn't necessarily resemble morality as we understand it.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Russ--
quote:I may be understanding-impaired tonight, or sarcasm impaired. But are you saying the answer to this is "yes"???
Originally posted by Russ:
Isn't it in the interests of community A to concede for example community B's right to practice "honour killings" on community B's members, as a trade-off for accepting some less-morally-serious point which more directly affects community A ?
quote:Time for a newcomer to put his own two cents on this strawhatted and generalized BS, point by point.
- is "social-progressive" an adequate name for it or is there a better one ?
- what is the connection to Christianity ? Is this a religious point of view ?
As a starting point, my first attempt at describing it was in terms of
[QUOTE]doctrines of
- internationalism (migrants good, Brexit bad)
- gender-bending (anything goes so long as you don't speak in favour of traditional gender roles)
- political correctness (can't believe anyone voted for Trump; free speech as long as you don't say what we don't like)
- anti-capitalism (profit is bad, small business has no rights and unlimited liability)
- anti-racism (racism is a huge sin that the whole white race should atone for)
quote:Generalised, certainly.
Originally posted by Clutch:
[QUOTE]
Time for a newcomer to put his own two cents on this strawhatted and generalized BS, point by point...
...As for how this fits with Christianity. It's all down to the Great Commandment for Christ himself; Loving god with all your heart,soul, with all your mind and your strength and loving your neighbour as yourself.
quote:The Paradox says that if you want a land of liberty then you have to enforce a rule against coercion, however paradoxical such enforcement may seem.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
All you're doing is illustrating Poppers Tolerance Paradox...
...We know that a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance, which would include things like honour killings. We already know we desire to "enforce" tolerance, because as Popper observed you can't maintain a tolerant society otherwise.
quote:It can't win. It's not goal-directed enough for winning to be meaningful. It prizes the journey rather than the destination.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Is the social-progressive mindset winning?
quote:Not at all Russ. The poor we will always have with us. We will never achieve universal social justice, but I suppose despite the superficial perceived reverses - Trump, Brexit - the long arc is being trajected, there is utilitarian growth; we're still on the slowly winning journey.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:It can't win. It's not goal-directed enough for winning to be meaningful. It prizes the journey rather than the destination.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Is the social-progressive mindset winning?
It's about an attitude to disadvantaged groups, rather than about trying to achieve any particular goal.
The republican wins when the monarchy is overthrown. The pacifist wins when the armed forces are disbanded because there's no more need for them. The evangelists win when all are baptised. The progressive can never win.
Or do you see it differently ?
quote:One of the Just Men of Jewish tradition is said to have arrived in Sodom. Immediately, he realised the wickedness of the place and spent his days in the market place calling them to repentance. At first people enjoyed the novelty of his preaching, but gradually they drifted away and he was left preaching to no-one. One day a small boy said to him: "Why do you bother, you must know by now that no-one is listening to you". The just man responded "my child, at first I thought that I could change them. I now know that it is enough that they are not able to change me".
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:It can't win. It's not goal-directed enough for winning to be meaningful. It prizes the journey rather than the destination.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Is the social-progressive mindset winning?
It's about an attitude to disadvantaged groups, rather than about trying to achieve any particular goal.
The republican wins when the monarchy is overthrown. The pacifist wins when the armed forces are disbanded because there's no more need for them. The evangelists win when all are baptised. The progressive can never win.
Or do you see it differently ?
quote:They sound like goals to me.
Originally posted by mousethief:
My goal is that all men and women should be treated equitably, and that society's wealth should be distributed equitably.
Those aren't goals?
quote:That's reasonable. Instead, you could congratulate them on enjoying the vast wealth and benefits derived from the crimes committed in the past by people with the same skin colour as them.
Originally posted by Russ:
....
Personally I hadn't seen blaming my white neighbours for the actions of everyone in past centuries who happened to have the same skin colour as the best way of loving them......
quote:I wonder that you have any idea what I do to realize those goals. Perhaps this is an amazing level of insight. Perhaps it's something worse.
Originally posted by Russ:
But exhibiting a bias towards persons you consider to represent a disadvantaged group doesn't seem of itself to be actively realising those goals.
quote:I don't think the difference in wealth between my poorer neighbours and my richer neighbours has anything to do with crime. And some of us aren't enjoying "vast wealth".
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
you could congratulate them on enjoying the vast wealth and benefits derived from the crimes committed in the past by people with the same skin colour as them.
quote:Russ, by global standards, you, me, and our immediate neighbours live a privileged, comfortable existence because of the vast wealth generated over the last 500 years by racism, imperialism, colonialism, slavery, genocide and unsustainable production and consumption. That is not a "mindset", it is a historical and economic fact.
Originally posted by Russ:
I don't think the difference in wealth between my poorer neighbours and my richer neighbours has anything to do with crime. And some of us aren't enjoying "vast wealth"....
quote:Don't you live in a country where people were still profiting off of slavery until 1996? That seems a bit glib to confine to the dim mists of ancient history.
Originally posted by Russ:
Some of my neighbours may have inherited land that they wouldn't have were it not for a relative being killed in the First World War. That's profiting from past wrongdoing by people in another country.
But I'm not intending to try to make them feel guilty about it.
Your history and your narrative take on it don't seem very applicable to people around here.
quote:not when he followed it by telling of the good Samaritan
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:Russ, by global standards, you, me, and our immediate neighbours live a privileged, comfortable existence because of the vast wealth generated over the last 500 years by racism, imperialism, colonialism, slavery, genocide and unsustainable production and consumption. That is not a "mindset", it is a historical and economic fact.
Originally posted by Russ:
I don't think the difference in wealth between my poorer neighbours and my richer neighbours has anything to do with crime. And some of us aren't enjoying "vast wealth"....
It is possible that when Jesus instructed his followers to love their neighbours as themselves, he meant only the people living in the same town
quote:That Ireland & the US are both relatively wealthy countries is a fact as shown by the statistics you quote. The importance that different people attach to different explanations for that fact is very much a matter of mindset.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Russ, by global standards, you, me, and our immediate neighbours live a privileged, comfortable existence because of the vast wealth generated over the last 500 years by racism, imperialism, colonialism, slavery, genocide and unsustainable production and consumption. That is not a "mindset", it is a historical and economic fact.
quote:I think Jesus calls us to extend our good neighbourliness to everyone, not merely those around us.
It is possible that when Jesus instructed his followers to love their neighbours as themselves, he meant only the people living in the same town; is that how you interpret "neighbours"?
quote:WTSF?!*
Originally posted by Russ:
Racism and Magdalene Laundries wouldn't feature on my list of significant factors.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... The importance that different people attach to different explanations for that fact is very much a matter of mindset.
The obvious explanations include:
- natural resources (could Britain have pioneered the Industrial Revolution without coal ?)
- absence of physical barriers to trade
- relative lack of wars and civil strife (nothing destroys wealth like civil war)
- enterprise culture (Hong Kong ?)
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Russ, you're fucking hilarious. If that was all it took to create wealth, there would have been no need for Britain - and Belgium, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Germany, etc. - to have colonies around the globe. Or are you going to claim that the colonial powers were "civilizing" the world out of the goodness of their hearts and lost money doing it? 'Cause that ain't so. The oldest company in North America is the Hudson's Bay Company. What the hell do you think they were doing in British North America, charity work? Certainly not:quote:The lands were not the King's lands to give. That is theft. That is a crime. That is a profitable crime - HBC has total assets of 7.943 billion CAD and market capitalization of 2.32 billion CAD today.
It took the vision and connections of Prince Rupert, cousin of King Charles II, to acquire the Royal Charter which, in May, 1670 granted the lands of the Hudson Bay watershed to “the Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson Bay."
quote:
... Magdalene Laundries wouldn't feature on my list of significant factors.
quote:And I'm coming from the angle that the overwhelming majority of the people in the world do not live in rural Ireland.
...
I'm coming from the angle that in thinking about what being good to our neighbours means, we should start with the people around us whom we meet face to face and know as individuals, and then apply those same behaviours when it comes to our dealings with those further afield.
...
quote:Slavery happened, colonialism happened. These are historical facts.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The Rape of Africa and slavery? Never hear of those?
quote:This IS the dominant reason for the relative poverty of African countries. There is no saying what would have happened if Africa had never been colonised by the European powers; as C S Lewis said, 'Nobody is ever told what would have happened'. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, pre-colonisation, sub-Saharan Africa was very rich indeed, with a large agricultural surplus and a lot of natural resources. No doubt there would have been wars anyway - people are people - and some African societies had slavery. But they would certainly have been richer today. There might even have been fewer wars, because left to their own devices they would probably not have divided their continent up in the same way.
This then becomes, in the progressive mind, the dominant reason for the relative poverty of African countries and the relative wealth of European ones.
quote:"Happened"? Russ, those things don't just "happen". People did those things because they were profitable. And people still do those things because they continue to be profitable.
Originally posted by Russ:
Slavery happened, colonialism happened. These are historical facts.
quote:Well, that might be because progressives recognize that masses of humanity are still in shitty, exploitative "situations" so that you and I can enjoy our opulent - yes, opulent, by any contemporary or historical standards - lifestyle. It might also be because progressives think humans should accept responsibility for their actions and for each other, instead of pretending that things like slavery just "happen", resulting in people being in "situations".
What's of interest for this thread is how the progressive mindset weaves a narrative around those facts and then uses that narrative as the basis for responding to situations.
quote:In fairness to Russ, Ireland has been more colonised against than colonising. The Great Potato Famine is still something people remember. That said, on Russ' principles the Great Potato Famine was just one of these things that happen and entirely unrelated to the UK's free trade policy.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
If that was all it took to create wealth, there would have been no need for Britain - and Belgium, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Germany, etc. - to have colonies around the globe.
quote:This is assuming is he Irish, and not of Ulster Scot or English background.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:In fairness to Russ, Ireland has been more colonised against than colonising.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
If that was all it took to create wealth, there would have been no need for Britain - and Belgium, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Germany, etc. - to have colonies around the globe.
quote:Assuming his family were affected, it isn't uncommon for people to create an artificial disconnect between their own suffering and that of others.
The Great Potato Famine is still something people remember. That said, on Russ' principles the Great Potato Famine was just one of these things that happen and entirely unrelated to the UK's free trade policy.
quote:That is because the numbers involved are of an order of magnitude different. There are no white populations that are identifiably descended from slaves that I can think of. There are lots of black populations that are descended from slaves.
Originally posted by Russ:
For example, the European individuals who historically were enslaved by North African individuals aren't part of the narrative. But the (sub-Saharan) Africans who were enslaved by their fellow Africans, transported by Europeans and sold to Americans are a really important part of the narrative, which becomes about the "rape" of Africa (presumably by Europe ?)
quote:Most of the big cities on the west coast of Britain are there because some people made a lot of money out of the slave triangle and then turned that into philanthropic interventions, capital investments within the rest of Europe, and so on. As for Africa, I think the legacy of slavery and colonialism is only part of the story. Colonialism is the bigger legacy in that the infrastructure it left behind in African countries was predominantly set up to make it easy to extract capital and resources. But I wouldn't say colonialism left an insuperable blight upon Africa. That's down partly to US (and Chinese) support for authoritarian regimes that could be counted on to let capital extract resources and especially down to world financial institutions restricting government spending as part of their loans programs.
This then becomes, in the progressive mind, the dominant reason for the relative poverty of African countries and the relative wealth of European ones.
quote:Sounds like you're saying that we cannot know, but you're sure anyway...
Originally posted by Jane R:
this IS the dominant reason for the relative poverty of African countries. There is no saying what would have happened if Africa had never been colonised by the European powers
quote:First Majestic Silver Corp.
Colonial mining began when European techniques of production were introduced into the 'New World' to satisfy the insatiable European demand for metals. Within a matter of years, gold and silver started to flow into the Spanish treasury from Mexican mines. During the next 300 years of Spanish rule, many other minerals were extracted from the ground, such as copper, coal, lead and iron.
The bedrock deposits of the great silver-gold vein system of the Veta Madre at Guanajuato was discovered in the year 1550 and unearthed almost immediately after that El Oro, located near Mexico City one of the leading gold districts, was discovered in 1521, developed to a great extent by 1530, and mined regularly with some interruptions for about 400 years. During this period over 5 million ounces of gold was extracted.
quote:Ok, so I read the one, non-batshit crazy link on that search, AOL.
Originally posted by Twilight:
I thought this was interesting.
The crime of holding a flag while blonde.
quote:That may also be because African slaves in the New World were encouraged to have children, whereas slaves generally in the Arab world don't seem to have been held in conditions where they might have been able to. Otherwise there would be significant African populations in the Gulf, which there don't seem to be.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That is because the numbers involved are of an order of magnitude different. There are no white populations that are identifiably descended from slaves that I can think of. There are lots of black populations that are descended from slaves. ...
quote:I actually linked to one of the articles and it flipped back to my Google search, but I think it is beyond ridiculous for the ACLU to have to apologize for posting a picture of a blonde child.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Ok, so I read the one, non-batshit crazy link on that search, AOL.
Originally posted by Twilight:
I thought this was interesting.
The crime of holding a flag while blonde.
And the ACLU admit they were wrong. They have been defending white supremacist types and to put a blonde child on their twitter feed is a bit insensitive.
quote:It seems like it's not so much the picture as the way the accompanying text echoes one of the most infamous white supremacist slogans, especially when coupled with the picture. Most other people would get a pass for just not being aware of the fetishistic way white supremacists use the "14 words", but the ACLU doesn't really have that excuse.
Originally posted by Twilight:
I actually linked to one of the articles and it flipped back to my Google search, but I think it is beyond ridiculous for the ACLU to have to apologize for posting a picture of a blonde child.
quote:If you're copying both the rhetoric and the iconography of white supremacists, I'm not sure "everyone" is clear in your message.
Originally posted by Twilight:
I thought they were echoing it on purpose saying "This is the future the ACLU wants," free speech for everyone.
quote:Messages are not intent alone, but perception as well. THe SCLU does not have a history of capitulating to critics, yet here they did. Why? Because they understood what people were seeing was not what they intended to show. The fauxtrage of the right is just that: false.
Originally posted by Twilight:
I thought they were echoing it on purpose saying "This is the future the ACLU wants," free speech for everyone. I thought the point the ACLU was making was about the child's shirt slogan. Instead it was seen as the twitter response quoted, "A white kid with a flag?!!!"
quote:I couldn't find that, but I would bet that it is an opinion, not a position of Huffington post.
I did see that the Huff Post has and article saying the ACLU should be banned for "defending Nazi's." hmmm
quote:We're sure that Africa had a lot of natural resources (and people) that were appropriated by the European colonial powers.
Sounds like you're saying that we cannot know, but you're sure anyway...
quote:You're the one who brought up a similarity in phrasing with the white supremacy slogan. I just thought if there is a similarity it might have been in an attempt to turn it around. I think it was probably just a cute picture.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:If you're copying both the rhetoric and the iconography of white supremacists, I'm not sure "everyone" is clear in your message.
Originally posted by Twilight:
I thought they were echoing it on purpose saying "This is the future the ACLU wants," free speech for everyone.
I'm also not sure it was a deliberate effort to copy white supremacist rhetoric, as you seem to. Still, when you're the ACLU you should at least have some awareness of such things, which seems to be why it was pointed out.
quote:I'm not sure that follows. If you're dedicated in principle to the right of others to be hateful and nasty it doesn't necessarily mean that you have to be hateful and nasty yourself.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Sensitivity to any one group's feelings is contrary to their mission of equal rights for all, even the hateful and nasty.
quote:They didn't buckle under. They don't do that. They recognised their post didn't represent what they wished it to.
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm sorry the ACLU buckled under
quote:The division of Africa was of ten thousand kingdoms over ten - order of magnitude - external imperiums. Portuguese, French, Belgian, Dutch, British, German, Italian, Spanish, American and now Chinese. We annihilated African diversity with third rate European 'culture'.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Russ:quote:We're sure that Africa had a lot of natural resources (and people) that were appropriated by the European colonial powers.
Sounds like you're saying that we cannot know, but you're sure anyway...
We're also sure that Africa was divided up according to the convenience of the colonising powers with very little reference to the convenience or ethnic groupings of the people who actually lived there.
We're sure that before the colonial period Africa was self-sufficient in food production.
What we don't and can't know for sure is what the world would look like today if Africa had never been colonised and all the nations who you keep saying have not benefited at all from slavery and/or colonisation had had to fall back on their own resources.
Clear now?
quote:Agreed.
Originally posted by Jane R:
What we don't and can't know for sure is what the world would look like today if Africa had never been colonised
quote:I haven't said that the colonising countries gained no benefit. (That may perhaps be true in the case of Italy ?)
all the nations who you keep saying have not benefited at all from slavery and/or colonisation
quote:No it doesn't. I cannot read your mind, but your posts seem to indicate a desire to minimise the impact of slavery and the rape of Africa.
Originally posted by Russ:
I suspect the evidence shows that
- the colonising countries were richer than any African country before colonialism took place
- the countries most affected by colonialism are not the poorest African countries
- the countries that had the most colonies are not now the richest European countries.
all of which suggest that there are other more important factors.
quote:That's a fair comment. I think we can all recognize that this is a significant issue in the US.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The relative poverty of the African diaspora compared to their compatriots on the other hand is largely down to the legacy of slavery and the attitudes among the white population that stem from it. If your father owned nothing and people won't hire you for jobs then you're not going to get rich.
quote:Lots ? Beyond the US and the Caribbean ?
There are no white populations that are identifiably descended from slaves that I can think of. There are lots of black populations that are descended from slaves.
quote:I think there's an issue around numbers (tying in with Soror Magna's comment about "vast wealth").
the numbers involved are of an order of magnitude different
quote:Did you in all honesty look at the picture of that toddler and think it was hateful and nasty?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I'm not sure that follows. If you're dedicated in principle to the right of others to be hateful and nasty it doesn't necessarily mean that you have to be hateful and nasty yourself.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Sensitivity to any one group's feelings is contrary to their mission of equal rights for all, even the hateful and nasty.
quote:As you yourself noted, slave raiding by northern African countries on the southern European coast used to be something that happened. It does not happen any more.
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm querying your confident assertion that colonialism is the main reason for the difference in wealth between African countries and European countries.
I suspect the evidence shows that
- the colonising countries were richer than any African country before colonialism took place
- the countries most affected by colonialism are not the poorest African countries
- the countries that had the most colonies are not now the richest European countries.
all of which suggest that there are other more important factors.
quote:There's a significant population in the UK with Caribbean ancestors. Most south American countries have a significant population of African ancestry: Brazil has more people of African ancestry than the US does.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Lots ? Beyond the US and the Caribbean ?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There are no white populations that are identifiably descended from slaves that I can think of. There are lots of black populations that are descended from slaves.
quote:Progressives have a doctrine? Well, of course, they have a doctrine. There's a progressive Pope and Magisterium who interpret the progressive Holy Book and the progressive Creed as set out in the progressive ecumenical councils.
If one is focused on individuals, then one individual's problem is not necessarily any more severe or more important depending on the number of other individuals who have the same problem.
If you care for your neighbour as a person, then it's really not important how many other people have the same problem as your neighbour does. What matters is how severely it affects them and what can be done about it.
Do progressives in effect have a doctrine that says problems that lots of people suffer from are important, and problems that only a few suffer from aren't ?
If you want to make a difference to society, doesn't it make sense to concentrate on the big major important problems ?
quote:Do conservatives have a doctrine that says you can only care about one person at a time?
Originally posted by Russ:
... Do progressives in effect have a doctrine that says problems that lots of people suffer from are important, and problems that only a few suffer from aren't ? ...
quote:Actually that was your analysis. Or one of your analyses. You seem to be advancing two arguments. The first is that echoing the rhertoric and iconography of white supremacists is unobjectionable and the second seems to be that if you defend the right of people to be objectionable you're obligated to be objectionable yourself. In addition to being a non-sequitur, the second argument seems to contradict the first.
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:Did you in all honesty look at the picture of that toddler and think it was hateful and nasty?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I'm not sure that follows. If you're dedicated in principle to the right of others to be hateful and nasty it doesn't necessarily mean that you have to be hateful and nasty yourself.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Sensitivity to any one group's feelings is contrary to their mission of equal rights for all, even the hateful and nasty.
quote:More to the point, they didn't want to be associated with the rhetoric and semiotics of white supremacists, not just because it's offensive to most but because that's not the message they were intending to send. To take a related example, suppose the name of one of your products was a fairly offensive racial slur in the foreign country where you were selling it. You seem to be arguing that the proper response once this is pointed out by your customers is to resist "buckling under" and telling those customers they shouldn't be bothered if their new sofa comes with a side-helping of racial denigration. Most people, including the company in question, take the contrary approach and don't feel obligated to continue deliberately repeating what was initially an accident.
Originally posted by Twilight:
They took it down because a lot of people were offended and they didn't want to offend. That doesn't mean those people were right to be offended.
quote:If you say so.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Nazi's are offended when they see mixed race couples. Other people are offended when they see blond children with flags. I think they are both wrong and the ACLU should not pander to either one.
quote:The progressives view is, as usual, a little more nuanced than the reactionary/conservative one. The progressive view is not to condemn people out of hand simply because they are out of work, disabled or have chosen to leave a warzone to somewhere more peaceful without the expected paperwork. All of these are exactly the kind of people the conservatives, supported by the gutter press, continually to persecute. Sometimes they are few in number, sometimes many.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:Do conservatives have a doctrine that says you can only care about one person at a time?
Originally posted by Russ:
... Do progressives in effect have a doctrine that says problems that lots of people suffer from are important, and problems that only a few suffer from aren't ? ...
quote:Wow, progressivism in action !
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:This is assuming is he Irish, and not of Ulster Scot or English background.
Originally posted by Dafyd In fairness to Russ, Ireland has been more colonised against than colonising.
quote:Is that image supposed to be offensive?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:If you say so.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Nazi's are offended when they see mixed race couples. Other people are offended when they see blond children with flags. I think they are both wrong and the ACLU should not pander to either one.
quote:How could it be? It's a blond child with a flag! More to the point, no person or organization should find it problematic to be associated with that image, at least according to Twilight.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Is that image supposed to be offensive?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:If you say so.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Nazi's are offended when they see mixed race couples. Other people are offended when they see blond children with flags. I think they are both wrong and the ACLU should not pander to either one.
quote:The sarcasm I perceive in your reply suggests that you do think the image is offensive. But while I'm perfectly familiar with the historical context of the image, it doesn't offend me.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:How could it be? It's a blond child with a flag!
Is that image supposed to be offensive?
quote:The ACLU used a completely different image where the only similarities with the one you linked were a blond child (of a different gender) and a flag (of a different country). Is that really enough to label it hateful and nasty?
More to the point, no person or organization should find it problematic to be associated with that image, at least according to Twilight.
quote:The ACLU image is neither hateful or nasty, Their post wasn't hateful or nasty.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Is that really enough to label it hateful and nasty?
quote:Well, quite. This kind of thing happens all the time. People don't communicate in paragraphs backed up with definitions and appendices - we typically communicate in short hand. And when we're abbreviating some idea down to say "here is the central point I'm making", we don't often pay too much attention to other ideas that could also be contracted to the same statement / image / whatever.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What it was is a poorly chosen image given their recent activities. They recognised this and apologised. Because context. Which doesn't take a rocket surgeon to work out.
quote:That makes no sense at all to me.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If you love your neighbour as a person, then you love them as a member of their society. Trying to love them in abstract from their society is loving them in the abstract not as a person.
quote:Groups of people are real. Groups of people that share common experiences, goals, characteristics, challenges, whatever, are real. I think I've mentioned this before in another context: freedom of association means groups of people can get together for a common purpose. (Not freedom to drive people away.)
Originally posted by Russ:
That makes no sense at all to me.
People are real; social classes are an abstraction.
quote:And yet on another thread you were trying to argue that the desire to live in a mono-cultural community was a desire that should we should be respecting even if it led to the inconvenience or suffering the people excluded from the community.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:That makes no sense at all to me.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If you love your neighbour as a person, then you love them as a member of their society. Trying to love them in abstract from their society is loving them in the abstract not as a person.
People are real; social classes are an abstraction.
quote:They may be an abstraction but abstractions are very useful as an aid to understanding.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:That makes no sense at all to me.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If you love your neighbour as a person, then you love them as a member of their society. Trying to love them in abstract from their society is loving them in the abstract not as a person.
People are real; social classes are an abstraction.
quote:Yes. But I suggest that you wouldn't want to be treated in the same way as the tar and gravel. And, being a moral person, therefore don't treat others that way.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:They may be an abstraction but abstractions are very useful as an aid to understanding.
Originally posted by Russ:
People are real; social classes are an abstraction.
As an example, consider driving a car from point A to point B by looking at individual pieces of tar, grit and gravel - I bet you can't do it - but if you use a roadmap to the right scale, you will find it easy.
The former is real and obscure while the latter is abstract and clear.
quote:Not sure here whether you're idenifying progressivism with Christianity or simply being sarcastic.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There's a progressive Pope and Magisterium who interpret the progressive Holy Book and the progressive Creed as set out in the progressive ecumenical councils.
quote:I was being sarcastic.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Not sure here whether you're idenifying progressivism with Christianity or simply being sarcastic.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There's a progressive Pope and Magisterium who interpret the progressive Holy Book and the progressive Creed as set out in the progressive ecumenical councils.
quote:You say this as if this is a problem.
Seems that - please correct me if you think otherwise - progressives have no such reference individual.
quote:In the same way there isn't a formal process whereby particular words come to be seen as rude or ill-mannered.
There is no formal process by which a particular word comes to be seen as politically incorrect.
quote:In so far as there's no authority that could rule any particular idea progressivist or not progressivist; in fact, in so far as there's no court which can rule that a person is or isn't 'progressivist', there can't be any progressivist doctrines or party line. Progressivism isn't any definite mindset or school.
It is a progressive doctrine that progressivism has no doctrines...
quote:"progressives are", "the progressive mindset", etc. are phrases that are rarely followed by any real examination of what being progressive is. They are insults or scare-words that are easy to use and take explanation to debunk so play to the base suppositions of the listener.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I thought that that was the point in having progressive ideas today, that they are not a canon. You could use words like spectrum or cline, so you can't fix them like a photograph, sorry old-fashioned reference to when photos were fixed by chemicals.
In fact, 'mindset' is a nonsensical word.
quote:Perhaps progressives have looked around the world and realized that following books has created a vast amount of misery in said world. Maybe life is complicated and changeable and can't be encompassed in a book. And let's take a moment to reflect on some of the assumptions in Russ' statement: a book implies written language and literacy, for example. If you can't read, how will you know what the book says? You'll have to take someone else's word for what it says, in which case you're not following the book anymore, you're following hearsay. A book doesn't have any authority on its own - it's just a book until someone uses it to justify their own authority.
Originally posted by Russ:
.... Which is why progressive ideas are not held in terms of the outworking of a philosophy written in some book. Such a book would be an authority of sorts. ...
quote:Is this a subtle way of telling us you aren't Catholic? Anyway, the argument is that everything exists because of something else causing it and there wouldn't be anything without a "first cause" i.e. God. Of course, then the obvious question is what caused the first cause. Oh, well, nothing caused God. God just is. Do not worry if you can't get your head around that - it's a nonsensical argument. God is also one of those 'ideas are held by those who believe them as "obviously true"', even though we all know it's turtles all the way down.
....I may have this wrong, but my understanding is that in the Catechism of the Catholic Church it states that the existence of God is deducible without revelation. ... I struggle to get my head around that one. ...
quote:"Politically correct" is a derogatory term used to mean not demeaning or insulting to others, typically used by people who habitually demean or insult others.
Originally posted by Russ:
There is no formal process by which a particular word comes to be seen as politically incorrect..
quote:Russ, you really have missed the point. I never suggested that an abstraction is the same as the object, just that the right abstraction can aid understanding.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Yes. But I suggest that you wouldn't want to be treated in the same way as the tar and gravel. And, being a moral person, therefore don't treat others that way.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:They may be an abstraction but abstractions are very useful as an aid to understanding.
Originally posted by Russ:
People are real; social classes are an abstraction.
As an example, consider driving a car from point A to point B by looking at individual pieces of tar, grit and gravel - I bet you can't do it - but if you use a roadmap to the right scale, you will find it easy.
The former is real and obscure while the latter is abstract and clear.
quote:So do please enlighten us as to what being progressive is.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
"progressives are", "the progressive mindset", etc. are phrases that are rarely followed by any real examination of what being progressive is.
quote:If you think "progressive" is an insult, what more neutral term would you prefer?
They are insults or scare-words...
quote:Books are so 19th-century...
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Perhaps progressives have looked around the world and realized that following books has created a vast amount of misery in said world.
quote:Is it not enough to be fighting for a world where everyone can be free to be who they want to be without bigots and haters persecuting them for it?
Originally posted by Russ:
Step back from the battlefront of the culture wars for long enough to say what it is that you think you're fighting for and why.
quote:Now, now! You're ignoring Russ's stricture that you're supposed to ignore oppression and exploitation. Exactly why you're supposed to do this is unclear, but he seems to feel strongly that opposing those things is out of bounds.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Is it not enough to be fighting for a world where everyone can be free to be who they want to be without bigots and haters persecuting them for it?
Originally posted by Russ:
Step back from the battlefront of the culture wars for long enough to say what it is that you think you're fighting for and why.
quote:Calls for a progressive alliance at the last UK election had in mind the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party, and in Scotland also the Scottish National Party. I think you'd struggle to find any formal doctrine held by all those parties. It's hard enough to find a formal doctrine that unites both wings of the Labour Party.
Originally posted by Russ:
So do please enlighten us as to what being progressive is.
quote:No it isn't part of it.
It's clearly more than just a negative attitude to the western cultural tradition, although that's part of it.
quote:There are some ways of loving one's neighbour which require no particular justification to count as loving your neighbour. For instance, not beating up your neighbour because he's married another man. Conservative Christian takes on dead horses are somewhat less straightforward to justify as loving their neighbour.
It isn't loving your neighbour. Because all the conservative Christians think they love their neighbours. It could possibly be a particular way of doing so that distinguishes you from them.
quote:If you exploit one person that's oppression; if you exploit a million people that's a statistic. Russ' position seems to be endorsing Stalin.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You're ignoring Russ's stricture that you're supposed to ignore oppression and exploitation. Exactly why you're supposed to do this is unclear, but he seems to feel strongly that opposing those things is out of bounds.
quote:And there have been many, many, many cultures and civilizations throughout human history that got along just fine without written moral or religious texts. And the codex format was invented long before the 19th Century.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Books are so 19th-century...
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Perhaps progressives have looked around the world and realized that following books has created a vast amount of misery in said world.
...and so many of them were written by Dead White Males.
quote:Pretty much what Dafyd said, especially this bit.
Originally posted by Russ:
What's your take on it ?
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's more of a general sense that politics should serve everyone in a society and not merely those who have financial privilege.
quote:I would argue that they don't. You do not love you neighbour when you try to remove their healthcare, when you promote policies which push them towards poverty, etc.
Originally posted by Russ:
It isn't loving your neighbour. Because all the conservative Christians think they love their neighbours.
quote:Cute. But the word is not an insult in itself, just used this way by conservatives.
If you think "progressive" is an insult, what more neutral term would you prefer?
quote:Again this sounds to me like the sort of "motherhood and Apple pie" stuff that everybody believes in, if perhaps in different ways. What makes your way different from anybody else's ?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Pretty much what Dafyd said, especially this bit.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's more of a general sense that politics should serve everyone in a society and not merely those who have financial privilege.
quote:Mitt Romney's infamous "47% speech" comes to mind.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Again this sounds to me like the sort of "motherhood and Apple pie" stuff that everybody believes in, if perhaps in different ways. What makes your way different from anybody else's ?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Pretty much what Dafyd said, especially this bit.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's more of a general sense that politics should serve everyone in a society and not merely those who have financial privilege.
Do you seriously think that anyone believes that politics is there to serve the rich ? Which author has written that they believe that ? Which politician has made speeches exhorting us to believe that ?
quote:Yes, lots of people. The Rich, for a start. Do you seriously think the Kochs spend all that money on politicians without expecting to reap the benefit she for themselves?
Originally posted by Russ:
Do you seriously think that anyone believes that politics is there to serve the rich ?
quote:Ayn Rand? Milo Yiannopoulos?
Which author has written that they believe that ?
quote:Republicans advocating tax cuts for the wealthy funded by healthcare cuts for the poor springs to mind.
Which politician has made speeches exhorting us to believe that ?
quote:Possibly there are relatively few people who believe that consciously and through their own deliberate fault. On the other hand, there are quite a lot of people who, through negligence or weakness, either through failure to think through the consequences of the policies they advocate do indeed end up supporting policies that serve chiefly the rich. Or there are people who for (spurious imho) moral or economic reasons think they can't accept policies that don't serve chiefly the rich.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Again this sounds to me like the sort of "motherhood and Apple pie" stuff that everybody believes in, if perhaps in different ways. What makes your way different from anybody else's ?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Pretty much what Dafyd said, especially this bit.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's more of a general sense that politics should serve everyone in a society and not merely those who have financial privilege.
Do you seriously think that anyone believes that politics is there to serve the rich ?
quote:Do you have chapter and verse ? For the specific claim that politics should be for the benefit of the rich rather than for everyone ?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Ayn Rand? Milo Yiannopoulos?
quote:That speech objected to the idea of a large class of people who draw money out of the public purse while paying nothing in, voting in their own interest for ever-higher government spending. (I think he later said that he'd got the figures wrong).
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Mitt Romney's infamous "47% speech" comes to mind.
quote:Other people pointed out that Romney was wrong, or at least incredibly deceptive. (e.g. way more than 53% of Americans pay payroll tax, which is the tax Republicans never seem to remember.) As far as I'm aware Romney shuffled and jived about his intentions but never actually repudiated the statistic. Of course I've not read the "the complete works" of Willard Mitt Romney, so it's possible I've missed something. Can you cite "chapter and verse" of this alleged correction on his part?
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:That speech objected to the idea of a large class of people who draw money out of the public purse while paying nothing in, voting in their own interest for ever-higher government spending. (I think he later said that he'd got the figures wrong).
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Mitt Romney's infamous "47% speech" comes to mind.
quote:It really isn't. A speech promising that, as president, Romney would only serve the interests of the alleged 53% of Americans who pay (income) tax isn't "the mirror image of the idea of rich people using their influence", it is rich people using their influence.
Originally posted by Russ:
It's the mirror image of the idea of rich people using their influence to try to secure ever-lower taxes.
quote:That seems a particularly dishonest bit of framing. The "right-leaning desire for small government" usually includes huge amounts of spending on things like the military, law enforcement, corporate giveaways, etc., after which government isn't really that small anymore. A more realistic way to look at the division is that left-leaners and right-leaners attempt to use the state to advance their agenda, but differ in the particulars.
Originally posted by Russ:
But there will always be tension between the left-leaning desire for big government with high taxes and high spending that looks after everyone, and the right-leaning desire for small government with low taxes and low spending that leaves people free to seek their own good.
quote:Ayn Rand's famous work is Atlas Shrugged where one of the main themes is so-called rational egoism - which is one of the reasons that Republicans love it.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Do you have chapter and verse ? For the specific claim that politics should be for the benefit of the rich rather than for everyone ?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Ayn Rand? Milo Yiannopoulos?
Or are you expecting me to read the complete works ?
quote:Sorry. Not quite. A category of '53% of the population' is too large to call it 'rich people'.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
... It really isn't. A speech promising that, as president, Romney would only serve the interests of the alleged 53% of Americans who pay (income) tax isn't "the mirror image of the idea of rich people using their influence", it is rich people using their influence. ...
quote:That's true - the rich and powerful have an amazing ability to get a large proportion of people to vote against their own interests and instead to vote in policies which only benefit a tiny minority.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Sorry. Not quite. A category of '53% of the population' is too large to call it 'rich people'.
quote:Well I think these things have long roots and basically go back to Plato and beyond. If you have the idea that there are certain people who are "born to govern", then it isn't many steps until you get an aristocracy and then not many more until you get a plutocracy.
There's a lot that's really, really wrong in the concept that one is entitled overtly to govern in the interests only of only-just-over-half the population, and as against what is virtually-the-other-half - who are demeaned as a nuisance, people who spoil the fun who should go away. That's nasty, and what we have in my country at the moment. But that, Crœsos, is a different charge.
quote:As an additional factor, some people (consciously or semi-consciously) believe that people are rich or poor because they deserve it. And therefore policies that in fact serve the rich are justified on the grounds that they reward 'the deserving' or penalise 'the lazy'.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Or there are people who for (spurious imho) moral or economic reasons think they can't accept policies that don't serve chiefly the rich.
Originally posted by Russ:
Do you seriously think that anyone believes that politics is there to serve the rich ?
quote:That doesn't look to me like an argument that politics should be for the benefit of the rich. It looks like an argument that the good society is one where individuals are free to self-actualize, to create and make a living from their creations.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:... one of the main themes is so-called rational egoism - which is one of the reasons that Republicans love it.
Originally posted by Russ:
Do you have chapter and verse ? For the specific claim that politics should be for the benefit of the rich rather than for everyone ?
quote:This.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Yes, lots of people. The Rich, for a start. Do you seriously think the Kochs spend all that money on politicians without expecting to reap the benefit she for themselves?
Originally posted by Russ:
Do you seriously think that anyone believes that politics is there to serve the rich ?
quote:Not just our politics. Our very governments are there to serve the rich. The law protects property rights at least as much as personal rights, therefore offering more protection to those who own property than those who do not.
Originally posted by Russ:
Do you seriously think that anyone believes that politics is there to serve the rich ? Which author has written that they believe that ? Which politician has made speeches exhorting us to believe that ?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...Do you seriously think that anyone believes that politics is there to serve the rich ? ...
quote:I spy, with my little eye, a moving goalpost. Politics currently IS working to the benefit of the rich pretty much everywhere, but it SHOULDN'T.
Originally posted by Russ:
... For the specific claim that politics should be for the benefit of the rich rather than for everyone ?...
quote:Maybe you're not trying very hard or lack imagination. Ayn Rand talked about individualism as a virtue - and it isn't hard to see how that turns out to be the elevation of the rich in the body politic.
Originally posted by Russ:
That doesn't look to me like an argument that politics should be for the benefit of the rich. It looks like an argument that the good society is one where individuals are free to self-actualize, to create and make a living from their creations.
quote:Well, y'know, like all philosophy it helps if (a) you bother to familiarise yourself with the basics of it before commenting on it and (b) you're prepared to think through the direction of it and where it might be going so that (c) you understand how people are today using it to underscore their political philosophy.
So that a poor potter is a more authentic human being then someone who gets a higher income by living on the dole.
The rich as a class do not appear to merit a mention in this summary of Rand's philosophy.
quote:Just read the damn thing already, or if you can't be bothered to do that then get a inkling of the basics by reading the zillions of articles across the internet about it.
Which is why I was asking whether there's a specific work or section of her work which addresses the rich and their role in society. A specific quote which demonstrates that she advocates the specific view which I'm suggesting that nobody holds.
quote:Well there is also this, isn't there. Historically politics has almost always been about exclusion of the majority, with only very recent moves towards inclusion of the needs everyone.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Read John Locke, William Blackstone, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson -- just off the top of my head. They don't come out and say politics, government and the law are there to serve the rich; what they do is explain and defend property rights. Those of us who do not own property know when we are being told we can fuck off and die.
quote:Not at all. The construction "is there to" is a statement of purpose. Which combines with the unstated premise that institutions should serve their purpose, to reach a conclusion about what should be.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...Do you seriously think that anyone believes that politics is there to serve the rich ? ...quote:I spy, with my little eye, a moving goalpost.
Originally posted by Russ:
... For the specific claim that politics should be for the benefit of the rich rather than for everyone ?...
quote:Well, the current game is 1% screwing the other 99% out their money. The system we have now is most definitely not serving everybody. What do you think should be done about it?
Originally posted by Russ:
...
Not this horrible notion of a zero-sum game where you win by getting together a coalition of 51% of the people to screw money out of the other 49%. That's not "serving everybody".
quote:I'm puzzled why you think those with existing privilege think that they should help those without. The evidence appears to be that in almost all situations those with power, money and influence want to keep it for themselves.
Originally posted by Russ:
And politics should of course serve everybody - rich, poor, and inbetween. It should be Us - we, the people - getting together to do collectively what we can't do (or can't do nearly so well) individually.
quote:But who actually ever talks about politics being the service of everyone?
Not this horrible notion of a zero-sum game where you win by getting together a coalition of 51% of the people to screw money out of the other 49%. That's not "serving everybody".
quote:Which notion is 'this' horrible notion? Has somebody been advocating anything that can honestly be described that way? I must have missed it.
Originally posted by Russ:
And politics should of course serve everybody - rich, poor, and inbetween. It should be Us - we, the people - getting together to do collectively what we can't do (or can't do nearly so well) individually.
Not this horrible notion of a zero-sum game where you win by getting together a coalition of 51% of the people to screw money out of the other 49%. That's not "serving everybody".
quote:I think you're right. What we're talking about is a philosophy of redress. Of reversing traditional biases (rather than eliminating or transcending them).
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't think that social progressive politics are those that focus on everyone - instead they're the politics which are trying to redress the inbuilt imbalance in society, which traditionally has given advantage and favour to a few.
quote:I don't think that's part of the social progressive mindset that we're talking about at all.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Russ, do you think it's socially progressive that workers pay three times as much tax as shareholders?
quote:Would would you consider 'eliminating' or 'transcending' those biases to actually consist of? Other than declaring a year zero where we started to pretend they don't exist?
Originally posted by Russ:
I think you're right. What we're talking about is a philosophy of redress. Of reversing traditional biases (rather than eliminating or transcending them).
quote:Perhaps you could explain how you eliminate a traditional bias without reversing it at some point?
Originally posted by Russ:
I think you're right. What we're talking about is a philosophy of redress. Of reversing traditional biases (rather than eliminating or transcending them).
quote:You say that like it's a bad thing?
It's not advocating a desired end-state.
quote:No it isn't.
It's advocating a cultural leaning in the opposite direction from the traditional one.
quote:There's no point in redressing an injustice without addressing the source of the injustice. If injustice is caused by a traditional bias, and if one is serious about redressing injustice, it would be nuts not to make an effort to eliminate the bias; otherwise, you'll just be stuck redressing over and over and over again. Followed by "those people are never happy, race shouldn't matter, women want more rights, everybody is equal now, criminals have all the rights, it's never enough, time to move on, nobody owns slaves today" and so on. Gosh, that sounds familiar ...
Originally posted by Russ:
I think you're right. What we're talking about is a philosophy of redress. Of reversing traditional biases (rather than eliminating or transcending them).
...
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
b) intuitively it seems to me that if I set aside some part of my current wages to provide for an income in retirement, and if I invest that money in the shares of a wealth-generating business (rather than under the mattress or speculating on property prices)
quote:So if I take my wages, and purchase a pile of widgets and sell them at a profit, I shouldn't have to pay tax on my profits because I already paid tax on my income. And then I take those profits and buy more widgets, and shouldn't pay tax because I'm still profiting from my taxed income. And before long I have a massive widget-trading business which shouldn't be taxed because my seed capital was taxed income?
then there's a case for taxng that income from shares more lightly, either to incentivize behaviour that supports the common good, or because I've already had to pay tax on the capital that is generating the income.
quote:It seems to me that you like the idea of having taxes to pay for things as long as you don't actually have to be the one paying and as long as you are the one benefiting.
Originally posted by Russ:
b) intuitively it seems to me that if I set aside some part of my current wages to provide for an income in retirement, and if I invest that money in the shares of a wealth-generating business (rather than under the mattress or speculating on property prices) then there's a case for taxng that income from shares more lightly, either to incentivize behaviour that supports the common good, or because I've already had to pay tax on the capital that is generating the income.
I don't see any clear watershed where "the rich" cease to be people like us but with a bit more money and become greedy bloated plutocrats.
quote:I disagree that this is a clean or easy distinction to make. For example:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I don't think that's part of the social progressive mindset that we're talking about at all.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Russ, do you think it's socially progressive that workers pay three times as much tax as shareholders?
Not only because it's economic rather than social.
quote:Note that there's a conflation of two different things. The first is whether money earned through labor (wages) should be taxed as heavily or more heavily than money earned by already having money (investment). The second is whether income dedicated to certain approved purposes (in this case retirement savings) should receive favorable tax treatment. There's no reason these two questions shouldn't be considered separately. Not all (or even most) income derived from investments is dedicated to retirement savings, nor is all retirement savings derived from investment income.
Originally posted by Russ:
If you meant to ask whether I think it just that workers pay three times as much tax as shareholders, then I'd have to answer that
a) that's a hard question - taxes are a necessary way of paying for government services, so that it is not possible to pronounce definitively on what is a just tax in the absence of information on what services the money is spent on.
But
b) intuitively it seems to me that if I set aside some part of my current wages to provide for an income in retirement, and if I invest that money in the shares of a wealth-generating business (rather than under the mattress or speculating on property prices) then there's a case for taxng that income from shares more lightly, either to incentivize behaviour that supports the common good, or because I've already had to pay tax on the capital that is generating the income.
quote:I did think that in the OP Russ 'suggested' that being anti-capitalist was part of the social-progressive mindset. Being anti-capitalist seems like an economic position to me.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I disagree that this is a clean or easy distinction to make.
Originally posted by Russ:
I don't think that's part of the social progressive mindset that we're talking about at all.
Not only because it's economic rather than social.
quote:I'd agree that believing in an alternative to capitalism is an economic position.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I did think that in the OP Russ 'suggested' that being anti-capitalist was part of the social-progressive mindset. Being anti-capitalist seems like an economic position to me.
quote:I'm pretty sure that the semantics you're looking for is "every change to Western civilization in the 20th and early 21st century that Russ personally disagrees with", though I admit it doesn't seem to exactly roll off the tongue. Still, it would seem to fit your repeated rejection of any descriptives other than the ones offered by you.
Originally posted by Russ:
If you want to suggest a better summary word, or short phrase, feel free. Finding a terminology acceptable to both sides was part of the original aim. However distracted we may get by various tangents.
quote:So a "social progressive" might maintain that beyond paying wages an employer is obligated to keep their workplace "free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm" (language cribbed shamelessly from the U.S. Occupational Health and Safety Act), whereas the opposing view (the anti-social regressive mindset?) might have more sympathy for the United States Radium Corporation than for its dying employees, for example?
Originally posted by Russ:
One of those is a general lack of sympathy with business; . . . a tendency to think that employing someone involves obligations beyond paying a fair day's wage for a fair day's work, & to sympathize always with the employee against the employer.
quote:Are you saying wealth creation isn't good ? Or speculation isn't bad ? Or that you share the sentiment that one is better than the other but that it's difficult to legislate for that ?
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I don't think the line between "wealth-generating business" and "price speculation" is as easy to draw as you think.
quote:To the extent that businesses are consumers of government services, they should pay their share of the cost of providing those services, which means some form of taxes and charges.
So if I take my wages, and purchase a pile of widgets and sell them at a profit, I shouldn't have to pay tax on my profits because I already paid tax on my income. And then I take those profits and buy more widgets, and shouldn't pay tax because I'm still profiting from my taxed income. And before long I have a massive widget-trading business which shouldn't be taxed because my seed capital was taxed income?
quote:And you're happy with that ?
You can easily accomplish your desired goal (incentivize retirement savings) with your choice of variation on any one of the many retirement savings plans in existence that allow you to invest pre-tax income and defer the tax until you retire, have your investments grow tax-free within your retirement account, and so on.
quote:It is the dichotomy that is bollocks. Those who mumble on about wealth creators and link it to low tax and low regulation seem to want to suggest that the only thing that it needed in the society is the wealth-creator, that all those who are not, somehow, meeting some arbitrary level of contribution are somehow dead weight and that therefore society should be rewarding them and punishing the poor.
Originally posted by Russ:
Are you saying wealth creation isn't good ? Or speculation isn't bad ? Or that you share the sentiment that one is better than the other but that it's difficult to legislate for that ?
quote:Below you appear to say that you share the sentiment that wealth creation (which is what the employees do) is better than speculation (which is in a large modern business what the employers - the shareowners, investors, etc, do). Does that make you a social-progressive?
Originally posted by Russ:
One of those is a general lack of sympathy with business; a tendency to think profit a dirty word that is synonymous with exploitation; a tendency to think that employing someone involves obligations beyond paying a fair day's wage for a fair day's work, & to sympathize always with the employee against the employer.
quote:There are a lot of falsehoods and non-sequiturs here, so I'm going to try tackling them one at a time.
Originally posted by Russ:
To the extent that businesses are consumers of government services, they should pay their share of the cost of providing those services, which means some form of taxes and charges.
If your taxed seed capital is tied up in shares or savings plans or unit trusts, then it's not obvious to me that it's consuming more government services that need to be paid for then if it's under the mattress...
quote:Oh dear.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
wealth creation (which is what the employees do)
quote:The difficulty, of course, is determining what "fair" is; can it mean something other than the medium-term "going rate" for that particular input ?
I would have thought that the idea that there is such a thing as a fair day's wage for a fair day's work is itself a socially-progressive position. After all, it implies that the business owner has some obligation not to negotiate down the price of labour beyond a fair level.
quote:Some believe that Exploitation of Labour is the primary way for capitalists to make profit.
Originally posted by Russ:
Oh dear.
I thought you understood economics better than that.
quote:Fair isn't becoming a rich bastard on the backs of the poor by using your 'initiative'.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Oh dear.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
wealth creation (which is what the employees do)
I thought you understood economics better than that.
Employees don't create wealth. What creates wealth is the combination of "factors of production". Employees typically supply one of those factors - labour.
Classical economics recognizes two others - land and capital.
But no wealth is created unless someone - an entrepreneur for want of a better term - has the initiative to bring them together and make it happen.
And arguably this can only happen in the context of government action to provide a legal framework, a viable currency etc.
So we could perhaps add two to the classical three factors.
Each of these inputs has to be paid for. Each could, in principle, be compensated by some mix of a fixed rate plus a share of the profits. Subject to the proviso that the shares have to add to 100%.
One model has fixed wages, fixed rent, fixed interest rate and fixed tax rate, with the entrepreneur having no fixed compensation and 100% of the profit. But I see no immediate reason why any of the alternative models should be considered intrinsically just or unjust.
quote:The difficulty, of course, is determining what "fair" is; can it mean something other than the medium-term "going rate" for that particular input ?
I would have thought that the idea that there is such a thing as a fair day's wage for a fair day's work is itself a socially-progressive position. After all, it implies that the business owner has some obligation not to negotiate down the price of labour beyond a fair level.
And no, if social-progressivism is about redress for perceived past injustice, then advocating any model as being a priori fair is not a social-progressive position.
quote:That seems remarkably selective. Labor doesn't "create wealth" because it's just one factor, but an entrepreneur does create wealth despite the fact that, like an employee, they are also not a tract of land. If the objection applies to one it applies to both.
Originally posted by Russ:
Employees don't create wealth.[QB] What creates wealth is the combination of [QB]"factors of production". Employees typically supply one of those factors - labour.
Classical economics recognizes two others - land and capital.
But no wealth is created unless someone - an entrepreneur for want of a better term - has the initiative to bring them together and make it happen.
quote:I believe 'creating wealth' is a recent catchphrase.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I thought you understood economics better than that.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
wealth creation (which is what the employees do)
Employees don't create wealth. What creates wealth is the combination of "factors of production". Employees typically supply one of those factors - labour.
Classical economics recognizes two others - land and capital.
quote:Most neo-classical economists prefer to avoid talk of fairness just to avoid the problem. You however introduced it. 'Fair' clearly means something in non-economic contexts. If you think my example of the bakery doesn't apply the non-economic concept I think you'd better explain why. You'll note that my treatment of the oven covers the role of capital.
quote:The difficulty, of course, is determining what "fair" is; can it mean something other than the medium-term "going rate" for that particular input ?
I would have thought that the idea that there is such a thing as a fair day's wage for a fair day's work is itself a socially-progressive position. After all, it implies that the business owner has some obligation not to negotiate down the price of labour beyond a fair level.
quote:I'm not entirely sure why not. If you split the cake between twelve children and some children get two pieces and some none that's unfair. But apparently you don't think that redressing the injustice by taking one piece of cake from each of the children with two pieces and giving them to the children with none has anything to do with fairness. Why not?
And no, if social-progressivism is about redress for perceived past injustice, then advocating any model as being a priori fair is not a social-progressive position.
quote:You're right; the objection applies to both. The entrepreneur in isolation does not create wealth; his input is only one factor. One of 5, in the system I'm proposing, which recognises the positive role of government.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Labor doesn't "create wealth" because it's just one factor, but an entrepreneur does create wealth despite the fact that, like an employee, they are also not a tract of land. If the objection applies to one it applies to both.
quote:That's not redress. That's having a clear notion of fairness and applying it to today's birthday cake.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If you split the cake between twelve children and some children get two pieces and some none that's unfair. But apparently you don't think that redressing the injustice by taking one piece of cake from each of the children with two pieces and giving them to the children with none has anything to do with fairness. Why not?
quote:You are making the assumption that there is no connection between the two sets of children.
Originally posted by Russ:
Even though it's a different set of children at today's party.
quote:Keynesian economics created the most equal society the UK had ever seen, and wages for the lowest paid have barely risen in real terms since it was abandoned. The problem is how you use economics. All recent governments have advocated letting the rich get as rich as possible then begging them for scraps. Economics can equally be used to ensure working people get their fair share of the fruits of their labour.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Economics must the most useless and noxious discipline on the planet. There are real improvements in my life and health thanks to the real sciences; I enjoy beauty and pleasure and wisdom created by the arts; I live in a more just society thanks to the humanities. The only purpose of economics seems to be to find more and more ways to make rich people richer.
quote:Correct, social progressives sympathise with anyone who is being exploited. At best they tolerate capitalists who actually pay proper wages.
Originally posted by Russ:
From the comments so far the problem with that seems to be entirely that social progressives sympathize with labourers in a way that they don't sympathize with landlords and bankers. Not sure about governments...
quote:Hang on - weren't you saying that creating a profitable business was something that created wealth all round? And therefore wasn't a zero-sum game that that requires withholding wages and rent and income from the other parties involved.
Originally posted by Russ:
An entrepreneur who is distinct from the labourers may indeed want to pay minimum wages. And minimum rent and minimum interest on a bank loan to capitalise the business and minimum tax. So as to create a profitable business.
quote:And your justification for thinking that's not a straw man is?
Originally posted by Russ:
Redress is believing in a narrative that at last week's party the older children got more than their fair share of cake. And therefore trying to compensate by giving bigger slices of today's cake to the younger children.
quote:Why not? It would seem to fit both the dictionary and legal definitions of the term.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:That's not redress.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If you split the cake between twelve children and some children get two pieces and some none that's unfair. But apparently you don't think that redressing the injustice by taking one piece of cake from each of the children with two pieces and giving them to the children with none has anything to do with fairness. Why not?
quote:While there's much in what you say, it says more about different economic models than about entrepreneurs.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There are two activities that someone might be thinking of when they talk about an entrepreneur.
One is the entrepreneur who starts up a new business of a similar kind to businesses that already exist. They see that the demand for bread is outstripping the supply of bread and so they start up a new bakery...
Then there's the Schumpeter-entrepreneur who is genuinely innovating. They set up a temporary monopoly on whatever their innovation is and so get a pay off by exploiting the resulting market failure.
quote:That means that one rather has to specify the economic model one's using before one talks about entrepreneurs. As I said, if you confuse the two you start inventing magical entrepreneur powers that give the possessor special rights and privileges.
Originally posted by Russ:
While there's much in what you say, it says more about different economic models than about entrepreneurs.
quote:As I said, the reward for the risk can be calculated as a strictly finite proportion of the sum risked. (Probably it is less than the sum risked unless the entrepreneur was gambling on a business more likely than not to fail.)
You're right to talk about a risk premium - the entrepreneur usually has to stake his own money on the highly uncertain success of a start-up business that applies his ideas. And his reward has to reflect both the risk and the contribution of those ideas.
quote:Rubbish. The entrepeneur usually stakes other people's money* hence when he becomes inevitably bankrupt, he's not actually thrown onto the street.
Originally posted by Russ:
You're right to talk about a risk premium - the entrepreneur usually has to stake his own money on the highly uncertain success of a start-up business that applies his ideas. And his reward has to reflect both the risk and the contribution of those ideas.
quote:No, I'm not assuming no connection between sets. I'm assuming no identity between sets.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:You are making the assumption that there is no connection between the two sets of children.
Originally posted by Russ:
Even though it's a different set of children at today's party.
quote:WTF has that to do with Chris Stiles's response? A while back you denigrated class as an abstract construct and now you are being as abstract as it is possible to be.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:No, I'm not assuming no connection between sets. I'm assuming no identity between sets.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:You are making the assumption that there is no connection between the two sets of children.
Originally posted by Russ:
Even though it's a different set of children at today's party.
In other words that a child has a self, an identity, a personhood, that is more than membership of some class which has a collective past experience.
quote:Nevertheless, the child will be affected by the society in which it exists - which will include all the repercussions of the collective past experiences of that group - including other groups adaptive cultural responses to those experiences.
Originally posted by Russ:
In other words that a child has a self, an identity, a personhood, that is more than membership of some class which has a collective past experience.
quote:This is, of course, a uniquely modern, western viewpoint of individuality. Most people around the world, past and present, do define themselves in terms of family, community, clan, etc. Most people around the world who aren't Russ consider their "membership in some class" an integral part of their "self, identity, personhood". Furthermore, those of us who aren't Russ' default white male cannot escape the reality that no matter how uniquely individual we are, our "membership in some class" does determine how many people treat us. I read resumes from all over the world and many of them list parents' names, home villages, ethnicity and religion. Here's an example of how people who aren't Russ introduce themselves:
Originally posted by Russ:
.. In other words that a child has a self, an identity, a personhood, that is more than membership of some class which has a collective past experience.
quote:Elder Larry Grant (pdf)
Elder Larry Grant is of Musqueam and Chinese ancestry. His hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ name is sʔəyəɬəq, and his Cantonese name is Hong Lai Hing. Born on a hop field as a premature baby in Agassiz, B.C., Elder Grant was raised in Musqueam territory. He is the descendant of qiyəplenəxʷ (Capilano) and xʷəlciməltxʷ, Musqueam warriors who welcomed the first English and Spanish explorers to Musqueam territory. He is also the son of Hong Tim Hing, one of many Chinese market gardeners who farmed within the Musqueam community during the early 20th century.
quote:Or as Tolkien more succinctly put it: "Who are you, alone and nameless?"
Nevertheless, the child will be affected by the society in which it exists - which will include all the repercussions of the collective past experiences of that group - including other groups adaptive cultural responses to those experiences.
quote:What an idiot-filled world we live in. Everywhere multinational corporations constantly intrude into other cultures and social settings, and operate. Though it is much more than idiocy, it is a form of neo-colonialism, entrepreneurial exploitation, forcing of values, extinguishing of individuality. I particularly hold out consumer product companies, retailers who can force indigenous businesses out of business, export of cultural products like films and other media, oil companies. We also have idiocy like technological companies who fund their business via lucrative military contracts which provides for unfair advantage and selling things below cost.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
No man is an island.
The entrepreneur who thinks he can operate independent of and outside of his own cultural and social setting is an idiot.
quote:This is the presented view of the west, perhaps. But it is not the real viewpoint in the UK or the US. In the UK, one is surrounded by the expressions of class, it is the essence of comedic expression and behavioural expectations. In the US, it is not as tied to birth, but it still exists.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:This is, of course, a uniquely modern, western viewpoint of individuality.
Originally posted by Russ:
.. In other words that a child has a self, an identity, a personhood, that is more than membership of some class which has a collective past experience.
quote:No magic in it. But I'm sure you recognise that the skills and aptitudes needed to run a successful bakery business or widget-making business are different from the skills needed to be a competent baker or widget-maker. And those inputs should also earn their fair reward.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Russ:
[qb] if you confuse the two you start inventing magical entrepreneur powers that give the possessor special rights and privileges.
quote:I thought all businesses were more likely than not to fail. Failure rate for start-ups is about 80% over a five-year period.
Probably it is less than the sum risked unless the entrepreneur was gambling on a business more likely than not to fail.
quote:Don't see how that's necessarily so. Maybe businesses gain market share over the period when they have a temporary advantage and lose market share when competitors have an advantage.
But there's no suggestion even in Schumpeter that the reward for ideas is an ongoing reward. Any benefit to the new enterprise from innovation lasts only until other enterprises can copy the idea.
quote:Given that you're advocating preferential treatment by the state of bakery owners relative to bakery workers, I think the words "fair" and "special" are doing a lot of unpaid overtime in your post there.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:No magic in it. But I'm sure you recognise that the skills and aptitudes needed to run a successful bakery business or widget-making business are different from the skills needed to be a competent baker or widget-maker. And those inputs should also earn their fair reward.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
if you confuse the two you start inventing magical entrepreneur powers that give the possessor special rights and privileges.
No special rights.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:That would seem to be the conclusion we could draw from the paper that was recently (and ineptly) "suppressed" by the U.S. Treasury Department. (The original story ran in the Wall Street Journal, but they've got a paywall so I can't provide a meaningful hyperlink.) If there were really no excess profit in the market we'd expect to see a lot more pass-through of changes in corporate taxation than we actually see. You can argue that it's because the model is wrong or that the market isn't truly "competitive", but that's what we see in reality, as opposed to theory. Which is probably why Mnuchin found the paper so offensive.
Originally posted by Russ:
You reminded me upthread that in conventional economic theory, there is no excess profit in a competitive market. At equilibrium, the operating profit is just sufficient to cover the overhead costs. The business makes just enough to pay the going rate for labour, capital, and land inputs (and tax/rates to government and the risk-related going rate of return to the entrepreneur).
And that this competitive equilibrium is more beneficial to society than the situation where any of these inputs is over-compensated due to monopoly power.
Is that not the standard model ?
Are you saying that this model is wrong ? Or that markets aren't competitive enough ?
quote:There is "special rights" when the baking entrepreneur employs a skilled baker on low wages simply because he has access to capital when he himself has no baking skills and when the baker could easily run the business but never gets the chance to.
Originally posted by Russ:
No magic in it. But I'm sure you recognise that the skills and aptitudes needed to run a successful bakery business or widget-making business are different from the skills needed to be a competent baker or widget-maker. And those inputs should also earn their fair reward.
No special rights.
quote:Actually, I'm the one who's distinguishing the role of the entrepreneur as a separate factor of production from capital.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It also seems somewhat disingenuous to lump together such disparate activities as "run[ning] a . . . business" and holding several shares of Super Giant Amalgamated Corporation.
quote:Awarding all the profit to themselves rather than splitting it among all the employees must certainly count as a special right.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:No magic in it. But I'm sure you recognise that the skills and aptitudes needed to run a successful bakery business or widget-making business are different from the skills needed to be a competent baker or widget-maker. And those inputs should also earn their fair reward.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
if you confuse the two you start inventing magical entrepreneur powers that give the possessor special rights and privileges.
No special rights.
quote:In that case the person (or persons) risking their capital is entitled to a return of five times their capital (but no more). Assuming of course that they don't get any pay out while the business is running.
I thought all businesses were more likely than not to fail. Failure rate for start-ups is about 80% over a five-year period.
quote:Hang on, you say you want to distinguish between the input of the entrepreneur and the input of capital. Qua entrepreneur the entrepreneur doesn't risk anything. Only capital is being put at risk here. There's no risk related going rate of return to the entrepreneur if you distinguish the entrepreneur from capital.
The business makes just enough to pay the going rate for labour, capital, and land inputs (and tax/rates to government and the risk-related going rate of return to the entrepreneur).
Are you saying that this model is wrong ? Or that markets aren't competitive enough ?
quote:No, that's just wrong. If the bakers had the capital, they wouldn't need an 'entrepreneur'. They'd hire a business manager and make them their employee.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Actually, I'm the one who's distinguishing the role of the entrepreneur as a separate factor of production from capital.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It also seems somewhat disingenuous to lump together such disparate activities as "run[ning] a . . . business" and holding several shares of Super Giant Amalgamated Corporation.
quote:Not true. The capital for a start-up business would normally come from some form of bank loan. The interest on the loan is the return to capital. The entrepreneur is the one who's put up the collateral on the loan - probably his house. He takes the risk.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Qua entrepreneur the entrepreneur doesn't risk anything. Only capital is being put at risk here. There's no risk related going rate of return to the entrepreneur if you distinguish the entrepreneur from capital.
quote:Oh cry me a fucking river - the entrepreneur stands to lose something he's staked against his gamble. His huge fucking house that he lives in whilst his workers struggle to find rental properties that don't have mould on the walls. His Jaguar whilst his workers can't afford cars. All bought off the labour of his workers.
Originally posted by Russ:
Not true. The capital for a start-up business would normally come from some form of bank loan. The interest on the loan is the return to capital. The entrepreneur is the one who's put up the collateral on the loan - probably his house. He takes the risk.
quote:No he doesn't. Utter crap.
Typically, the money he takes home at the end of each week isn't a fixed salary rate times the number of hours he's put in. And isn't a fixed royalty on the innovation - the better mousetrap that he set up the business to manufacture. What he takes home instead is the profit for that week. Which may be zero. His income stream, his return, carries all the risk.
quote:Yeah, ok whatever.
Until the business is established enough when he can sell shares in it and pay off the bank loan, so as to spread the risk to capital.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Equilibrium may be a state that the market heads towards over the long run (modulo other things such as oligopolies developing). But when you get into a business you do so because the market is not at equilibrium - you don't start a business if all you can do is just about cover the cost of your capital.
Originally posted by Russ:
You reminded me upthread that in conventional economic theory, there is no excess profit in a competitive market. At equilibrium, the operating profit is just sufficient to cover the overhead costs.
quote:This may be the case in the real world. However, it is the case in the economic models that economists and the right/centre use to justify the real world. Where starting a business and not starting a business have an equal payoff according to the dominant model of economics the difference between people who start businesses and people who don't will be based solely on temperament.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Equilibrium may be a state that the market heads towards over the long run (modulo other things such as oligopolies developing). But when you get into a business you do so because the market is not at equilibrium - you don't start a business if all you can do is just about cover the cost of your capital.
Originally posted by Russ:
You reminded me upthread that in conventional economic theory, there is no excess profit in a competitive market. At equilibrium, the operating profit is just sufficient to cover the overhead costs.
quote:Property that can be used as security for a loan is capital. The entrepreneur's role in the little economic model that you were sketching was to produce the ideas.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Not true. The capital for a start-up business would normally come from some form of bank loan. The interest on the loan is the return to capital. The entrepreneur is the one who's put up the collateral on the loan - probably his house. He takes the risk.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There's no risk related going rate of return to the entrepreneur if you distinguish the entrepreneur from capital.
quote:Jesus Christ, mr cheesy. "His huge fucking house" and "his Jaguar"? Tell me - is he wearing a top hat and a monocle, too?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Oh cry me a fucking river - the entrepreneur stands to lose something he's staked against his gamble. His huge fucking house that he lives in whilst his workers struggle to find rental properties that don't have mould on the walls. His Jaguar whilst his workers can't afford cars. All bought off the labour of his workers.
Originally posted by Russ:
Not true. The capital for a start-up business would normally come from some form of bank loan. The interest on the loan is the return to capital. The entrepreneur is the one who's put up the collateral on the loan - probably his house. He takes the risk.
quote:This includes
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:Jesus Christ, mr cheesy. "His huge fucking house" and "his Jaguar"? Tell me - is he wearing a top hat and a monocle, too?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Oh cry me a fucking river - the entrepreneur stands to lose something he's staked against his gamble. His huge fucking house that he lives in whilst his workers struggle to find rental properties that don't have mould on the walls. His Jaguar whilst his workers can't afford cars. All bought off the labour of his workers.
Originally posted by Russ:
Not true. The capital for a start-up business would normally come from some form of bank loan. The interest on the loan is the return to capital. The entrepreneur is the one who's put up the collateral on the loan - probably his house. He takes the risk.
According to the US Census Bureau the top sources of startup capital in 2012 were:
(Numbers are percentages of respondent firms citing an item as a source of capital.)
- 57% - Personal savings
- 8% - Personal credit card
- 8% - Bank loan
- 6% - Other personal assets
- 3% - Home equity
- 2% - Business credit card
- 25% - No startup capital
quote:The statistics do not tell the complete story. No employees would include businesses such as gran selling her knitting on Etsy and loads of other, single-person businesses.
firms with paid employees and firms with no paid employees.
quote:What these figures show is that while someone (I'm not going to call them an 'entrepreneur') starts up a business selling services/widgets, almost no one whatsoever puts their house on the line.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Jesus Christ, mr cheesy. "His huge fucking house" and "his Jaguar"? Tell me - is he wearing a top hat and a monocle, too?
According to the US Census Bureau the top sources of startup capital in 2012 were:
(Numbers are percentages of respondent firms citing an item as a source of capital.)
- 57% - Personal savings
- 8% - Personal credit card
- 8% - Bank loan
- 6% - Other personal assets
- 3% - Home equity
- 2% - Business credit card
- 25% - No startup capital
quote:It technically goes up as a % of firms for the first employed person, but that is because the no-capital needed drops faster (leaving it at 65%). Only 1/5 of the firms actually employed anyone.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The statistics do not tell the complete story. No employees would include businesses such as gran selling her knitting on Etsy and loads of other, single-person businesses.
My guess would be that the larger enterprise, the lower the personal savings %. [/QB]
quote:These are two slightly different things. It is true that owners and directors of limited liability companies are protected against personal losses. Which means that those who find that they're unsecured creditors against the company that is insolvent (usually suppliers etc) might find it really hard to get anything back and usually have no way to push the liability on to the directors personally. In those situations they might find that they're a long way down the list of importance for those clearing up the affairs and get nothing at all even whilst the directors continue to live in their fancy houses.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What these figures show is that while someone (I'm not going to call them an 'entrepreneur') starts up a business selling services/widgets, almost no one whatsoever puts their house on the line.
Because they'd be fucking idiots to do so. That's why we have the notion of 'limited company', so that when it all goes tits-up, the business owner is only liable to debts up to the level of the assets of the business, not the coat off their back.
quote:Yes, but it's not recompensed by interest or dividends (the usual return to capital) it's recompensed from the entrepreneur's profit.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Property that can be used as security for a loan is capital.
quote:More than that. If two blokes are chatting down the pub, and one of them comes up with a business idea (square wheels, coloured milk, whatever) and the other one goes ahead and starts up a business to produce the square wheels or the coloured milk or whatever, then he's contributed something more than an idea. "Initiative" is the best description I've found so far.
The entrepreneur's role in the little economic model that you were sketching was to produce the ideas.
quote:I think you're right that this is at the heart of the social-progressive belief on this topic.
you were wanting to argue that the employees might fairly be credited with creating only the minimum market rate for their labour. I'm arguing that that is not fair by any intuitive or non-economic definition.
quote:Very few people sell produce from their allotments. First because the lease agreement expressly prohibits it and secondly because there is a prevailing culture of giving away excess produce.
Originally posted by Russ:
Paying the "going rate" for labour (as well as for land and capital) seems in one sense fair. If you were selling to your neighbours surplus veg from your allotment, for example, I think the going rate would be your yardstick of what's a fair price to ask.
quote:There still seems to be a huge, unstated leap between this and your assertion that any income derived this way deserves preferential tax treatment from the state. Why does a man running a bakery deserve a lower tax rate than his assistant who derives his income performing the same tasks? Yes, if the bakery fails the head baker loses his source of income, whereas the assistant baker will . . . also lose his source of income?
Originally posted by Russ:
Typically, the money [an entrepreneur] takes home at the end of each week isn't a fixed salary rate times the number of hours he's put in. And isn't a fixed royalty on the innovation - the better mousetrap that he set up the business to manufacture. What he takes home instead is the profit for that week. Which may be zero. His income stream, his return, carries all the risk.
There seem to be several missing steps of reasoning here.quote:And who exactly would this economic equivalent of "the view from nowhere" be? Someone who is neither employer, nor employed, nor in any way a participant in the economy?
Originally posted by Russ:
I guess I'm trying to contrast someone who has a view as to what a fair price is (and can therefore impartially conclude that this price is too low and that price is too high). With someone who has only a sympathy, a partiality, a prejudice in favour of one particular group and therefore concludes that their return is always too low.
quote:Sounds a bit like a Rawlian veil of ignorance whereby in an ideal world prices would be impartially assessed.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And who exactly would this economic equivalent of "the view from nowhere" be? Someone who is neither employer, nor employed, nor in any way a participant in the economy?
quote:That may be how it is. But you were asking what is fair.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Yes, but it's not recompensed by interest or dividends (the usual return to capital) it's recompensed from the entrepreneur's profit.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Property that can be used as security for a loan is capital.
quote:You have been rather casting around for what the other bloke contributes. You've said it's initiative, but then you said he should be compensated for the risk and the contribution of his ideas.
quote:More than that. If two blokes are chatting down the pub, and one of them comes up with a business idea (square wheels, coloured milk, whatever) and the other one goes ahead and starts up a business to produce the square wheels or the coloured milk or whatever, then he's contributed something more than an idea. "Initiative" is the best description I've found so far.
The entrepreneur's role in the little economic model that you were sketching was to produce the ideas.
quote:So you're looking at this from the viewpoint of the business owner who is doing the paying. Rather than looking at the matter impartially, you're operating out of a prejudice and partiality towards the business owner. Which is why you keep changing your mind about whether the business owner is being compensated for initiative, or risk, or ideas; they're all rationalisations for a pre-existing prejudice in the business owner's favour.
Paying the "going rate" for labour (as well as for land and capital) seems in one sense fair. If you were selling to your neighbours surplus veg from your allotment, for example, I think the going rate would be your yardstick of what's a fair price to ask.
And economic theory - such as it is - suggests that in a competitive market, a business that pays less than the going rate for labour will not succeed in attracting the quality of staff it needs, while a business that pays more will lose out in price competition with rival firms.
quote:There's nothing so unclear to you as a notion that runs against your prejudices.
And without a clear notion as to what the right rate should be.
quote:Seems to me that the idea of a 'right rate' is made from the position of someone offering a rate. And therefore is made from a position of partiality. As you admit that you're contrasting a social progressive viewpoint that has a view about what would be fair, with your own viewpoint which comes out of sympathy, partiality and prejudice in favour of the business owner and therefore concludes that any finite share of the profits is too low.
Because the notion of a "right rate" implies that more than this is too high. And saying that wages could conceivably be too high is non-pc, is off-message. Because the doctrine is that workers are the underdogs who deserve more.
quote:Aren't dividends or interest also paid out of profits? I'm not seeing how you make a clear distinction here.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Yes, but it's not recompensed by interest or dividends (the usual return to capital) it's recompensed from the entrepreneur's profit.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Property that can be used as security for a loan is capital.
quote:I am not an accountant, but I don't think there is a distinction here either - dividends are paid to business owners if the business makes a profit. If someone is being paid whether or not the business makes a profit, that's a salary not a dividend.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Aren't dividends or interest also paid out of profits? I'm not seeing how you make a clear distinction here.
quote:All of the above. The typical entrepreneur contributes so much...
Originally posted by Dafyd:
You have been rather casting around for what the other bloke contributes. You've said it's initiative, but then you said he should be compensated for the risk and the contribution of his ideas.
quote:Rubbish. The going rate is observable by non-participants. And not a few statisticians spend their time collecting and analysing such data.
Seems to me that the idea of a 'right rate' is made from the position of someone offering a rate. And therefore is made from a position of partiality.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
No magic in it. But I'm sure you recognise that the skills and aptitudes needed to run a successful bakery business or widget-making business are different from the skills needed to be a competent baker or widget-maker. And those inputs should also earn their fair reward.
quote:Or possibly even a "fair" rate. Seriously, do you not realize we can read your past posts? That one's not even on a different page yet! There doesn't really seem to be a "philosophical basis" to argue that investors deserve a "fair reward" but that labor should be compensated without any assessment of fairness.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Rubbish. The going rate is observable by non-participants. And not a few statisticians spend their time collecting and analysing such data.
Seems to me that the idea of a 'right rate' is made from the position of someone offering a rate. And therefore is made from a position of partiality.
I can only repeat that your problem is that you want to assert that there is a "right rate" or "just rate" for labour that is higher than the going rate. But don't have any philosophical basis on which to do so.
quote:Including labour. But you didn't want to think that the typical entrepreneur contributed labour. You wanted to distinguish the entrepreneur's contribution from any contribution by labour, because you thought that 'muddled things'.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:All of the above. The typical entrepreneur contributes so much...
Originally posted by Dafyd:
You have been rather casting around for what the other bloke contributes. You've said it's initiative, but then you said he should be compensated for the risk and the contribution of his ideas.
quote:But you don't seem to have a philosophial basis for saying what the return on collateral or intellectual property should be.
If the collateral were provided by someone else, then they should receive some recompense for that. If the ideas are provided by someone else, then some royalty on intellectual property would be appropriate.
All the contributors deserve some recompense.
quote:You asserted that there was such a thing a fair wage for a fair day's work. Now you're trying to say that there's no such thing.
But I see no justification for the bank, having agreed the terms of the loan, to assert a moral claim to an additional share of any profit. And if that's true for capital, why is not true for land and for labour ?
quote:Not at all.
quote:Rubbish.
Seems to me that the idea of a 'right rate' is made from the position of someone offering a rate. And therefore is made from a position of partiality.
quote:I don't see why you think non-participants can't be partial or prejudiced. You don't think progressives are impartial because they're non-participants.
The going rate is observable by non-participants.
quote:Quite the opposite actually. You wanted to assert that social-progressives wanted employees to earn more than was fair. But ever since I suggested that fairness might be an appropriate share of the proceeds, you're busy disavowing the notion of fairness. You're happy to invoke the concept of fairness when it suits the employer. But not to invoke it when it suits the employee.
I can only repeat that your problem is what you want to assert that there is a "right rate" or "just rate" for labour that is higher than the going rate. But don't have any philosophical basis on which to do so.
quote:Watch the goal posts slide around faster than deck chairs on the Titanic.
Originally posted by Russ:
The going rate is observable by non-participants. And not a few statisticians spend their time collecting and analysing such data.
quote:What I'm suggesting to you is first that we all have some notion of "fairness". That of course we want to see applied to all the contributors to the business.
Originally posted by Croesos
There doesn't really seem to be a "philosophical basis" to argue that investors deserve a "fair reward" but that labor should be compensated without any assessment of fairness.
quote:I thought we'd covered that. The suggestion is not that any person gets preferential treatment. But that a man might reasonably expect to pay less tax on the income that his capital earns than on the income that he earns. Because:
And I'm still waiting for your explanation for why property owners should receive preferential tax treatment from the state relative to laborers.
quote:Sorry, but fair does not necessarily mean "the going rate". What if the vineyard owners collude to set "the going rate"? Would that be fair?
Originally posted by Russ:
... But then when you think about what "fair" means, it means something like "the going rate". ...
quote:Not at all. My limited understanding of economics is that anti-competitive practices make society as a whole worse off.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I expect you're going to tell us that it's fair for the vineyard owners to pay whatever they want and it's terribly unfair for greedy, selfish, ordinary, non-entrepreneurial workers to organise to demand more from the vineyard owners who are brilliant entrepreneurs entitled to make as much money as possible by whatever means possible ...
quote:So if anti-competitive practices have set the going rate, which is on your account fair, you would force them away from the fair going rate to make society better in your view?
Originally posted by Russ:
My limited understanding of economics is that anti-competitive practices make society as a whole worse off.
quote:And therefore you're not partisan yourself. You perceive that you're not partisan, and because you're not partisan you know that your perception must be accurate?
I'm the one deploring the sort of partisan approach that says it's OK if the good guys (our guys) do it and not if the bad guys (their guys) do it.
quote:Am I? Where?
Dafyd is answering the charge of partiality by a counter-accusation that I'm just as partisan as he is.
quote:No. Pretty sure that's not what 'fair' means. That would be a basic confusion of 'is' with 'ought'.
Originally posted by Russ:
But then when you think about what "fair" means, it means something like "the going rate".
quote:The thing is that the business owner is not being paid the going rate though, are they? They're singling themselves out for special treatment.
If you're paid the going rate then you're not being singled out for special treatment (either specially good or specially bad).
quote:To the extent that labour has to "make ends meet", that's an argument for labour to be recompensed by a fixed wage paid promptly, rather than by a share of the proceeds that are uncertain and arise at some later point in time.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
typically labour does have to make ends meet and therefore is under duress...
...
I've repeatedly suggested philosophical bases for the appropriate returns for capital and labour, namely the money loaned multiplied by the risk, and a share of the proceeds.
quote:If your position is that there is a specific anti-competitive practice which is having the effect of depressing wages, then it seems to me that you have a theory and not just a prejudice, a philosophical basis and not just a sympathy.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So if anti-competitive practices have set the going rate, which is on your account fair, you would force them away from the fair going rate to make society better in your view?
quote:What you're saying is that labour has to accept a 'going rate' now, rather than hold out for a fair share later on. Whereas the business owner gets both the 'going rate' and all of the shares.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:To the extent that labour has to "make ends meet", that's an argument for labour to be recompensed by a fixed wage paid promptly, rather than by a share of the proceeds that are uncertain and arise at some later point in time.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
typically labour does have to make ends meet and therefore is under duress...
...
I've repeatedly suggested philosophical bases for the appropriate returns for capital and labour, namely the money loaned multiplied by the risk, and a share of the proceeds.
quote:They're not in a position to choose. The owner of the vineyard, who is in a position to choose, chooses the share of the profit.
The workers in the vineyard want a daily wage rather than a share of the profit realised by selling the wine.
quote:The simple calculation suggested what the premium for risk was. Now you're saying that the premium ought to be higher than the simple calculation? Do the workers not get a premium for risk (given that if the business goes bust they won't get paid)?
As for capital, if you want me to invest my savings in your business, then you have to offer the going rate of return for a safe investment (e.g. bank deposit) plus a premium for risk, rather than the simple calculation you suggest.
quote:That's confused. A theory or philosophy covers general practices; whether any specific practice is or isn't anti-competitive is a matter of pragmatic judgement not of theory or philosophy. Seems to me that you're trying to reserve the word 'philosophy' for political positions you side with rather than argue in any principled fashion.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:If your position is that there is a specific anti-competitive practice which is having the effect of depressing wages, then it seems to me that you have a theory and not just a prejudice, a philosophical basis and not just a sympathy.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So if anti-competitive practices have set the going rate, which is on your account fair, you would force them away from the fair going rate to make society better in your view?
quote:The going rate is the going rate under the present system. If the market isn't competitive there's no such thing as the going rate in a competitive market. The going rate is dependent upon too many variables.
You'd then be using the going rate in a competitive market as your yardstick for asserting that current wages are too low.
quote:I'm saying that in the simplest model, labour gets a fixed wage, capital gets a fixed rate of interest, land gets a fixed rent, government gets a fixed tax (such as business rates) and the business owner draws no fixed return but gets all of the uncertain profit.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What you're saying is that labour has to accept a 'going rate' now, rather than hold out for a fair share later on. Whereas the business owner gets both the 'going rate' and all of the shares.
quote:The business going bust is bad news for everyone. Labour may not get wages for the week/month in which that happens. Land may not get rent for that week/month but will still own the freehold. Government may get no rates for that week/month. And capital will not only not receive interest but may well not get back the amount loaned.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The simple calculation suggested what the premium for risk was. Now you're saying that the premium ought to be higher than the simple calculation? Do the workers not get a premium for risk (given that if the business goes bust they won't get paid)?
quote:The going rate is only fair on the assumption of a competitive market. Nobody thinks that anything and everything a monopolist can get away with is fair.
You haven't answered my question:
So if anti-competitive practices have set the going rate, which is on your account fair, you would force them away from the fair going rate to make society better in your view?
quote:So it's "unfair" if investors receive different returns on different investments? Socialism for the investor class!
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:What I'm suggesting to you is first that we all have some notion of "fairness". That of course we want to see applied to all the contributors to the business.
Originally posted by Croesos
There doesn't really seem to be a "philosophical basis" to argue that investors deserve a "fair reward" but that labor should be compensated without any assessment of fairness.
But then when you think about what "fair" means, it means something like "the going rate". So that if you employ a dozen people to pick grapes in your vineyard, then the expectation is that they all get paid the same (whether that's the same rate per hour or the same rate per tonne of grapes picked) unless there's some good reason why not.
If you're paid the going rate then you're not being singled out for special treatment (either specially good or specially bad).
quote:There seem to be two really big fallacies at work here. The first is that taxation is (or at least should be) proportional to government services "consumed". No tax system I'm aware of functions in this way. Most are proportional to income, both as a general yardstick of fairness and for purely pragmatic reasons.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I thought we'd covered that. The suggestion is not that any person gets preferential treatment. But that a man might reasonably expect to pay less tax on the income that his capital earns than on the income that he earns [through labor]. Because:
And I'm still waiting for your explanation for why property owners should receive preferential tax treatment from the state relative to laborers.
a) the additional government services that he consumes by lending his capital at interest are minor compared with the government services he consumes anyway (with his capital under the mattress). Regulation of the money market being but a tiny fraction of the cost of running a successful State.
quote:Interestingly that "double jeopardy" seems to involve one and only one kind of income. For some reason a worker receiving wages from a company that has already been taxed doesn't count as "double jeopardy". When that worker hires a landscaping company to mow his lawn he's paying for that service out of his after-tax income, but the landscaper still has to pay tax on the money received despite it being already taxed when it was paid to the worker who hired him.
Originally posted by Russ:
b) his capital has been saved from after-tax income, so that to tax what he does with it after that is a form of double jeopardy.
quote:Again, not necessarily. Not all capital is retirement savings, and not all retirement savings are income-generating capital. You're trying to extrapolate from a very specific instance (government should encourage everyone to save for retirement) to a general case which is not at all the same thing (therefore any form of income derived from owning stuff should receive preferential tax treatment, relative to income derived from actually working).
Originally posted by Russ:
c) his capital is his pension fund and that saving and investing in this way is something government should encourage everyone to do.
quote:I'm not sure pointing out that giving coin-flip odds of losing everything is a bad investment constitutes any great insight.
Originally posted by Russ:
Suppose that over a certain period of time the bank could get a 10% return on capital by depositing with another bank. And that over the same period there's a 50% chance of the business going bust and the bank not getting anything back.
quote:Why is the competitiveness of all markets a reasonable default assumption to make? It seems to be the one you're implicitly claiming, but I see no particular reason to assume it to be the case.
Originally posted by Russ:
The going rate is only fair on the assumption of a competitive market. Nobody thinks that anything and everything a monopolist can get away with is fair.
quote:And, of course, a government wishing to encourage saving for retirement can create any number of tax-advantaged retirement plan vehicles to do so. And that way, if it wants to encourage you to save up to a certain level, it can do so.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Again, not necessarily. Not all capital is retirement savings, and not all retirement savings are income-generating capital.
quote:Only if your income is high enough to enable you to save.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
a government wishing to encourage saving for retirement can create any number of tax-advantaged retirement plan vehicles to do so. And that way, if it wants to encourage you to save up to a certain level, it can do so.
quote:Russ is conflating two different things, income derived from specific activities (labor vs. investment) and income devoted to specific purposes (current expenses vs. retirement savings). Since I've pointed this out before I can only assume that this rhetorical sleight of hand is deliberate on his part. Russ seems to be arguing that since investment income is sometimes used for retirement, it should receive privileged tax treatment regardless of whether it is actually used for that purpose (e.g. you deserve a favorable tax rate even if you're spending the money you made on credit default swaps on hookers and blow).
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:And, of course, a government wishing to encourage saving for retirement can create any number of tax-advantaged retirement plan vehicles to do so. And that way, if it wants to encourage you to save up to a certain level, it can do so.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Again, not necessarily. Not all capital is retirement savings, and not all retirement savings are income-generating capital.
quote:Ironically, prostitution and illicit drugs are notoriously difficult to tax.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
hookers and blow
quote:So far you're following my logic.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:The business going bust is bad news for everyone. Labour may not get wages for the week/month in which that happens. Land may not get rent for that week/month but will still own the freehold. Government may get no rates for that week/month. And capital will not only not receive interest but may well not get back the amount loaned.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The simple calculation suggested what the premium for risk was. Now you're saying that the premium ought to be higher than the simple calculation? Do the workers not get a premium for risk (given that if the business goes bust they won't get paid)?
Suppose that over a certain period of time the bank could get a 10% return on capital by depositing with another bank. And that over the same period there's a 50% chance of the business going bust and the bank not getting anything back.
To get an expected payback of 110% of the principal (i.e. return of the principal and 10% interest) the business has to offer an average payback if it survives of 220% (return of capital plus 120% interest).
quote:So you're advocating a lower level of interest for investors that are more wealthy? And a higher level for less wealthy investors?
And only the largest investors with the deepest pockets will be indifferent between those two outcomes with the same expected return. A small investor - such as someone investing their pension - can be expected to be at least partly risk-averse.
It is the extra - some value above and beyond the 120% - that would be just enough to make a risk-averse investor indifferent between investing in the business and leaving the money safe in a deposit account - that constitutes the premium for risk.
quote:You're eliding a competitive market and an absence of specific anti-compettive practices. There are more ways in which a market can be non-competitive than merely specific anti-competitive practices.
The going rate is only fair on the assumption of a competitive market. Nobody thinks that anything and everything a monopolist can get away with is fair.
Which is why I could be persuaded that any particular going rate under the present system is unfairly high or low. But only if you can point to a specific anti-competitive practice.
quote:And there are certain markets that no rational actor would consider withdrawing from: food, water, housing, medical care ...
Originally posted by Dafyd:
... In addition for a market to be genuinely competitive all parties must have the option of withdrawing from the market if the price is too high/low.
As noted, the fact that people typically need jobs more urgently than the employer needs the labour, means that labour does not have the option of withdrawing from the market. Therefore the market is not truly competitive.
quote:In the case of food and water, the effect is mitigated. Most of us given the chance consume more than we need to avoid starvation. So we're able to withdraw from the market for the extra food and water. That means the price for food and water is generally fairly affordable.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:And there are certain markets that no rational actor would consider withdrawing from: food, water, housing, medical care ...
Originally posted by Dafyd:
... In addition for a market to be genuinely competitive all parties must have the option of withdrawing from the market if the price is too high/low.
quote:"Free" is a good philosophical starting point, from where you can explore what freedoms you need to remove and why.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Free market is like anarchy: Only the truly crazy want the real thing, but there is benefit in marketing the concept to the ignorant.
quote:I think the logic is that a high-risk business (and what start-up isn't ?) Would have to pay a higher rate of interest in order to attract finance from small investors, yes.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So you're advocating a lower level of interest for investors that are more wealthy? And a higher level for less wealthy investors?
quote:Yes, risk premium applies to labour also. If people with the skills you need can get a job with the local authority at a lower salary but with a high level of job security, you may have to offer a premium to entice them to work for your high-risk start-up company.
if the risk premium applies because some people don't have as deep pockets as others, the risk premium should really apply to labour, who on the simple model don't have any depth in their pockets at all. If they don't earn money they have to dig into their savings/ property / starve. Clearly therefore the risk premium for labour should be even larger than it is for investors.
quote:No, I don't think that's true. If government passes a law saying that everyone has to have exactly one widget, then that makes the demand curve horizontal (or vertical, depending which way you plot it). It doesn't alter the supply curve - businesses can still compete to provide the requisite number of widgets.
In addition for a market to be genuinely competitive all parties must have the option of withdrawing from the market if the price is too high/low.
quote:Your caveat would seem to make your basic proposition of dubious utility, at best. The obvious corollary of your suggestion is that if a market is not competitive, then no transaction can be considered "fair". While I can admire the purity of that statement, it would seem to be an almost useless standard for a lot of economic situations.
Originally posted by Russ:
I think that the difference between us relates to the ethical proposition that an individual is treating another person fairly if they agree to trade at the going rate.
Seems like you disagree with that proposition. Without wishing to commit to any very clear alternative notion of what a fair rate would be.
And thus I'm - rightly or wrongly - suspecting you of being a partisan who would approve any notion provided it confirms your prejudice that recompense for labour should be higher.
I've suggested that the proposition is only conditionally true, with the condition being to do with a competitive market.
Not a free market, because there's no guarantee that an unconstrained market doesn't end up as monopoly.
quote:That's because I don't think there is any such thing as a fair rate, at least not under the present economic arrangements.
Originally posted by Russ:
I think that the difference between us relates to the ethical proposition that an individual is treating another person fairly if they agree to trade at the going rate.
Seems like you disagree with that proposition. Without wishing to commit to any very clear alternative notion of what a fair rate would be.
quote:You do go on about other people's partisan sympathies don't you? A bit like Trump talking about fake news every time he's caught out in a lie?
And thus I'm - rightly or wrongly - suspecting you of being a partisan who would approve any notion provided it confirms your prejudice that recompense for labour should be higher.
quote:That would only be the case in a market with full employment. So you'd think wages and salaries ought to be lower in markets with full employment, because employers wouldn't have to pay the risk premium.
That doesn't mean a higher risk premium than investors, because the worker can get another job more easily than the investor can acquire capital to replace what he has lost.
quote:If you view the business as a collective enterprise creating wealth then that would be fair. It's not how businesses are run in our economic system, which makes the word 'fair' of dubious application. Certainly there's no grounds for arguing that progressives want workers paid more than is fair.
At one point I thought you were putting forward the idea that fairness is paying the entrepreneur a fixed going-rate salary and then dividing the excess profit between all the contributors in some way.
quote:Hang on a moment. I thought you said that the contribution of the entrepreneur was the initiative (which needn't be innovative or create a temporary monopoly) rather than the ideas/innovation. Perhaps you should get your position on entrepreneurs straight before you start ascribing a partisan position to other people?
But you seem to agree that in a competitive market there's no excess profit. Unless it's a temporary-monopoly profit due to innovation. Which is the contribution og the entrepreneur...
quote:Any move to reduce the price of widgets in a competitive market will require a consequent overproduction of widgets which will not sell. (The business that cuts their prices will have to order in more widgets in order to sell them at the reduced price to maintain their profit level; the other businesses won't have cut their widget production accordingly.) This will increase the production cost of each individual widget, making cutting the price of widgets less rewarding than it might initially appear. Each business has to factor in the cost of having unsold widgets on their hands when their competitors also lower prices. Thus, the equilibrium rate will stay above the optimal point by at least the cost of the excess production needed to lower it.
quote:No, I don't think that's true. If government passes a law saying that everyone has to have exactly one widget, then that makes the demand curve horizontal (or vertical, depending which way you plot it). It doesn't alter the supply curve - businesses can still compete to provide the requisite number of widgets.
In addition for a market to be genuinely competitive all parties must have the option of withdrawing from the market if the price is too high/low.
quote:You mean that there isn't a rate that would be fair ? That the whole notion of a man selling his labour is wrong ?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I don't think there is any such thing as a fair rate, at least not under the present economic arrangements.
quote:You could take the view that if two people agree to trade at all then they should stand by that agreement, end of story. That anything you can agree is necessarily therefore a fair price, that there's no such thing as exploitation.
If two people agree to trade at all, then by definition the rate at which they trade is the going rate. And therefore it is meaningless to say it is greater or less than the fair rate.
However, you don't want to say that. You want to use the word 'fair' to claim the moral high ground for your position, although it empties the word of any meaning.
quote:Not so - I'm perfectly prepared to listen to any diagnosis you put forward that explains what anti-competitive practices or natural monopolies exist in particular industries and how these lead to lower wages than would apply in a competitive market. So far that argument seems to amount to "some firms are reporting profits".
But you don't seem to be willing to accept that any features of any existing markets make them any less than competitive.
quote:People who have a prejudice justify that prejudice with the words "it's obvious". If you see an "obvious" specific wrong affecting those you sympathize with and want to put it right, but can't put forward any general principle that applies equally to those you don't sympathize with, it's not very convincing to those who don't share your sympathies.
I'd say most modern progressivists are. That is, we'd share Burke's belief that you have to react to specific wrongs rather than trying to measure them against some predetermined theory of what is and isn't wrong.
quote:Whereas if you view a small business as the creation of an enterprising individual who contracts with others to provide labour, capital & land at agreed prices...
If you view the business as a collective enterprise creating wealth then that would be fair.
quote:So how is that enterprising individual any different from, say, the CEO of a corporation which contracts with others for labour, capital and land at agreed prices and gets a handsome salary and stock options? They're both doing the same work, just at a different scale. Or how about an enterprising individual who buys an existing small business? Is s/he an entrepreneur or not?
Originally posted by Russ:
... Whereas if you view a small business as the creation of an enterprising individual who contracts with others to provide labour, capital & land at agreed prices...
quote:From personal experience, a lot. A CEO isn't in business, a CEO is a tool of a large entity, doesn't risk her or his own money, doesn't take risks which jeopardize family and basic life. Small business people starting out have to put themselves on the line, like take loans out against their home, risk losing everything financial, and they work in terror that it will all be for naught. May I say in definite terms: no-one understands small business until you have to make a payroll and you do it out of your personal funds because people who owe you haven't paid their bills, and you wonder if they ever will. CEOs do not have this. Ever.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
So how is that enterprising individual any different from, say, the CEO of a corporation which contracts with others for labour, capital and land at agreed prices and gets a handsome salary and stock options?
quote:This is only true if you compare quantities of money. Nothing is the same when the business is small, you know everyone, and feel responsible for them, to pay them, so their lives can go on normally. One is intensely personal because it has to be, the other, not except if people desire to.
Soror Magna:
They're both doing the same work, just at a different scale.
quote:This person may be the same as a small business person if they buy an existing business and take the personal risks in buying. If someone buys a business and it's just an acquisition for them, with none of the fire created because of the intense stress and risks involved, they start to resemble the large business, where CEOs are hired guns and no-one has a personal stake in it.
Soror Magna:
Or how about an enterprising individual who buys an existing small business? Is s/he an entrepreneur or not?
quote:And BTW, it is obvious you haven't any experience with running a small business because your statement at the start of this paragraph demonstrates it. That small businesses incorporate does not not make them similar to large corporations except that the words used are similar. Entirely, utterly different, except perhaps in the minds of those who haven't experience.
Soror Magna:
And BTW, "s/he's risking their own money" is not the correct answer. Neither is "one is a corporation, the other is a person", since corporations are people and small businesses also incorporate.
quote:I mean the question isn't applicable. The going rate is clearly not determined by moral considerations - it is the outcome of a number of self-interested actors pursuing their reasonable self-interest; therefore, you cannot assert than any particular rate is sanctioned by the weight of morality.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:You mean that there isn't a rate that would be fair ? That the whole notion of a man selling his labour is wrong ?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I don't think there is any such thing as a fair rate, at least not under the present economic arrangements.
quote:Interesting. How do you think the going rate ever changes? Since you think it's morally wrong to deviate from it?
quote:You could take the view that if two people agree to trade at all then they should stand by that agreement, end of story. That anything you can agree is necessarily therefore a fair price, that there's no such thing as exploitation.
If two people agree to trade at all, then by definition the rate at which they trade is the going rate. And therefore it is meaningless to say it is greater or less than the fair rate.
However, you don't want to say that. You want to use the word 'fair' to claim the moral high ground for your position, although it empties the word of any meaning.
I don't take that view. I think there is such a thing as abuse of monopoly power (local or otherwise ). I see economic theory as giving some sort of equilibrium-based explanation of where prices come from. And see deliberately paying less than that medium-term going rate - because one knows that the particular individual has no other short-term option - as an abusive act. I take it that that's what people mean by "exploitation".
quote:That's circular, isn't it? Because you can only know if something isn't fair if you have experience of it being fair; and you can only have experience of something being fair if it actually happens.
But I'm also suggesting that there is no other source of data on what a "fair price" is other than that experience of a properly-functioning market. (In which, for example you have to pay more for scarce skills than for capabilities that everybody has).
quote:QED
quote:Not so - I'm perfectly prepared to listen to any diagnosis you put forward that explains what anti-competitive practices or natural monopolies exist in particular industries and how these lead to lower wages than would apply in a competitive market.
But you don't seem to be willing to accept that any features of any existing markets make them any less than competitive.
I'm not seeing any evidence for that. So far that argument seems to amount to "some firms are reporting profits".
quote:Are you saying you don't share those sympathies? That there's a class of people with whom you won't sympathise?
quote:People who have a prejudice justify that prejudice with the words "it's obvious". If you see an "obvious" specific wrong affecting those you sympathize with and want to put it right, but can't put forward any general principle that applies equally to those you don't sympathize with, it's not very convincing to those who don't share your sympathies.
I'd say most modern progressivists are. That is, we'd share Burke's belief that you have to react to specific wrongs rather than trying to measure them against some predetermined theory of what is and isn't wrong.
quote:Then you're comparing apples and oranges.
quote:Whereas if you view a small business as the creation of an enterprising individual who contracts with others to provide labour, capital & land at agreed prices...
If you view the business as a collective enterprise creating wealth then that would be fair.
quote:CEO is a title and people with that title can have many different levels of personal investment and risk.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
A CEO isn't in business, a CEO is a tool of a large entity, doesn't risk her or his own money, doesn't take risks which jeopardize family and basic life.
quote:Some small businesses start this way. Some are inherited, some are started using mum and dad's money, some start out as hobbies or side hustles and evolve into a full-time business... There is no one model and, I think, that was Soror Magna's basic idea. Russ appear to be using the mythical interpretation of small business to push views that are more suited to the interestes of large corporations.
Small business people starting out have to put themselves on the line, like take loans out against their home, risk losing everything financial, and they work in terror that it will all be for naught.
quote:I think it more accurate that no one fully understands unless they have lived it. But I will reiterate: this is only one small business experience.
May I say in definite terms: no-one understands small business until you have to make a payroll and you do it out of your personal funds because people who owe you haven't paid their bills, and you wonder if they ever will.
quote:Pretty damn sure this is not true. The majority of CEOs, yes. All of them? Nope.
CEOs do not have this. Ever.
quote:Small business is a category defined by scope. Typically number of employees and £/$ turnover.* Not by risk factor or philosophy.
quote:This person may be the same as a small business person if they buy an existing business and take the personal risks in buying.
Soror Magna:
Or how about an enterprising individual who buys an existing small business? Is s/he an entrepreneur or not?
quote:And this is part of the problem.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
We define usually "small business" here as less than 10 employees when we talk about it,
quote:If I hire you I pay you an hourly rate, submit tax on your wages every 2 weeks, pay workers compensation premiums on payroll in case you're injuried, pay out of work insurance premiums, and here Canada pension plan premiums. I also supply the building materials, tools, truck to haul everything to job sites, rent the hoists, lifts and cranes etc used in construction.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So a carpenter who hires himself out to a homeowner is an "entrepreneur" and deserves special treatment from the state, but a carpenter who hires himself out to another carpenter belongs to an inferior class and should have his earnings taxed at a higher rate than the "entrepreneurial" carpenter? That would seem to require a more detailed explanation than any that's been offered so far.
quote:Who said anything like this?
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
It stereotyping to think business people want and enjoy exploiting others. Offensive to those of us who provide good employment, good wages, take an active interest in the community. I have seen no data which indicates either assholes decide to go into business or business turns people into assholes.
quote:So in your view low pay isn't a moral issue and there's no such thing as exploitation ?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I mean the question isn't applicable. The going rate is clearly not determined by moral considerations - it is the outcome of a number of self-interested actors pursuing their reasonable self-interest; therefore, you cannot assert than any particular rate is sanctioned by the weight of morality.
quote:The obvious example is technology. With self-driving cars being prototyped, the prospects for the wage rate of taxi drivers aren't good.
How do you think the going rate ever changes?
quote:It may be prudent to price her bread at a level which doesn't immediately suggest that more competition would be a good idea...
Say there's only one baker in the village. Is the baker obliged to work out whether she's charging more for her bread than she would be able to had the village room for two bakers? How could she possibly work that out?
quote:If people make decisions on sympathy rather than reason, then engaging their sympathies seems logical. Who's going to sympathize with Universal Megacorp ?
But what about large businesses? Why talk about small businesses all the time? It's as if you want to engage people's sympathies. Rather than discussing general principles.
quote:Baloney. It's an attempt to transfer neighbourly sympathies to entities that are most definitely not neighbours and rarely, if ever, behave as neighbours should.
Originally posted by Russ:
... If people make decisions on sympathy rather than reason, then engaging their sympathies seems logical. Who's going to sympathize with Universal Megacorp ?
Considering the case when the employer is your neighbour and the employee is also your neighbour - the human-scale business - is an attenpt to bypass differential sympathies and focus on general principles....
quote:I think inequality is a moral issue. And I think hardship and deprivation are moral issues. I don't fetishise any particular rate of pay as such.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:So in your view low pay isn't a moral issue and there's no such thing as exploitation ?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I mean the question isn't applicable. The going rate is clearly not determined by moral considerations - it is the outcome of a number of self-interested actors pursuing their reasonable self-interest; therefore, you cannot assert than any particular rate is sanctioned by the weight of morality.
quote:How do you set the going rate for self-driving cars when there isn't a going rate yet?
quote:The obvious example is technology. With self-driving cars being prototyped, the prospects for the wage rate of taxi drivers aren't good.
How do you think the going rate ever changes?
quote:That would be a prudential reason. But you were saying that there's a moral obligation upon her not to charge more than the going rate, whatever that is.
quote:It may be prudent to price her bread at a level which doesn't immediately suggest that more competition would be a good idea...
Say there's only one baker in the village. Is the baker obliged to work out whether she's charging more for her bread than she would be able to had the village room for two bakers? How could she possibly work that out?
quote:Not for present purposes it isn't.
But I thought your main concern was the wages she pays her employee the assistant baker.
quote:Actually it seems to me that it's because you can point to some reason - his eyesight is bad or he's subject to family pressure - why he's being exploited. You haven't said anything at all about the bakers' assistants in the next village along. Maybe they're being paid more because they're half an hour's train ride closer to the big city.
Theory suggests that if the wages she pays are significantly below the going rate in the bakeries in neighbouring villages, then he's probably not going to stay long - as soon as he hears of a vacancy elsewhere he'll be applying for it.
There may be reasons why that isn't the case. Maybe his eyesight is so bad that he can't drive. Maybe he's her nephew and is under pressure from the family not to let his aunt down.
Seems to me that in that sort of case you can argue that he's being exploited.
Maybe he isn't - maybe there's an understanding that he'll inherit the business when she dies. But whether or not he's being unfairly treated seems to me a meaningful discussion to have. But only because there's a population of assistant bakers in neighbouring villages to act as a point of reference.
quote:That's a big 'if'. You seem to be assuming it as a premise.
quote:If people make decisions on sympathy rather than reason, then engaging their sympathies seems logical. Who's going to sympathize with Universal Megacorp ?
But what about large businesses? Why talk about small businesses all the time? It's as if you want to engage people's sympathies. Rather than discussing general principles.
quote:I take it you mean something like "Am I, in Caprica City, necessarily being exploited if I'm working for longer hours at a lower rate of pay at a higher risk of accident than the norms which apply in rural Ireland ?"
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
If your neighbourhood has "general principles" of a minimum wage, hours of work, or health and safety, do those apply outside your neighbourhood?
quote:Maybe there are reasons not directly related to work that an assistant baker doesn't feel like making their spouse quit their job, yank their kids out of the local school, abandon their elderly parents, and pay the expenses associated to moving to a new town where they know no one in order to make that extra dollar an hour. Assuming everyone belongs to species Homo economicus seems to ignore a lot of the ways people really act in favor of a philosophically-derived abstraction.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:It may be prudent to price her bread at a level which doesn't immediately suggest that more competition would be a good idea...
Say there's only one baker in the village. Is the baker obliged to work out whether she's charging more for her bread than she would be able to had the village room for two bakers? How could she possibly work that out?
But I thought your main concern was the wages she pays her employee the assistant baker.
Theory suggests that if the wages she pays are significantly below the going rate in the bakeries in neighbouring villages, then he's probably not going to stay long - as soon as he hears of a vacancy elsewhere he'll be applying for it.
There may be reasons why that isn't the case. Maybe his eyesight is so bad that he can't drive. Maybe he's her nephew and is under pressure from the family not to let his aunt down.
Seems to me that in that sort of case you can argue that he's being exploited.
Maybe he isn't - maybe there's an understanding that he'll inherit the business when she dies. But whether or not he's being unfairly treated seems to me a meaningful discussion to have. But only because there's a population of assistant bakers in neighbouring villages to act as a point of reference.
quote:You, obviously.
Originally posted by Russ:
If people make decisions on sympathy rather than reason, then engaging their sympathies seems logical. Who's going to sympathize with Universal Megacorp ?
quote:To take Russ' suggested example, the real (i.e. inflation adjusted) wages of American truck drivers have been declining for years. There are no self-driving trucks yet, nor is America outsourcing its truck driving needs to cheaper foreign truck drivers. It does seem to be closely correlated to declines in unionization of American truck drivers, but that doesn't really sort well with the Homo economicus model of utility maximization.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:How do you set the going rate for self-driving cars when there isn't a going rate yet?
quote:Originally posted by Russ:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
How do you think the going rate ever changes?
The obvious example is technology. With self-driving cars being prototyped, the prospects for the wage rate of taxi drivers aren't good.
But how does it change in general? Technology can't be the only answer.
quote:For whatever reason a lot of these arguments seem to end up sounding a lot like antebellum Southerners defending their Peculiar Institution, much of which boiled down to "Why don't you Yankees mind your own business?"
Originally posted by Russ:
I take it you mean something like "Am I, in Caprica City, necessarily being exploited if I'm working for longer hours at a lower rate of pay at a higher risk of accident than the norms which apply in rural Ireland ?"
And my answer is No. Your community has no obligation to abide by my community's standards, and vice versa.
I'm suggesting that it follows from that that whilst an individual worker in your community (or mine) may be exploited, it's meaningless to suggest that all of them are. Because there's no objective standard against which the norm in a community can be unfavourably compared.
quote:That leads to some counterintuitive results. It's also at odds with your position that monopolies are definitely wrong.
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm suggesting that it follows from that that whilst an individual worker in your community (or mine) may be exploited, it's meaningless to suggest that all of them are. Because there's no objective standard against which the norm in a community can be unfavourably compared.
quote:I think there objective standards. There absolutely are.
Originally posted by Russ:
I take it you mean something like "Am I, in Caprica City, necessarily being exploited if I'm working for longer hours at a lower rate of pay at a higher risk of accident than the norms which apply in rural Ireland ?"
And my answer is No. Your community has no obligation to abide by my community's standards, and vice versa.
quote:Well, you assumed that was what I meant. It's equally possible that I meant, "How can my family's Laundromat business compete with the Magdalen Laundries when we have to pay rent, wages, taxes, benefits and pension contributions but they don't?"
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I take it you mean something like "Am I, in Caprica City, necessarily being exploited if I'm working for longer hours at a lower rate of pay at a higher risk of accident than the norms which apply in rural Ireland ?"
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
If your neighbourhood has "general principles" of a minimum wage, hours of work, or health and safety, do those apply outside your neighbourhood?
And my answer is No. Your community has no obligation to abide by my community's standards, and vice versa....
quote:Nowhere have I said anything about a 50% threshold. Rather my thesis is that the going rate in a competitive market is the only benchmark. Regardless of percentages.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Suppose forty nine per cent of the workforce are subject to travel restrictions and fifty one per cent are not. The forty nine per cent are exploited and the fifty one aren't. Now the government at the behest of one of the employers passes travel restrictions on another two per cent of the workforce. Now not only are the forty nine per cent not being exploited any more, but the remaining forty nine per cent who are free have suddenly started to exploit their employers.
quote:No, a local monopoly is still a local monopoly when it's the workers doing it instead of the employers.
If the workers' union has negotiated pension rights that make it hard for the employers to invest because they have to set aside money for the pensions, then there's no way for Russ to say that's too burdensome on the employers.
quote:I think that exploitation and abuse of monopoly power are more or less the same thing. Now a non-profit-maximising monopolist may choose not to pay less or charge more than the competitive-market rate. But don't hold your breath...
As regards monopolies: Russ thinks that monopolies are wrong.
quote:In the case where monopoly exists, the competitive-market rate is not observable but it is definable. And data on production costs and market response to price rises can be collected to allow economists to estimate where that equilibrium would be.
He thinks there is an objective standard: namely the price that would obtain under a situation of free competition. But that objective standard is purely notional. It doesn't exist in any way, because what exists is the monopoly. So presumably if it still counts as an objective standard (despite not existing), then it's perfectly possible for there to be an objective standard in the case of the workforce - thus allowing us to say that an entire workforce is being exploited.
quote:So where there is no competitive market there is no benchmark.
Originally posted by Russ:
Rather my thesis is that the going rate in a competitive market is the only benchmark.
quote:Only if there's a competitive market in the same community. Otherwise, you have no benchmark apparently.
No, a local monopoly is still a local monopoly when it's the workers doing it instead of the employers.
quote:Either the going rate in a competitive market is your benchmark and abuse of monopoly power takes you away from that benchmark and is therefore exploitation, or else abuse of monopoly power is exploitation and you don't need to invoke a benchmark going rate.
I think that exploitation and abuse of monopoly power are more or less the same thing.
quote:I don't share your confidence in the ability of economists to accurately estimate where prices would be under differing economic constraints. Even if economics were an exact science, the number of variables upon which the demand and supply depend is so high, and so many of them might be affected by the monopoly, that talk of an calculable standard in the absence of the monopoly is wishful thinking.
In the case where monopoly exists, the competitive-market rate is not observable but it is definable. And data on production costs and market response to price rises can be collected to allow economists to estimate where that equilibrium would be.
Your undefined "objective standard" seems like an exercise in wish-fulfillment. The amount I'd like to be paid is...
quote:You seem to have drifted quite a long way from your initial thesis that there is such a thing as a definable "social-progressive mindset" "that is hostile to Traditional Christianity".
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm suggesting that it follows from that that whilst an individual worker in your community (or mine) may be exploited, it's meaningless to suggest that all of them are. Because there's no objective standard against which the norm in a community can be unfavourably compared.
quote:It's been brought up before in this thread.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
And I had to bring up Magdalen laundries ...
quote:I've drifted, yes, into arguing economics with Dafyd.
Originally posted by Eliab:
You seem to have drifted quite a long way from your initial thesis that there is such a thing as a definable "social-progressive mindset" "that is hostile to Traditional Christianity".
quote:I wouldn't claim that anyone who disagrees with me on economics (competitive market rather than free market) or relativism is necessarily a social progressive - not convinced that my economic ideas and Dafyd's necessarily map very well to traditional and progressive.
You now seem to be arguing against a "mindset" which is broad enough to include (at least) a range of political and economic views from the Centre-Right to the Far-Left, and which might well be hostile to your own blend of free-market cultural relativism, but is not so hostile to Traditional Christianity that that it excludes mainstream adherents of several Christian traditions.
quote:If you think any clear conclusion about what social progressivism is has been reached, please do say what it is.
Even if you convince me that your views on economics and exploitation are right, you seem to have pretty comprehensively lost the argument that the opposition to your position is motivated by definable, anti-Christian and socially progressive principles, which can usefully be grouped together as a defined "mindset".
quote:Did Jesus think of people in terms of classes, and restrict his love to those classes he defined as oppressed ?
Originally posted by Martin60:
Like Jesus you mean?
quote:The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free...
Originally posted by Russ:
Did Jesus think of people in terms of classes, and restrict his love to those classes he defined as oppressed ?
quote:I just thought I'd pick up on this because it interested me.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There seem to be two really big fallacies at work here. The first is that taxation is (or at least should be) proportional to government services "consumed". No tax system I'm aware of functions in this way. Most are proportional to income, both as a general yardstick of fairness and for purely pragmatic reasons.
quote:Rather than being another person who quotes the Bible at you, I suggest you go and read the parable of the lost sheep if you're troubled by the notion that God might not behave towards everyone equally.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Did Jesus think of people in terms of classes, and restrict his love to those classes he defined as oppressed ?
Originally posted by Martin60:
Like Jesus you mean?
quote:I disagree.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I take it you mean something like "Am I, in Caprica City, necessarily being exploited if I'm working for longer hours at a lower rate of pay at a higher risk of accident than the norms which apply in rural Ireland ?"
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
If your neighbourhood has "general principles" of a minimum wage, hours of work, or health and safety, do those apply outside your neighbourhood?
And my answer is No. Your community has no obligation to abide by my community's standards, and vice versa.
quote:Blogger Fred Clark examined this recently.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm sorry if I've bored you with this before; but I'm convinced there are two gospels.
One for the poor, the dispossessed, the helpless, the weak, the oppressed. That's the gospel of unconditional love and acceptance and welcome.
There's another for the self-righteous, the religious, the wealthy, the self-satisfied, the ones looking for exceptions in the gospels. That's the gospel of "give all your stuff away, stop being such a total shit".
quote:Italics from the original, bolding added by me. At any rate, while it may be theologically convenient to claim Jesus made no distinction between the rich and the poor, the Biblical account does not support this assertion.
Because here’s the thing we evangelical types aren’t allowed or accustomed to notice: Most of the time in the actual Bible, the poor are already saved. All of them. They just are.
That’s a given. It’s rarely stated outright because, throughout the actual Bible, it goes without saying. It is simply assumed — over and over again. The starkest example of this might be Jesus’ parable of the rich man (sometimes called “Dives”) and the beggar Lazarus. How and why is Lazarus “saved” in that story? He just is. Salvation belongs to him because nothing else does. The only drama in that story involves Dives and his wealthy relatives. Can they be saved, too? Yes — because they need to be. No such need is attributed to Lazarus.
But surely Lazarus — like all people — is a sinner. And surely that means he needs to be saved from his sins? Probably so. But if his Jubilee and salvation also involves the forgiveness of his sins, then it doesn’t occur in that story due to his confession and repentance. It is granted to him and attributed to him because he is a beggar. That’s how Jubilee works. It makes demands from creditors and extends grace to debtors — whether or not they seek it or even know it.
Or consider the parable of the Sheep and the Goats, in which the nations and the people of the nations are judged based on how they respond to the hungry, the naked, the sick and the imprisoned. Some of these folks are “saved” and some are not, but there’s a whole other category unaddressed in this judgment — the hungry, naked, sick and imprisoned themselves. They seem exempt from the summons to stand before the throne. There’s no sense questioning whether they meet the standard of this judgment because they are the standard. Their “salvation” is never in question. The only question is who from among the rest of us will be joining them. (And the answer, in that parable, is those who have already joined them.)
quote:Good answer. You've summed up the social-progressive interpretation of Christianity. Bias to the poor. Bias to the ethnic minority. Bias to the pervert (ie. the person with minority sexual desires).
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think God has a preferential option for the poor and doesn't really give much of a shit about the rich
quote:How the hell did you get anything about perversity from what cheesy wrote? Let's not put words in other people's mouths if we can avoid it. That, at least, is NOT what Christianity is all about.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Good answer. You've summed up the social-progressive interpretation of Christianity. Bias to the poor. Bias to the ethnic minority. Bias to the pervert (ie. the person with minority sexual desires).
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think God has a preferential option for the poor and doesn't really give much of a shit about the rich
quote:Nope. That isn't what the word heresy has ever been taken to mean.
Originally posted by Russ:
And if it's a slanted interpretation, a view that takes one theme, one strand of the tapestry, and upholds it against the whole, then isn't there a word for that ?
Heresy ?
quote:So what word would you use ?
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Nope. That isn't what the word heresy has ever been taken to mean.
Originally posted by Russ:
And if it's a slanted interpretation, a view that takes one theme, one strand of the tapestry, and upholds it against the whole, then isn't there a word for that ?
Heresy ?
quote:I'd call the phrase “preferential option for the poor” Catholic social teaching - given that it originated from the Jesuit Father Pedro Arrupe, and was picked and developed up by most (if not all) Popes over the last 30 years. If you want to argue that this is wrong, then you're arguing with them not me.
Originally posted by Russ:
So what word would you use ?
quote:Can we presume, then, you would prefer Christianity to dehumanize and enslave people of other races, accumulate as much wealth as possible, and murder people who don't do sex properly?
Originally posted by Russ:
Good answer. You've summed up the social-progressive interpretation of Christianity. Bias to the poor. Bias to the ethnic minority. Bias to the pervert (ie. the person with minority sexual desires).
Is this really what Christianity is about ?
...
quote:No. You can presume that I think bias is a bad thing. That there's some connection between justice and impartiality.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Can we presume, then, you would prefer Christianity to dehumanize and enslave people of other races, accumulate as much wealth as possible, and murder people who don't do sex properly?
quote:Some connection. Not an indefeasible connection. For example Blackstone's ratio says that the justice system should be biased in favour of the accused party.
Originally posted by Russ:
You can presume that I think bias is a bad thing. That there's some connection between justice and impartiality.
quote:Your views on formal equality have been extensively canvassed. We spent months discussing them in Dead Horses. You convinced no-one, largely because a rigid adherence to formal equality completely ignores outcomes.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:No. You can presume that I think bias is a bad thing. That there's some connection between justice and impartiality.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Can we presume, then, you would prefer Christianity to dehumanize and enslave people of other races, accumulate as much wealth as possible, and murder people who don't do sex properly?
quote:In Mark chapter 2, Jesus likens himself to a doctor. Nobody thinks that a doctor is morally obliged to devote equal attention to the healthy and the sick. That is not what impartiality means.
Originally posted by orfeo:
a rigid adherence to formal equality completely ignores outcomes.
I've already referred you to the parable of the workers in the vineyard. I'll refer you to it again. And to the parable of the Prodigal Son. Again. And of the lost coin, and the lost sheep.
I really do not think you can read those stories and believe that Jesus was a big fan of impartiality of the kind you seem to advocate.
quote:My main point is that he doesn't say what YOU would have him say. Certainly not to the point where you are justified in describing the views of other Christians as heresy.
Originally posted by Russ:
Jesus does not say what you would have him say.
quote:No. Changing the rules to benefit those you sympathize with (and disbenefit those you don't) is the way of bias. That's the approach I'm arguing against.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
it seems to me that although you sympathise with Goliath over David you will impartially and without bias ban them both from using slings.
quote:You see any attempt to raise up the poor and disadvantaged to the same level as you as disbenefiting yourself.
Originally posted by Russ:
Changing the rules to benefit those you sympathize with (and disbenefit those you don't) is the way of bias. That's the approach I'm arguing against.
quote:No, it isn't. It's your attempt to characterise the position that you're arguing against.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:No. Changing the rules to benefit those you sympathize with (and disbenefit those you don't) is the way of bias. That's the approach I'm arguing against.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
it seems to me that although you sympathise with Goliath over David you will impartially and without bias ban them both from using slings.
quote:You seem to have mis-interpreted Russ' position, Soror Magna. He doesn't prefer racism, slavery, greed, and lynching. He has simply has no objection to (or approval of) such things, and believes that the real injustice is having an opinion one way or the other about whether such practices are just.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:No. You can presume that I think bias is a bad thing. That there's some connection between justice and impartiality.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Can we presume, then, you would prefer Christianity to dehumanize and enslave people of other races, accumulate as much wealth as possible, and murder people who don't do sex properly?
quote:One person on this thread actually takes the position that a doctor devoting an unequal amount of time to the sick over the healthy is guilty of a pro-sick bias, and that such a bias is something to be avoided. I've quoted him above. Maybe you should address your objections to him.
Originally posted by Russ:
In Mark chapter 2, Jesus likens himself to a doctor. Nobody thinks that a doctor is morally obliged to devote equal attention to the healthy and the sick. That is not what impartiality means.
quote:God sympathises with the poor - because nobody else does. If you don't like that idea, you don't like God. As simple as.
Originally posted by Russ:
No. Changing the rules to benefit those you sympathize with (and disbenefit those you don't) is the way of bias. That's the approach I'm arguing against.
quote:Riiiight. So somehow you think that God is "for" those who are naturally are brainier, have better life prospects, won in the genetic lottery of life, were born in the right country, the right century, the right social class. And that somehow he's going to look at some poor, bedraggled refugee who left his war-torn country, travelled across half the world in the back of a lorry, ended up in a camp where nobody loved him and so eventually took his own life because it was all frankly a pile of shite and had no hope of any improvement.
It's the s-p people who would be passing laws to make Goliath fight with one arm tied behind his back. Because they look at his material advantages - muscles, armour, big expensive sword...
quote:The way Russ usually does, through selective semantics. By defining perversity as having "minority sexual desires" Russ is interestingly defining anyone who doesn't have premarital sex (something only a minority actually do) as "perverts". Hence according to Russ "the social-progressive interpretation of Christianity" unduly favors abstaining from sex before marriage, while opponents of "the social-progressive interpretation of Christianity" are either supportive of premarital sex or indifferent to the practice.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:How the hell did you get anything about perversity from what cheesy wrote?
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Good answer. You've summed up the social-progressive interpretation of Christianity. Bias to the poor. Bias to the ethnic minority. Bias to the pervert (ie. the person with minority sexual desires).
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think God has a preferential option for the poor and doesn't really give much of a shit about the rich
quote:You seem to have forgotten that everything in our world is a resource from God. Regardless of who happens to have planted their flag or stuck their name on it temporarily.
Originally posted by Russ:
....The good outcome that we want - the healing of the sick, the return of the lost sheep - is to be accomplished through the extra resources of God, not by loading the dice against the rest of the flock.
....
quote:Not generally considered heretics.
How can I make you realize the misery of the poor? How can I make you understand that your wealth comes from their weeping?
Basil of Caesarea, 330-370 A.D.
Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. The goods we possess are not ours but theirs.
John Chrysostom, 347-407 AD
You are not making a gift of your possession to the poor person. You are handing over to him what is his.
Ambrose of Milan, 340-397.
Instead of the tithes which the law commanded, the Lord said to divide everything we have with the poor. And he said to love not only our neighbors but also our enemies, and to be givers and sharers not only with the good but also to be liberal givers toward those who take away our possessions.
Irenaeus, 130-200 AD
quote:I really can't get my head around the above. If that's not a typo and is an accurate reflection of Russ' views then I'm afraid I've no idea what he is on about.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The way Russ usually does, through selective semantics. By defining perversity as having "minority sexual desires" Russ is interestingly defining anyone who doesn't have premarital sex (something only a minority actually do) as "perverts". Hence according to Russ "the social-progressive interpretation of Christianity" unduly favors abstaining from sex before marriage, while opponents of "the social-progressive interpretation of Christianity" are either supportive of premarital sex or indifferent to the practice.
quote:Surely everyone understands that the shepherd is leaving the 99 sheep in the parable to the mercy of wolves and other life mishaps to look for the single lost sheep.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
You seem to have forgotten that everything in our world is a resource from God. Regardless of who happens to have planted their flag or stuck their name on it temporarily.
quote:Flashbacks from The Name of the Rose ... Jesus on the Cross touching the purse at his waist ....
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
...
I'm puzzled why we're even having this discussion - it seems to be as plain as the lines on my hand.
quote:Are you not familiar with the "Prayer of Jabez" crowd?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I suppose I'm just showing my ignorance. It never occurred to me that anyone could read the bible, and in particular the NT, and come away thinking anything other than "this is a God who is pro-poor and anti-powerful".
quote:Indeed, it's one of the most consistent threads in a collection of texts where inconsistency is the rule.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I suppose I'm just showing my ignorance. It never occurred to me that anyone could read the bible, and in particular the NT, and come away thinking anything other than "this is a God who is pro-poor and anti-powerful".
quote:I'm not overly familiar, no. I thought that the gist of these things was that God was still on the side of the poor but that the Christian was the poor person whom the Lord loved (rather than any other poor person) and that elevation to material wealth was a reward for being the Christian. The difference between me and them is about who "the poor" are to whom God is biased.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Are you not familiar with the "Prayer of Jabez" crowd?
quote:It partakes of some elements of Christianity - e.g. concern for the poor and outcast - and rejects others - e.g. patriarchal, property-oriented rules about sex. Can we have Mousethief coolers now?
Originally posted by Russ:
...
Three questions:
- can we describe this mindset - its characteristics and doctrines - in language that is acceptable to both those who hold this point of view and those who oppose it ?
- is "social-progressive" an adequate name for it or is there a better one ?
- what is the connection to Christianity ? Is this a religious point of view ? ...
quote:mr cheesy, meet the Prosperity Gospel.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I've never heard of a Christianity that didn't say that God was biased towards the poor.
quote:Yes. The difference I'm trying to illustrate (obv unclearly) is between believing that there is God has no bias between rich and poor and that God blesses people to make them rich.
Originally posted by mousethief:
mr cheesy, meet the Prosperity Gospel.
quote:The believer in the prosperity gospel believes that the words in the bible speaking of "the poor" are directed at them. Not that the bible somehow doesn't speak about a bias towards the poor.
The prosperity theology teaching of positive confession stems from its proponents' view of scripture. The Bible is seen as a faith contract between God and believers; God is understood to be faithful and just, so believers must fulfill their end of the contract to receive God's promises. This leads to a belief in positive confession, the doctrine that believers may claim whatever they desire from God, simply by speaking it. Prosperity theology teaches that the Bible has promised prosperity for believers, so positive confession means that believers are speaking in faith what God has already spoken about them. Positive confession is practiced to bring about what is already believed in; faith itself is a confession, and speaking it brings it into reality
quote:Often, ironically, from the same Christians that accuse wicked progressive liberals like me of not taking the Bible seriously. I can only assume they don't actually read the thing.
Originally posted by orfeo:
As best as I can make out, there is a strand of American Christianity that is pretty sold on the idea that being poor is people's own fault and a sign of moral failure. And that such failure ought not be rewarded.
quote:That is my understanding as well.
Originally posted by orfeo:
As best as I can make out, there is a strand of American Christianity that is pretty sold on the idea that being poor is people's own fault and a sign of moral failure. And that such failure ought not be rewarded.
quote:That's not what I'm hearing here.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
social-progressives do not see themselves as wanting to change the rules solely on the basis of whom they sympathise and don't sympathise with.
quote:You can argue both at once if you aren't equating "bestowing sympathy" with "being biased". It is possible to do that, rationally, if the sympathised-with can be distinguished from others by greater need or desert.
Originally posted by Russ:
If you look back at the various pro-s-p responses, how many are saying
"You're right that bias is a bad thing but that's not what social progressivism is"
and how many are saying
"we're biased and proud of it"
??
Either you argue that you're right to bestow sympathy as you do, and right to let that sympathy determine your view. Or you argue that's not what you're doing at all. You can't use both defences at once.
quote:I'd have thought it is pretty obvious to most people that one can indeed say both things at once.
Originally posted by Russ:
Either you argue that you're right to bestow sympathy as you do, and right to let that sympathy determine your view. Or you argue that's not what you're doing at all. You can't use both defences at once.
quote:I keep coming back to this in my head. I can't let go of it.
Originally posted by Russ:
The point of the parable of the workers in the vineyard is that in being generous to the latecomers the owner is not being unfair to those who have worked all day. He is entitled to be generous, even capricious, with his own money.
quote:Technically true unless you're using a speech reader.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:That's not what I'm hearing here.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
social-progressives do not see themselves as wanting to change the rules solely on the basis of whom they sympathise and don't sympathise with.
quote:I believe you are the only person who has used either of those phrases. If you think they're accurate paraphrases of what other people are saying you might be better off quoting or linking to the posts you're thinking of.
If you look back at the various pro-s-p responses, how many are saying
"You're right that bias is a bad thing but that's not what social progressivism is"
and how many are saying
"we're biased and proud of it"
??
quote:The first sentence there contains one more step than necessary. You can have views determining sympathies or sympathies determining views: you've got both.
Either you argue that you're right to bestow sympathy as you do, and right to let that sympathy determine your view. Or you argue that's not what you're doing at all. You can't use both defences at once.
quote:I suspect we'd all agree that Christianity involves concern for the poor and outcast. What I'm trying to suggest to you is that there is more than one form that that concern can take.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It partakes of some elements of Christianity - e.g. concern for the poor and outcast - and rejects others
quote:Bullshit. I'm not envious of the rich because I am the rich.
Originally posted by Russ:
I suspect we'd all agree that Christianity involves concern for the poor and outcast. What I'm trying to suggest to you is that there is more than one form that that concern can take.
And the form that involves screwing the rich comes out of the envy in the human heart and not out of the text of the gospel.
quote:Jesus wanted to redistribute his wealth. How is that somehow different to what I've been saying?
Jesus saw the rich young man who claimed to have kept all the commandments, and loved him. Jesus told him to give away all he had, not because the riches were ill-gotten, or wrong in principle, but because that individual's attachment to his wealth and the social position it brought him was keeping him from the closer relationship with God that his loving Father desired.
quote:You just seem to be blithely ignoring the actual text of the NT. Haven't you heard that "from everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."?
God loves us all. He wants an end to "us and them" type conflict.
quote:Do you accept that the same impulse could also have been behind the initial acquisition of wealth in the first place?
Originally posted by Russ:
And the form that involves screwing the rich comes out of the envy in the human heart
quote:Interesting. When it comes to behaviour that involves screwing people of minority races you tell us that it doesn't necessarily come out of racism.
Originally posted by Russ:
I suspect we'd all agree that Christianity involves concern for the poor and outcast. What I'm trying to suggest to you is that there is more than one form that that concern can take.
And the form that involves screwing the rich comes out of the envy in the human heart and not out of the text of the gospel.
quote:There is a difference between explaining away a text that seems to support the contrary position, and finding a text that actually supports your position. The above is the former.
Jesus told him to give away all he had, not because the riches were ill-gotten, or wrong in principle, but because that individual's attachment to his wealth and the social position it brought him was keeping him from the closer relationship with God that his loving Father desired.
quote:Of course. It's human nature to compare ourselves with others. Can't we all identify with those who've worked all day ? Just like we have sympathy for the Prodigal Son's hard-working elder brother.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Seriously, do you not normally subscribe to notions like "the same work for the same pay"? Do you not consider it unfair that someone who hasn't worked gets as much money as someone who has?
quote:So how do you explain the statements of the Church Fathers on the rich and the poor? In case you missed them:
Originally posted by Russ:
... And the form that involves screwing the rich comes out of the envy in the human heart and not out of the text of the gospel. ...
quote:How do you interpret any of those statements to mean "rich people should keep their stuff"? They're also pretty clear that the onus is on the rich to share willingly, not on the poor to be happy with their lot ...
How can I make you realize the misery of the poor? How can I make you understand that your wealth comes from their weeping?
Basil of Caesarea, 330-370 A.D.
Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. The goods we possess are not ours but theirs.
John Chrysostom, 347-407 AD
You are not making a gift of your possession to the poor person. You are handing over to him what is his.
Ambrose of Milan, 340-397.
Instead of the tithes which the law commanded, the Lord said to divide everything we have with the poor. And he said to love not only our neighbors but also our enemies, and to be givers and sharers not only with the good but also to be liberal givers toward those who take away our possessions.
Irenaeus, 130-200 AD
quote:So your Good News is Hakuna Matata.
Originally posted by Russ:
... The sooner you're reconciled to people being undeservedly richer or paid a higher rate or promoted faster than you are, the happier you'll be.
quote:Another interpretation is that the vineyard owner wanted everyone to get a living wage for the day.
I suspect where we differ is that you want to see this parable as being about eliminating differentials and paying everyone the same. When it clearly isn't.
quote:All Things Bright and Beautiful
3.
The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them high and lowly,
And ordered their estate.
quote:Good news! I'm going to take away your envy for the rich and everything is going to be just fine!
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't recognise what you describe as being Christianity. How is it good news for the poor - "stay poor and be happy about it"? Where is the freedom for captives? Where is the release of the oppressed? You are calling them to revel in their captivity, to acquiesce in their oppression.
quote:It seemed from the start that the thread had a kind of exculpatory purpose.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This is so ridiculous. Russ is clearly playing games with us.
quote:Yeah, if only someone had made that observation before. Multiple times. On more than one thread....
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This is so ridiculous. Russ is clearly playing games with us.
quote:"Willingly" being a fairly key word. There's no inherent hypocrisy in believing both that the rich should share their wealth and that they shouldn't be forced to do so.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
They're also pretty clear that the onus is on the rich to share willingly, not on the poor to be happy with their lot ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
.
quote:I don't know, I'm not sure this is more than a semantic difference. I suspect if you put it to a Deliveroo worker that he'd be getting £40 for 8 days of work and at the end of the day he found out that someone got £40 for 1 hour of work, he'd be angry.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
As for the workers in the vineyard, one thing that strikes me about this discussion is that the owner still gives those who had worked all day their full due, rather than reducing their wage in order to finance the extra wages of those who worked less. At the end of the day nobody has less than they started off with, it's just that some have the same and others have far more. Earthly models of equality/equity/justice/whatever tend to involve some people getting considerably less than they start off with.
quote:Doesn't stop (some) Christians from justifying screwing the poor though.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Of course, the vineyard owner also has the not inconsiderable problem of working out how on earth to convince anyone to work all day for him tomorrow when they know they'll get paid the same amount if they only turn up for the last hour. But I guess that's why it's generally considered to be a parable about salvation rather than economics
quote:Indeed; the argument is rather that that model didn't work - and indeed gave rise in Victorian times to the conditions in which desire for radical change - revolutionary change even - could grow.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:"Willingly" being a fairly key word. There's no inherent hypocrisy in believing both that the rich should share their wealth and that they shouldn't be forced to do so.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
They're also pretty clear that the onus is on the rich to share willingly, not on the poor to be happy with their lot ...
quote:The ideal I'm putting before you is one of impartiality - of a framework of moral rights and duties that are the same for everyone, black or white, male or female, rich or poor. Not setting out to favour anybody. No special pleading.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I can't help noticing that for all your talk of being fair and unbiased (as if they were the same thing) this model rather favours the rich. Which the gospel never, ever does.
I don't recognise what you describe as being Christianity. How is it good news for the poor - "stay poor and be happy about it"?
quote:I suggest that perhaps you are blind to your own special pleading. Firstly, you are ignoring the rather thorny questions around the initial acquisition of wealth. Secondly, the one theocratic society that is set forth in the Bible bears no resemblance to the winner take all society you suggest should prevail - and in fact the secular judgement that comes upon this society is said to be caused specifically because they adopted a more zero sum approach.
Originally posted by Russ:
The ideal I'm putting before you is one of impartiality - of a framework of moral rights and duties that are the same for everyone, black or white, male or female, rich or poor. Not setting out to favour anybody. No special pleading.
quote:No special pleading? So somehow you've inverted the biblical idea of "from those who have been given more, more will be expected" and how have it as "from those who have more, only as much will be expected as from those who have the least".
Originally posted by Russ:
The ideal I'm putting before you is one of impartiality - of a framework of moral rights and duties that are the same for everyone, black or white, male or female, rich or poor. Not setting out to favour anybody. No special pleading.
quote:I put it to you that you know nothing about the bible. Which is constantly talking about protection of the weak, poor and the orphan. It is absolutely material.
I put it to you that the good news for the poor that we read of in the Bible is nothing to do with increased disposable income or reducing costs of living. It's not material. It's that they/we are equally children of a loving Father, equal in dignity, equally accepted, equally important to God.
quote:Heaven on earth
Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the poor in spirit. The meek shall inherit the earth. You know the words as well as I do.
That was good news to those who lived in a society where poverty was seen as a mark of divine disfavour. I'm sorry if it seems like Old News to our post-Christian society...
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Changing the rules to benefit those you sympathize with (and disbenefit those you don't) is the way of bias. That's the approach I'm arguing against.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I suspect we'd all agree that Christianity involves concern for the poor and outcast.
quote:So all that jazz about feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, tending the sick, and visiting the imprisoned is a bunch of passé, not really Christian stuff. The important thing is to be "concerned" about the poor and outcast. Concern costs nothing and, more importantly in your estimation, does not provide any tangible "benefit".
Originally posted by Russ:
I put it to you that the good news for the poor that we read of in the Bible is nothing to do with increased disposable income or reducing costs of living. It's not material.
quote:
For I was hungry and you gave me an expression of deep concern, I was thirsty and you gave me a lecture on the importance of proper hydration, I was a stranger and you explained the laws against loitering, I needed clothes and you gave me fashion tips, I was sick and you chided me on unhealthy lifestyle choices, I was in prison and you explained how the legal system is perfectly impartial.’
quote:And I'm sorry if I return to a point I've made before but are you saying that the *Pope* is "post-Christian"?!?
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm sorry if it seems like Old News to our post-Christian society...
quote:
Anatole France: The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
quote:Here's the bottom line. Basically people who worship Ayn Rand.
Originally posted by orfeo:
To whom there is no such thing as society.
quote:You're free to turn your back, of course. But it remains that the Good News is about the resurrection and not about the distribution of wealth or economic systems.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Pie in the sky when you die, and an economic system that fails the weakest. You can put it to me if you like but I'm not interested in it.
quote:Your money you can direct to the welfare of anyone you choose, without waiting for anyone to enact policies.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm thoroughly in favour of policies that take some money off me in order to direct it to the welfare of people who have far fewer financial resources than I do.
quote:If you miss out on your duty to others, especially when is blessed with money compare to others on God's earth, one is neglecting stewardship to a dangerous degree.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:You're free to turn your back, of course. But it remains that the Good News is about the resurrection and not about the distribution of wealth or economic systems.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Pie in the sky when you die, and an economic system that fails the weakest. You can put it to me if you like but I'm not interested in it.
Yes, one of the fruits of the Spirit is generosity. But what happens to a Christian's money is a relatively unimportant consequence of their relationship with God. If you really think that the money is what's important then you've missed the point of it all.
quote:It's about the Kingdom of God. A place where people aren't oppressed, powerless and beholden to the rich. A Kingdom which starts now, amongst us.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:You're free to turn your back, of course. But it remains that the Good News is about the resurrection and not about the distribution of wealth or economic systems.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Pie in the sky when you die, and an economic system that fails the weakest. You can put it to me if you like but I'm not interested in it.
quote:No, it's actually very important, because in this world how we behave economically has by far the biggest impact on others, the more so the wealthier we are, which is why so much responsibility is placed on the wealthy, because what they do with their wealth has a big impact on others. Hence camels and eyes of needles.
Yes, one of the fruits of the Spirit is generosity. But what happens to a Christian's money is a relatively unimportant consequence of their relationship with God. If you really think that the money is what's important then you've missed the point of it all.
quote:And Thatcher, who I blame for much that stinks about attitudes in the UK
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Here's the bottom line. Basically people who worship Ayn Rand.
Originally posted by orfeo:
To whom there is no such thing as society.
quote:Absolutely, on the basis that they too benefit (usually equally disproportionately) from living somewhere with a rule of law and a functioning state.
Originally posted by Russ:
Be honest - the policies are about taking money off other people.
quote:I don't know the source, but the phrase
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Your spiritualised gospel is toothless
It changes nothing, fails to bring in the Kingdom of God. [/QB]
quote:Part of that functioning state requires the money/labour of the not rich.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Absolutely, on the basis that they too benefit (usually equally disproportionately) from living somewhere with a rule of law and a functioning state.
Originally posted by Russ:
Be honest - the policies are about taking money off other people.
quote:I find that a very telling phrase. If the version of the gospel that I learned has been spiritualised, that means the gospel wasn't spiritual in the first place.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Your spiritualised gospel is toothless
quote:I have no expectation of ever in my life owning a new car. And my wife and I have had one holiday in the last ten years, kindly paid for by family.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I am rich. I own two houses and a large new car, I go on at least four foreign holidays a year.
quote:?
Give all your stuff away, stop being such a total shit
quote:It's social. It's about relationship. It's about establishing the Kingdom of God, where the standards of the world, the racing to the top to be the richest and most powerful, are turned on their heads.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I find that a very telling phrase. If the version of the gospel that I learned has been spiritualised, that means the gospel wasn't spiritual in the first place.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Your spiritualised gospel is toothless
What is that you think the original gospel was ? Economic ? Political ?
You believe in Jesus the economic commentator ?
quote:Jesus said exactly the same.
Originally posted by Russ:
What do you think of Mr Cheesy's comment (top of p9) that the gospel message for the wealthy is
quote:
Give all your stuff away, stop being such a total shit
quote:Don't fucking tell to me "be honest".
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Your money you can direct to the welfare of anyone you choose, without waiting for anyone to enact policies.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm thoroughly in favour of policies that take some money off me in order to direct it to the welfare of people who have far fewer financial resources than I do.
Be honest - the policies are about taking money off other people.
quote:Not "above them".
Originally posted by Stejjie:
The first, of course, is the call implicit in it to feed the hungry, visit the lonely and sick, welcoming the stranger etc...
...All of which seems utterly incompatible with Russ' ideas of the poor simply accepting that there will be richer, more powerful people above them.
quote:A caricature.
Originally posted by Russ:
Accepting the existence of those richer or happier or more talented people, treating them as we would have those who are poorer, sadder or less talented treat us, without envy, without demonising, without writing them off as "total shits", is part of the way we're supposed to live.
quote:In form, his use of scare quotes is legitimate. However, in substance, it is as much a fail as the rest of his posts on this thread.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:A caricature.
Originally posted by Russ:
Accepting the existence of those richer or happier or more talented people, treating them as we would have those who are poorer, sadder or less talented treat us, without envy, without demonising, without writing them off as "total shits", is part of the way we're supposed to live.
When you put something in quotes, who are you quoting? As far as I can see, no-one in this thread.
quote:Well, last night, as I was walking home, I'm quite sure that the two kids settling in for the night on the sidewalk thought I was a shit. As did the guy with the swollen and scabrous foot at Mac's. And since I walked by all of them with money and food in my bag, I don't think I can tell them they're wrong.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Jesus said exactly the same.
Originally posted by Russ:
What do you think of Mr Cheesy's comment (top of p9) that the gospel message for the wealthy is
quote:
Give all your stuff away, stop being such a total shit
I can’t do it, any more than the rich man He said it to could. I give a lot to charity, probably more than 10%, but that’s not enough - and I know it.
quote:That is truly the most bizarre version of the Golden Rule I've ever seen: Treat those who have more gold the way you would like people with less gold to treat you.
Originally posted by Russ:
... Accepting the existence of those richer or happier or more talented people, treating them as we would have those who are poorer, sadder or less talented treat us, without envy, without demonising, without writing them off as "total shits", is part of the way we're supposed to live. ...
quote:The Gospel is for this world as well as the next. And you're still ignoring the words of the Church Fathers. Nor have you examined the motives which drive people to take more and more from those who have less and less. Your argument is rooted in the unspoken assertion that greed is ok but envy is not.
...
Karl thinks I've spiritualised the gospel; I think it was always meant to be spiritual and he's politicised it.
quote:He's kind-of, sort-of quoting stroke misquoting me.
Originally posted by orfeo:
A caricature.
When you put something in quotes, who are you quoting? As far as I can see, no-one in this thread.
quote:It seems ok to me, so long as the corollary also applies: treat those who have less gold the way you would like those with more gold to treat you.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
That is truly the most bizarre version of the Golden Rule I've ever seen: Treat those who have more gold the way you would like people with less gold to treat you.
quote:The problem is that it ignores how wealth is generated.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:It seems ok to me, so long as the corollary also applies: treat those who have less gold the way you would like those with more gold to treat you.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
That is truly the most bizarre version of the Golden Rule I've ever seen: Treat those who have more gold the way you would like people with less gold to treat you.
quote:All that is true. But on the other hand, I have been presented with several points in my career so far where I could make a choice - to work hard, or work less hard, with the "work hard" option attached to promotions, more money, and so on. I haven't always chosen that option.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Nor is wealth any kind of measure of how hard you've worked or "earned" it.
[..]
I don't think I work that hard. I just happen to have a brain that is good at certain things that are sought after.
quote:-- is one students (usually male, white, poorly-informed, and very young) often want to posit.
Originally posted by Russ:
The ideal I'm putting before you is one of impartiality - of a framework of moral rights and duties that are the same for everyone, black or white, male or female, rich or poor. Not setting out to favour anybody. No special pleading.
quote:Some lazy people make a whole lot of money doing basically nothing. A whole load of others works long hours for very little.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
All that is true. But on the other hand, I have been presented with several points in my career so far where I could make a choice - to work hard, or work less hard, with the "work hard" option attached to promotions, more money, and so on. I haven't always chosen that option.
But I don't begrudge the person a bit like me who did make that choice the extra money he makes...
quote:I started this thread about an observed cluster of social attitudes, but it seems to keep drifting back to economics.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The problem is that it ignores how wealth is generated.
"Oh people, just be happy and nice" does nothing to redress social inequities and nicely ignores that the wealthy are rich from the exploitation of the poor.
quote:Oh, my Christianity goes well beyond that. Giving goes only so far. We must challenge the economic and political structures that put people in situations where giving is required. Presumably you're one of those Do. Helder Camara was referring to when he made his famous quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I started this thread about an observed cluster of social attitudes, but it seems to keep drifting back to economics.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The problem is that it ignores how wealth is generated.
"Oh people, just be happy and nice" does nothing to redress social inequities and nicely ignores that the wealthy are rich from the exploitation of the poor.
I'm glad you have an interest in how wealth is generated. Far too many progressives are only interested in distribution. And you know that countries which prioritise distribution over generation tend to be poor countries...
I've argued above that exploitation exists - as abuse of monopoly power.
But your identification of wealth with exploitation seems to me obviously false. Not all disparities in wealth result from exploitation.
The tradition of the Christianity I was taught is the tithe; that 10% of one's income should go to relieve the suffering of the sick and the extremely poor.
If you have political aims that go beyond relieving that suffering, it is your right to desire those aims, and to devote your own resources (money, time, effort) to that cause.
But you're kidding yourself if you think that those aims are Christianity.
quote:I want our tithes to be spent on basic food and housing for those who cannot earn the money to pay for these things for themselves. Doesn't everyone ?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Russ--
Sincere question:
Is there any reason that anyone anywhere *shouldn't* have enough of basic food and housing?
(Putting aside questions about who would pay for it, and how it might be done.)
Thx.
quote:They aren't. Because it costs more than they are willing to spend (and 'we' collectively are willing to pay).
Originally posted by Russ:
I don't know why governments are quite so bad at spending the money. How can they spend so many billions on welfare without achieving this obvious aim ?
quote:Norway and Sweden are quite wealthy countries per capita.
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm glad you have an interest in how wealth is generated. Far too many progressives are only interested in distribution. And you know that countries which prioritise distribution over generation tend to be poor countries...
quote:I pointed out that your argument that exploitation was limited to monopoly power was self-contradictory.
I've argued above that exploitation exists - as abuse of monopoly power.
quote:Are there any obvious counterexamples?
But your identification of wealth with exploitation seems to me obviously false. Not all disparities in wealth result from exploitation.
quote:Here in the UK we've only had people sleeping rough and starving under governments pursuing economic policies similar to those that you're advocating. In the Thatcher-Major years there were lots of people sleeping rough. Under Blair and Brown they vanished. Under Cameron they came back.
Originally posted by Russ:
I don't know why governments are quite so bad at spending the money. How can they spend so many billions on welfare without achieving this obvious aim ? Why are there people sleeping rough and people starving ? In "first world" countries ?
quote:Or, under some models of socialism, if they just don't feel like working for it.
Originally posted by Russ:
About why anyone would work to feed their family and keep a roof over their head if they could get all that provided for them if they just exaggerate their difficulties a little...
quote:Under our current model of capitalism, there are many people who literally have not done a single day's labour and are still as rich as Croesus.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Or, under some models of socialism, if they just don't feel like working for it.
Originally posted by Russ:
About why anyone would work to feed their family and keep a roof over their head if they could get all that provided for them if they just exaggerate their difficulties a little...
quote:Economics is part of your platform in the OP, it is a handy example of social inequities and Social-Regressives (aka Conservatives) tend to use economics as their measuring stick.
Originally posted by Russ:
I started this thread about an observed cluster of social attitudes, but it seems to keep drifting back to economics.
quote:Far to many Social-Regressives are interested in this as well. In ending it, of course.
I'm glad you have an interest in how wealth is generated. Far too many progressives are only interested in distribution.
quote:By definition, they must.Wealth is not an absolute, it is relative. Without the poor, there can be no rich. So, unless you believe people are willingly poor so that others may be rich, wealth needs exploitation. That is why I put the word indirect in my earlier post. You can find individuals, and some fields of endeavour, that do not require direct exploitation; but they live in, and are beholden to, a system that exists on it.
But your identification of wealth with exploitation seems to me obviously false. Not all disparities in wealth result from exploitation.
quote:Only an idiot could honestly read Jesus' words and find this sufficient action. The collective we (aka government) has far more power to enact relief and reduce poverty.
The tradition of the Christianity I was taught is the tithe; that 10% of one's income should go to relieve the suffering of the sick and the extremely poor.
quote:Yeah, if they were, Jesus would have spoken quite often on the poor. Oh, wait...
But you're kidding yourself if you think that those aims are Christianity.
quote:Possibly because nobody is saying that I should give a significant proportion of my income to the rich ones if I don't want to be called a total shit.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Under our current model of capitalism, there are many people who literally have not done a single day's labour and are still as rich as Croesus.
And yet you seem to resent the ones at subsistence level far more.
quote:Perhaps 2 Thessalonians 3 v7-10 gives one such reason:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
:Is there any reason that anyone anywhere *shouldn't* have enough of basic food and housing?
quote:
For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”
quote:Also Luke:
5:1 Come now, you rich! Weep and cry aloud 1 over the miseries that are coming on you. 5:2 Your riches have rotted and your clothing has become moth-eaten. 5:3 Your gold and silver have rusted and their rust will be a witness against you. It will consume your flesh like fire. It is in the last days that you have hoarded treasure! 5:4 Look, the pay you have held back from the workers who mowed your fields cries out against you, and the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. 5:5 You have lived indulgently and luxuriously on the earth. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. 5:6 You have condemned and murdered the righteous person, although he does not resist you.
quote:
6:24 “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your comfort 84 already.
6:25 “Woe to you who are well satisfied with food now, for you will be hungry.
“Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep.
6:26 “Woe to you when all people speak well of you, for their ancestors did the same things to the false prophets.
quote:Except, of course, that far more of your income goes to the rich ones in terms of tax relief and subsidies than to the poor ones.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Possibly because nobody is saying that I should give a significant proportion of my income to the rich ones if I don't want to be called a total shit.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Under our current model of capitalism, there are many people who literally have not done a single day's labour and are still as rich as Croesus.
And yet you seem to resent the ones at subsistence level far more.
quote:Russ is positing a desiccated version of Christianity that recalls some of the DH arguments about marriage: companionship, love, support, etc. are secondary characteristics of (and thus non-essential to) marriage; what makes a marriage is shoving a penis into a vagina.
Originally posted by Russ:
...
The tradition of the Christianity I was taught is the tithe; that 10% of one's income should go to relieve the suffering of the sick and the extremely poor.
If you have political aims that go beyond relieving that suffering, it is your right to desire those aims, and to devote your own resources (money, time, effort) to that cause.
But you're kidding yourself if you think that those aims are Christianity.
quote:Nice proof-text. Look, we feed children who can't work. We feed our elders who can't work. We feed the sick when they can't work. A person's ability to work can change. A person's need for food is pretty constant.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Perhaps 2 Thessalonians 3 v7-10 gives one such reason:
quote:
For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”
quote:And let's not forget the number of times that Jesus talked about fulfilling the laws of the OT, not just following them. He even said the rules of the OT were created for hard-hearted people.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The odd thing is that I thought everyone agreed that one of the major themes of the NT was that the tithe wasn't enough. It is bizarre to hear anyone claim that it is.
quote:"Not because we do not have the right to such help" = "We have the right to such help".
... We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. ...
quote:Citation needed.
Originally posted by Russ:
... And you know that countries which prioritise distribution over generation tend to be poor countries...
quote:Part of the reason is because it's much harder to do than simplistic media and its consumers would have you believe.
Originally posted by Russ:
I don't know why governments are quite so bad at spending the money.
quote:There are some who seem to think that Jesus' teaching on poverty started and ended with "You will always have the poor among you".
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yeah, if they were, Jesus would have spoken quite often on the poor. Oh, wait...
quote:Is this really the case? Are not poor countries characterised by low taxes poor public provision and great inequality? They exhibit minimal concern for the indigent and are dominated by indifferent, kleptocratic and rapacious elites; and are societies in which access to health and education are highly restrictive and unequal. Welfare-oriented states tend to be rich countries with high taxes providing equal access to health and education, the foundations on which prosperous societies with a high level of equality are secured by providing an educated work force. I note that within the USA that poor services are a characteristic of the poorest states, whereas rich states with higher taxes tend to have more generous public provision, more opportunities for more people, and a higher demand for goods and services, the sine qua non of the mass consumption on which capitalist production relies. Successful capitalism needs a high level of consumer equality.
And you know that countries which prioritise distribution over generation tend to be poor countries…
quote:It's kind of amazing how you can write that first part, and then further down the same post completely forget about it.
Originally posted by Russ:
One is that people aren't farm animals. You can't lock them in a shed and feed them a balanced diet and say "job done".
...
One is about the lack of a clear boundary between the needy and the non-needy. About why anyone would work to feed their family and keep a roof over their head if they could get all that provided for them if they just exaggerate their difficulties a little...
quote:Only poor people. It's another invocation of the well-known difference between poor people and rich people, namely that poor people are motivated by taking away their money and rich people are motivated by letting them have more money.
Originally posted by orfeo:
People work because having meaning and fulfilment is a significant part of the human experience, Russ. They're not farm animals who just need food and shelter. You said it yourself. And then a few paragraphs later you reduce people to those 2 things.
quote:The question was "Is there any reason that anyone anywhere *shouldn't* have enough of basic food and housing?" Proof text or not, the Bible passage I quoted gives a reason.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Nice proof-text.
quote:I disagree. Most people work because it's the only way to earn enough money to enable them to do the things that give their life meaning and fulfilment. Nobody on their deathbed says "I wish I'd spent more time at work".
Originally posted by orfeo:
People work because having meaning and fulfilment is a significant part of the human experience
quote:I will. Pretty certain most of my colleagues will, too.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I disagree. Most people work because it's the only way to earn enough money to enable them to do the things that give their life meaning and fulfilment. Nobody on their deathbed says "I wish I'd spent more time at work".
Originally posted by orfeo:
People work because having meaning and fulfilment is a significant part of the human experience
quote:There's always one
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I will. Pretty certain most of my colleagues will, too.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Nobody on their deathbed says "I wish I'd spent more time at work".
.quote:Thought they mightn't utter that sentence on their deathbed, there are a number of people for who there careers are their life, even outside of entertainment. Some of them love their jobs, but some have no other motive force.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:There's always one
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I will. Pretty certain most of my colleagues will, too.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Nobody on their deathbed says "I wish I'd spent more time at work".
I suppose there are a lot of professional sportspeople, actors, musicians and so forth who would say it as well. But apart from the lucky few who happened to be good enough at doing something fun to earn a living from it, my comment stands.
quote:I do appreciate the sentiment, but I think it says more about the nature of modern labour than it does about the labourer.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
There's always one
I suppose there are a lot of professional sportspeople, actors, musicians and so forth who would say it as well. But apart from the lucky few who happened to be good enough at doing something fun to earn a living from it, my comment stands.
I can't imagine anyone getting meaning and fulfilment out of pushing numbers around spreadsheets all day. I know I don't.
quote:I'm not convinced that the average historical farmer, miner, miller, factory worker, labourer, butcher, baker or candlestick maker would have felt particularly different.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I do appreciate the sentiment, but I think it says more about the nature of modern labour than it does about the labourer.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
There's always one
I suppose there are a lot of professional sportspeople, actors, musicians and so forth who would say it as well. But apart from the lucky few who happened to be good enough at doing something fun to earn a living from it, my comment stands.
I can't imagine anyone getting meaning and fulfilment out of pushing numbers around spreadsheets all day. I know I don't.
quote:I know farmers (one of whom does her own butchering) and bakers and millers and cheese makers and those who craft for a living, and actually you're wrong.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm not convinced that the average historical farmer, miner, miller, factory worker, labourer, butcher, baker or candlestick maker would have felt particularly different.
quote:And I've known factory workers who took pride in a product well made, working as part of a team and such. And many who hated the whole thing.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Factory workers I'll concede. There's very little craft in an assembly line.
quote:Even if what you say is true, I'm not sure your conclusion follows. I can see a lot of people regretting an extended period of unemployment eating up their house, their kids' college fund, their ability to live with any kind of dignity in old age, etc. Your claim sounds like the pitch of a fairly inept corporate hatchet-man laying off a bunch of fifty-something industrial workers he knows will probably never get a comparably paid job. "Nothing you've done working here has mattered, and you should be thanking me for freeing up your time!"
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I disagree. Most people work because it's the only way to earn enough money to enable them to do the things that give their life meaning and fulfilment. Nobody on their deathbed says "I wish I'd spent more time at work".
quote:This thread is more about those who seem to think that Jesus' teaching started and ended with His words about the rich and the poor.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
There are some who seem to think that Jesus' teaching on poverty started and ended with "You will always have the poor among you".
quote:I've said nothing against welfare recipients.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Marvin there is ample evidence that psychologically people need to do things. Not sit around being Russ' caricature of a welfare recipient who just wants to lounge around all day and watch TV. People WANT to contribute.
quote:A universal morality is not the same thing as a level playing field.
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:This mythical level playing field blatantly ignores reality.
Originally posted by Russ:
The ideal I'm putting before you is one of impartiality - of a framework of moral rights and duties that are the same for everyone, black or white, male or female, rich or poor.
quote:Do that and they'll stop your benefits as you're meant to spend your time looking for work.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I've said nothing against welfare recipients.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Marvin there is ample evidence that psychologically people need to do things. Not sit around being Russ' caricature of a welfare recipient who just wants to lounge around all day and watch TV. People WANT to contribute.
I merely suggested that one of the reasons why it's a bit more complicated is the issue of what happens at the boundary.
I agree that many people do want to contribute something. But I struggle to imagine anyone wanting to work a 40-hour week for the same money that they could get for doing nothing.
I for one would be tempted to channel my urge to contribute into non-economic activities. Maybe doing a bit of gardening for someone who'd appreciate it.
quote:Nobody has said that. Quite the reverse. It is you who are trying to explain away these words by claiming that the gospel is only about the spiritual hereafter.
Originally posted by Russ:
This thread is more about those who seem to think that Jesus' teaching started and ended with His words about the rich and the poor.
quote:And if you want to object to words spoken by Catholic theologians and endorsed by successive Popes, never mind the actual words written in scripture, then it is hard to take your criticisms of others seriously when you claim that they're heretics and unChristian.
If you see Jesus as authoritative when His words can be taken as supportive of your socialist ideas but not in anything else that He said, then your claim to be a Christian seems to me on shaky ground...
quote:Bollocks. Go back and read what people actually wrote.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:This thread is more about those who seem to think that Jesus' teaching started and ended with His words about the rich and the poor.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
There are some who seem to think that Jesus' teaching on poverty started and ended with "You will always have the poor among you".
If you see Jesus as authoritative when His words can be taken as supportive of your socialist ideas but not in anything else that He said, then your claim to be a Christian seems to me on shaky ground...
quote:It's even worse than this, isn't it. The employers who pay poverty wages can do so because (a) the minimum wage is set below the amount anyone needs to earn to live on (b) so the government tops this up and (c) is now using various nefarious ways to avoid giving the working poor the top-ups that they need to live on.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do that and they'll stop your benefits as you're meant to spend your time looking for work.
That someone can work 40 hours a week and have barely subsistence income is part of the problem. This is exactly what I mean by challenging the systems which keep people poor, which seems a better solution than threatening them with starvation and destitution if they don't take whatever slave wages they're offered.
quote:But this doesn't work in real life either - people who murder are often treated differently, depending on the amount of provocation, whether the act is in self-defence and also the nature of the murderer: those people who cannot control themselves are often detained in secure hospitals with treatment, rather than going to prison. (Not withstanding that we are poor at not recognising mental health issues incarcerating those people in prisons too.)
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:A universal morality is not the same thing as a level playing field.
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:This mythical level playing field blatantly ignores reality.
Originally posted by Russ:
The ideal I'm putting before you is one of impartiality - of a framework of moral rights and duties that are the same for everyone, black or white, male or female, rich or poor.
Obeying the commandment not to murder may be harder for me than for you. Maybe I have a worse temper, a disposition with less self-control. Maybe you're a particularly annoying person. That doesn't make it OK for me to defenestrate you if I feel like it.
Right and wrong do not depend on whether you sympathize with someone. That's corruption.
I'm not asserting a level playing field. I'm asserting that the rules of the game are the same regardless of the incline.
quote:Russ, I find your image of common rules on a sloping field, where presumably there is no turning round at half-time, has little to commend it. Not only does it lack a basic notion of fairness, but has nothing to commend it to the team kicking upfield. The team playing up the slope are likely to stop playing or, if they are more numerous, to call a meeting to change the rules. A credible ethical system needs to command general acceptance, otherwise it will lack credibility and invite the adoption of another code commanding a greater general approbation.
A universal morality is not the same thing as a level playing field.
quote:The problem is that you cannot separate “the framework of moral rights and duties” from the individuals who set them and the interests they represent, together with the means of their enforcement. It is a difficulty which goes back to Plato and his Philosopher Kings. What constitutes impartiality in relations between male and female, black and white, employer and employee, is not obvious across time and space. The history of the US Supreme Court, both in the manner of its composition and renewal and its judgements, is replete with examples of the partiality surrounding the definition of even natural rights and duties. It’s not that the winners are more virtuous it’s just that they are able to set the angle of the slope and make sure they are playing down it.
The ideal I'm putting before you is one of impartiality - of a framework of moral rights and duties that are the same for everyone, black or white, male or female, rich or poor.
I'm not asserting a level playing field. I'm asserting that the rules of the game are the same regardless of the incline.
quote:As opposed to those who think that Jesus' teaching skips his words about the rich and the poor?
Originally posted by Russ:
This thread is more about those who seem to think that Jesus' teaching started and ended with His words about the rich and the poor.
If you see Jesus as authoritative when His words can be taken as supportive of your socialist ideas but not in anything else that He said, then your claim to be a Christian seems to me on shaky ground...
quote:Excuse me, but you clearly have. You've suggested that there are people who exaggerate their difficulties in order to fall on the welfare side of the line.
Originally posted by Russ:
I've said nothing against welfare recipients.
quote:It's easy to say that when the people with whom you sympathise are playing down the slope.
Originally posted by Russ:
Right and wrong do not depend on whether you sympathize with someone. That's corruption.
I'm not asserting a level playing field. I'm asserting that the rules of the game are the same regardless of the incline.
quote:I feel that merely because doing a bit of gardening for someone who'd appreciate is non-economic doesn't mean it's not an urge to contribute.
Originally posted by Russ:
I for one would be tempted to channel my urge to contribute into non-economic activities. Maybe doing a bit of gardening for someone who'd appreciate it.
quote:Performing a service without charge is not non-economic, it's just that it's free to the consumer. There is a great deal of such activity in the community, of which child-rearing and housework are very significant. As I'm sure you would want to point out, Russ, nothing is for free.
I for one would be tempted to channel my urge to contribute into non-economic activities. Maybe doing a bit of gardening for someone who'd appreciate it.
quote:Russ' conception of how rules work stops at the point where rules are applied. There is no feedback loop to consider the question of whether the rules should be changed if they are not producing desirable outcomes. The rules are immutable. If the rules are favouring one group of players over another, this is not a problem with the rules that needs to be addressed but an innate feature of the game.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:It's easy to say that when the people with whom you sympathise are playing down the slope.
Originally posted by Russ:
Right and wrong do not depend on whether you sympathize with someone. That's corruption.
I'm not asserting a level playing field. I'm asserting that the rules of the game are the same regardless of the incline.
One might think that one of the rules of the game is that the playing field shall be as close to level as practicable. If someone accuses those who assert that rule of sympathising with the people playing up the slope the suspicion arises that they don't make the accusation of sympathising out of impartial concern.
quote:I'm not sure this is true. We'd often talk about "free" things actually being camouflage for something else - the whole phenomena of "if you're not paying for it, you are the product."*
Originally posted by Kwesi:
As I'm sure you would want to point out, Russ, nothing is for free.
quote:For reference, in the past Russ has claimed racial discrimination is an acceptable "incline" and that the rules of Apartheid fall within the requirement that the rules be the same for everyone.
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm not asserting a level playing field. I'm asserting that the rules of the game are the same regardless of the incline.
quote:The argument would be that what you are purchasing is a sense of community. There is, however, a cost to your neighbour in giving you vegetables rather than selling them; and there is also the question as to whether the allotment land could be more financially profitable to the owners (local authority?) by being sold or rented for office development, or employed more usefully by building a school or clinic on it. Furthermore, your time and those of your community members on the allotment comes at a cost of any paid employment in which you might otherwise be engaged. Similar criteria might be applied to your cultural group. Might a greater sense of community be created by a more efficient use of the resources involved? If so, then your enjoyment comes at a cost not only to others but, perhaps, also yourselves.
But there are genuinely things which are free. There absolutely are.
Here are two things:
I spend quite a lot of time in my allotment. Quite often my neighbours (who are better at growing things than I am) give me vegetables. I usually don't have much to give back in return - but the "trade" isn't about that. These people value community, they like growing vegetables, they have more than they can eat and they sometimes give the excess away. The only thing they're looking for in return is the development of an ongoing vegetable growing community.
Another example is the Welsh language club I attend. We give a small amount of change every week to pay for the room (I know, so it isn't free - and yet it is clear that others would subsidise anyone who really couldn't afford it) and we chat and practice speaking in the language.
Nobody makes anything from it. Nobody's job depends on it. The point is not "economic", once again the purpose is to build community.
Both are examples of things that have value and are free.
quote:You might want to go back and read your OP ...
Originally posted by Russ:
This thread is more about those who seem to think that Jesus' teaching started and ended with His words about the rich and the poor.
quote:Again, that's not what you said you wanted to discuss in your OP... You said we were discussing whether social-progressive ideas were "anti-Christian" .... we told you, some are, some aren't ... now you want to discuss whether progressives are cafeteria Christians ...
If you see Jesus as authoritative when His words can be taken as supportive of your socialist ideas but not in anything else that He said, then your claim to be a Christian seems to me on shaky ground...
quote:Possibly, but that's a daft idea.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
The argument would be that what you are purchasing is a sense of community.
quote:No there isn't. As I've said before, there is a legal requirement upon allotment tenants not to sell produce.
There is, however, a cost to your neighbour in giving you vegetables rather than selling them;
quote:Again, this is only partly true. Many allotments are statutory provision. If the landowner was to sell the land, then the local authority has a statutory requirement to provide suitable land elsewhere.
and there is also the question as to whether the allotment land could be more financially profitable to the owners (local authority?) by being sold or rented for office development, or employed more usefully by building a school or clinic on it.
quote:That's an odd thing for you to say given that you know nothing about me nor about other who tend vegetables in my allotment.
Furthermore, your time and those of your community members on the allotment comes at a cost of any paid employment in which you might otherwise be engaged.
quote:This is utter bunk. Nobody spends all their time at work. Some choose to spend their time watching television, or reading books in the library, others choose to attend a welsh conversation group.
Similar criteria might be applied to your cultural group. Might a greater sense of community be created by a more efficient use of the resources involved? If so, then your enjoyment comes at a cost not only to others but, perhaps, also yourselves.
quote:I just don't think that you're addressing anything substantial other than insisting that things can only be understood from your philosophical and economic position; whereas I simply do not accept that there are no activities which cannot be considered a transaction. I disagree with this language.
What I was more concerned about, however, was to point out that economic goods should not be confined to matters which involved financial transactions, nor that acts for which no charges are made should be undervalued, free domestic labour is an extremely critical element in the economy of most societies, and to point out that ‘life is more than meat, and the body more than raiment.’ One might suggest that a contented and fulfilled life cannot be measured solely by the amount of money an individual earns, but also that the sense of community gained by working on an allotment, of participating in a cultural group, of performing charitable acts, of going to church (even), and enjoying the company of family are of inestimable value. Indeed, it might be suggested it is the ability to realise these non-material benefits that is the object of economic activity.
quote:Is there anyone who claims that socialist Jesus is AOK, and non-socialist Jesus is persona non grata? Well, there may be, but I haven't met many, or in fact, any.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:You might want to go back and read your OP ...
Originally posted by Russ:
This thread is more about those who seem to think that Jesus' teaching started and ended with His words about the rich and the poor.
quote:Again, that's not what you said you wanted to discuss in your OP... You said we were discussing whether social-progressive ideas were "anti-Christian" .... we told you, some are, some aren't ... now you want to discuss whether progressives are cafeteria Christians ...
If you see Jesus as authoritative when His words can be taken as supportive of your socialist ideas but not in anything else that He said, then your claim to be a Christian seems to me on shaky ground...
quote:OK, your friend gives you some vegetables for free, but that doesn’t make the gift costless, a free lunch, because there is the cost of renting the land on which they are grown, the cost of seeds, the cost of fertiliser, and the cost of labour involved in their production. Isn’t the point of gifts that they are free to the recipient but not to the giver, one of the most notable being that of the woman who poured nard over Jesus (Mark 14: 3)?
Kwesi: There is, however, a cost to your neighbour in giving you vegetables rather than selling them;
mr cheesy: No there isn't. As I've said before, there is a legal requirement upon allotment tenants not to sell produce.
quote:You have a point: the Welsh language group does not seem to take up much resource so the costs are minimal. My wider point is that activities that are not normally considered in economic terms are not costless, and it is worth asking the question as to whether the cultural or communal benefits could be better achieved for more people if resources were differently employed.
Kwesi: Similar criteria might be applied to your cultural group. Might a greater sense of community be created by a more efficient use of the resources involved? If so, then your enjoyment comes at a cost not only to others but, perhaps, also yourselves.
mr cheesy: This is utter bunk. Nobody spends all their time at work. Some choose to spend their time watching television, or reading books in the library, others choose to attend a welsh conversation group.
quote:Friend, give up with this train of thought: you are wrong. The produce is excess, therefore there is no "cost" to the allotment holder. In fact it is wastage that otherwise would be thrown away.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
OK, your friend gives you some vegetables for free, but that doesn’t make the gift costless, a free lunch, because there is the cost of renting the land on which they are grown, the cost of seeds, the cost of fertiliser, and the cost of labour involved in their production. Isn’t the point of gifts that they are free to the recipient but not to the giver, one of the most notable being that of the woman who poured nard over Jesus (Mark 14: 3)?
quote:And my point is that there are a bunch of activities which cannot be measured in this way and that it is nonsense to claim that they can only possibly be considered to have a value if they're a transaction or considered to have a cost. That's just a screwy way of thinking.
You have a point: the Welsh language group does not seem to take up much resource so the costs are minimal. My wider point is that activities that are not normally considered in economic terms are not costless, and it is worth asking the question as to whether the cultural or communal benefits could be better achieved for more people if resources were differently employed.
quote:Again, this is nonsense. How are you determining the "value" of the land as an allotment versus the "value" of it as a block of flats?
For example there might be a number of possible uses for a piece of land, particularly if it’s in an urban area. The question then is how is that land best deployed. If the decision is that the choice be restricted to community development, then there may be a number of options: site for a clinic, a school, a library, a community centre, a park, playing fields etc and, of course, an allotment. Allotments tend to benefit a rather small number of people, who are often resistant to proposals to lessen the size of existing plots to bring more people in. Consequently, while the benefits of allotments are great to those privileged to rent them, it might be at the cost of a greater community gain were the land put to another use.
quote:Yes, exactly.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Russ' conception of how rules work stops at the point where rules are applied. There is no feedback loop to consider the question of whether the rules should be changed if they are not producing desirable outcomes. The rules are immutable. If the rules are favouring one group of players over another, this is not a problem with the rules that needs to be addressed but an innate feature of the game.
Originally posted by Russ:
Right and wrong do not depend on whether you sympathize with someone. That's corruption.
I'm not asserting a level playing field. I'm asserting that the rules of the game are the same regardless of the incline.
quote:Russ, I do wish you'd stop bringing up murder as an example of God's -- or anybody's --
Originally posted by Russ:
What do you call someone who wants to suspend the rule against murder because it isn't producing the outcome they desire ?
Christians believe that God set the rules of morality. That people cannot change them because they'd prefer a different outcome.
And that - to the extent that some people are "favoured" thereby - it is not unjust to those who find keeping those rules an uphill struggle. Because God will judge us on our effort (and our contrition when we fail), rather than on our success as such.
quote:The fact that you got THAT out of what I wrote beggars belief.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Yes, exactly.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Russ' conception of how rules work stops at the point where rules are applied. There is no feedback loop to consider the question of whether the rules should be changed if they are not producing desirable outcomes. The rules are immutable. If the rules are favouring one group of players over another, this is not a problem with the rules that needs to be addressed but an innate feature of the game.
Originally posted by Russ:
Right and wrong do not depend on whether you sympathize with someone. That's corruption.
I'm not asserting a level playing field. I'm asserting that the rules of the game are the same regardless of the incline.
What do you call someone who wants to suspend the rule against murder because it isn't producing the outcome they desire ?
Christians believe that God set the rules of morality. That people cannot change them because they'd prefer a different outcome.
And that - to the extent that some people are "favoured" thereby - it is not unjust to those who find keeping those rules an uphill struggle. Because God will judge us on our effort (and our contrition when we fail), rather than on our success as such.
quote:Well, I'm not thinking of tithes. That's a "how". Just whether there's any reason *anyone* shouldn't have basic food and housing.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I want our tithes to be spent on basic food and housing for those who cannot earn the money to pay for these things for themselves. Doesn't everyone ?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Russ--
Sincere question:
Is there any reason that anyone anywhere *shouldn't* have enough of basic food and housing?
(Putting aside questions about who would pay for it, and how it might be done.)
Thx.
quote:Yes--though I'll stipulate that basic and emergency medical care are in the "basic needs" parameters.
(Alongside curing the sick, but park that aspect for now - you're asking about meeting basic needs).
quote:To me, on this topic, you tend to come across as dry and disinterested in the effects on human beings. That may *not* be what you really think/feel.
I do not desire that anyone should involuntarily lack these basic necessities. If you think that's what I'm arguing for, then either you're reading it wrong or I'm saying it wrong. Or both...
quote:--Rich corporations avoid/evade paying taxes as much as they possibly can. Which means that the gov't budget doesn't get the money it should have, which means that money and programs for the needy are basically Band-aids, and not fixes.
I don't know why governments are quite so bad at spending the money. How can they spend so many billions on welfare without achieving this obvious aim ? Why are there people sleeping rough and people starving ? In "first world" countries ?
quote:I'm not saying treat them like livestock. Just that everyone needs basic food and housing, so everyone should have it. (In a culturally-appropriate way.)
Others here will no doubt be able to answer that better than I can. But I can see a number of directions that such an answer might take.
One is that people aren't farm animals. You can't lock them in a shed and feed them a balanced diet and say "job done". People have to be treated as people, with dignity; they have to be allowed to walk out of whatever arrangements are made for them, unless they've done something to deserve incarceration.
quote:And that is difficult. People often assume that one or the other will turn out ok, if the poor will just work a bit harder on their lives.
One is the competing needs of the poor in one's own country and the poorer overseas.
quote:Pride in their work? Not wanting to sit around at home all day? Wanting to see people outside their household?
One is about the lack of a clear boundary between the needy and the non-needy. About why anyone would work to feed their family and keep a roof over their head if they could get all that provided for them if they just exaggerate their difficulties a little...
quote:Hmmm. I'm not sure how you mean that. We have a massive, long-running, affordable housing crisis here in SF. There've been efforts to make developers of apartment complexes include some affordable units, but that's a drop in the bucket.
And one is about things like building regulations and planning permission and the best being the enemy of the good.
quote:Yes, the issues should be solvable. It's very difficult to find a solution that most people agree on, and will continue to agree on, and that will actually work. ISTM that the solution usually gets damaged, ruined, or taken away--usually due to someone wanting to get their hands on the money/resources set aside for the solution.
I don't know the answers. I don't know whether you'd consider any of those as a valid reason for someone being homeless or hungry. My sense is that they're not; that those issues ought to be solvable.
Does that answer your question ?
quote:mr Cheesy, I thought you might throw at me something about knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing! Thanks for sparing me that. In point of fact, though not a possessor, I rather like allotments, they defy the urban concrete, promote pottering around in a money-grubbing culture, foster human interaction mostly of a positive kind among the tenants, as you demonstrate, and provide places of welcome refuge. I hope they survive the greed of the developer, and other socially beneficial claims on the space - social variety is worth defending as much as diversity in the plant and animal kingdom.
And my point is that there are a bunch of activities which cannot be measured in this way and that it is nonsense to claim that they can only possibly be considered to have a value if they're a transaction or considered to have a cost. That's just a screwy way of thinking.
quote:How bad are they? Respecting countries that might be referred to as welfare states, I think they do pretty well. You only have to compare them with the condition of the poor in the third world, or, indeed, the social condition of their own societies before welfare reforms were introduced. It’s not the minuscule percentage who are sleeping rough that measure the success of welfare states, but the percentage who have access to health, education, housing and pensions. The billions spent on public goods have achieved their aims pretty well. Problems are largely a function of the need to spend billions more to keep up with improvements in medicines, surgical techniques and the expansion of higher education, and to address the consequences of their own success: the increasing number of elderly.
I don't know why governments are quite so bad at spending the money. How can they spend so many billions on welfare without achieving this obvious aim ? Why are there people sleeping rough and people starving ? In "first world" countries ?
quote:I entirely agree that (most) people need/want to do things in order to give their lives meaning. The problem is that for an awful lot of the things people would like to be doing it's very hard to find someone willing to pay for them to be done.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Marvin there is ample evidence that psychologically people need to do things. Not sit around being Russ' caricature of a welfare recipient who just wants to lounge around all day and watch TV. People WANT to contribute.
quote:Because ultimately, someone has to pay for all the stuff we need to keep us alive. If too many people decide to make non-economic contributions to society then there won't be enough tax income to pay for doctors, teachers, police, firemen, binmen, welfare checks (and people to administer them), roads, medicines, etc.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Why should the only contributions that count be economic?
quote:There are two schools of thought regarding these sort of technological innovations.
After all it appears people are taking seriously the idea that driverless cars will soon be making the economic contributions on behalf of certain sectors. Why should we have to find other ways of making economic contributions if those sectors are making economic contributions for us?
quote:Surely, you are not arguing that people like " doctors, teachers, police, firemen, binmen, welfare checks (and people to administer them), roads, medicines, etc" are not making an economic contribution to society? Because most of them are paid through taxation doesn't make them non-economic.
Dafyd: Why should the only contributions that count be economic?
Martin: Because ultimately, someone has to pay for all the stuff we need to keep us alive. If too many people decide to make non-economic contributions to society then there won't be enough tax income to pay for doctors, teachers, police, firemen, binmen, welfare checks (and people to administer them), roads, medicines, etc.
Society needs a sustainable level of economic activity in order to survive. It follows that society needs as many people as possible to be making economic contributions rather than non-economic ones.
quote:Which is why we need to tax the robots. Literally, that's what we do, and we provide everyone with a UBI.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
There are two schools of thought regarding these sort of technological innovations.
1- That ultimately, they will lead to everyone being free to do the things they find fulfilling, and the robots will provide all our food, power, etc. virtually free of charge.
2- That the robots will indeed be able to provide food, power, etc. virtually free of charge to the people who own them, but that the rest of us will be left unable to buy them due to there being no more jobs for us to do in order to earn money. Essentially, the elites will live lives of luxury on the back of automated labour while the rest of us never get a look in.
quote:Minister for Defence.
Originally posted by Russ:
What do you call someone who wants to suspend the rule against murder because it isn't producing the outcome they desire ?
quote:Christians believe that the rules of morality were made for humanity, rather than humanity for the rules of morality.
Christians believe that God set the rules of morality. That people cannot change them because they'd prefer a different outcome.
quote:If the robots are making those economic contributions then society doesn't need as many people as possible to make them.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Society needs a sustainable level of economic activity in order to survive. It follows that society needs as many people as possible to be making economic contributions rather than non-economic ones.
quote:I think 2 is certainly more likely if we keep on thinking that we need as many people as possible to make economic contributions and that therefore people who aren't making economic contributions are burdens on those who are, irrespective of what the robots are doing.
There are two schools of thought regarding these sort of technological innovations.
1- That ultimately, they will lead to everyone being free to do the things they find fulfilling, and the robots will provide all our food, power, etc. virtually free of charge.
2- That the robots will indeed be able to provide food, power, etc. virtually free of charge to the people who own them, but that the rest of us will be left unable to buy them due to there being no more jobs for us to do in order to earn money.
Personally, I think 2 is much more likely.
quote:No, I'm saying that without as many people as possible making an economic contribution to the government via taxes there won't be enough money to pay for all those people/things.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Surely, you are not arguing that people like " doctors, teachers, police, firemen, binmen, welfare checks (and people to administer them), roads, medicines, etc" are not making an economic contribution to society? Because most of them are paid through taxation doesn't make them non-economic.
quote:On what basis? They won't be getting paid, so income tax and NI won't apply.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Which is why we need to tax the robots.
quote:We could tax profit made by businesses (in whatever form) that are using robots at a rate that covers the following:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:On what basis? They won't be getting paid, so income tax and NI won't apply.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Which is why we need to tax the robots.
quote:The robots won't be getting paid, therefore they won't be contributing taxes to the government. So where is the money to fund health, welfare, transport, security, etc. going to come from?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:If the robots are making those economic contributions then society doesn't need as many people as possible to make them.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Society needs a sustainable level of economic activity in order to survive. It follows that society needs as many people as possible to be making economic contributions rather than non-economic ones.
quote:The only way 2 can be avoided is if we completely ditch the concept of ownership and allow everything the robots create, mine or grow to be available to anyone who wants it. A post-scarcity economy, basically. Although even then, the people who own the raw materials would be able to dominate the economy.
I think 2 is certainly more likely if we keep on thinking that we need as many people as possible to make economic contributions and that therefore people who aren't making economic contributions are burdens on those who are, irrespective of what the robots are doing.
quote:I'd have thought the first part of this is fairly straightforward. The robots will be like any other part of hardware in a business - they have a cost to keep running. But they don't have additional costs that would be associated with employees.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The robots won't be getting paid, therefore they won't be contributing taxes to the government. So where is the money to fund health, welfare, transport, security, etc. going to come from?
quote:On the basis that we'll go the way of working horses in 20th century Britain.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:On what basis? They won't be getting paid, so income tax and NI won't apply.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Which is why we need to tax the robots.
quote:Don't be silly. They need people to buy things. So increased poverty, not complete redundancy, is the future.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:On the basis that we'll go the way of working horses in 20th century Britain.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:On what basis? They won't be getting paid, so income tax and NI won't apply.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Which is why we need to tax the robots.
quote:Yes, I rather think we will. Whether alternative means of earning an income spring up to replace those we will lose to automation remains an open question, especially if we ever get to the point where robots can do any conceivable job far more efficiently and cheaply than humans. A few artisans will continue to make a living by selling "human-made" items as novelties or luxuries, of course (as they do now with many products that are already largely machine-made) - and there will always be a market for professional sports, entertainers, singers, comedians, etc. - but the rest of us will be shit out of luck.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
On the basis that we'll go the way of working horses in 20th century Britain.
quote:This is true. But it is unlikely to be true in the future. The growth potential isn't there as it was in the past. For one, people went from one unskilled/semi-skilled labour to a different unskilled/semi-skilled labour. There isn't a new unskilled/semi-skilled task around the corner. The new semi-skilled/skilled tasks need fewer people by a significant factor more than in the past and many of the semi-skilled/skilled positions have the requirement (though not always need) of a degree.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
People used to make ribbons by hand. The jobs were lost when machines did the job. The jobs changed and money was made (for the individual and the taxman) in new and different ways.
quote:They won't need us. They don't need us now. They don't need us to buy things - most of the people we're talking about are already so rich that if no one bought anything ever again, their bank balances wouldn't so much as quiver. The rich already live in a post-scarcity society.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Don't be silly. They need people to buy things. So increased poverty, not complete redundancy, is the future.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:On the basis that we'll go the way of working horses in 20th century Britain.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:On what basis? They won't be getting paid, so income tax and NI won't apply.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Which is why we need to tax the robots.
quote:Their wealth is tied to the economy and the economy needs drivers. Purchasing is the main basic unit of economy that feeds the rest.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:They won't need us. They don't need us now. They don't need us to buy things - most of the people we're talking about are already so rich that if no one bought anything ever again, their bank balances wouldn't so much as quiver. The rich already live in a post-scarcity society.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Don't be silly. They need people to buy things. So increased poverty, not complete redundancy, is the future.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:On the basis that we'll go the way of working horses in 20th century Britain.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:On what basis? They won't be getting paid, so income tax and NI won't apply.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Which is why we need to tax the robots.
(obligatory 'wake up sheeple!')
quote:Why can't the robots guard the rich?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Nope. In this future, there will be exactly two kinds of jobs.
Guarding the rich. Programming robots.
quote:For that matter, once self-replicating machines have been created the robots could program themselves as well.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Why can't the robots guard the rich?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Nope. In this future, there will be exactly two kinds of jobs.
Guarding the rich. Programming robots.
quote:I think you are viewing an intermediate state, whereas Doc Tor is viewing an end state. It's true that the current economy as well as the march of technology is based on mass consumer demand driving profits and then driving down prices, but in a robotic future (with labour substitution, and batch size of one thanks to 3d printing and other bespoke manufacturing techniques) this need not necessarily be the case forever.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Following on from recent posts the question that intrigues me is how an economic system in which the demand for labour has been greatly reduced is going to sustain the high level of consumer demand necessary for the maintenance of a system of mass consumption. How are the owners (private and public) going to solve that one?
quote:Indeed
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There comes a point where shouting "I made you! I own you!" will only get you so far. Even if you are stinking rich.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Exactly. I use murder as an example in the hope that we can all agree that murder is wrong. And that this moral duty binds everyone. Common ground.
Originally posted by Ohher:
I do wish you'd stop bringing up murder as an example of God's - or anybody's - morality. Nobody here is arguing that some people should be able to get away with murder while others should be punished for it
quote:My point was not that maintaining an incline is good, but that the question of inclination is separate from the rules of the game.
Which commandment, or other Christian moral teaching, should we be turning to to confirm that your "inclined playing field" (however achieved) is fine with God, and that it's further fine with God that humanity should be careful to maintain that incline?
quote:All crimes are committed in the past. Vengeance be damned; justice demands crimes not go unaddressed.
Originally posted by Russ:
There is no commandment to do down those who have mistreated others in the past. Vengeance for past injustice is not yours to take.
quote:It is a dodge. What we speak of when referencing the sins of the past is addressing their consequences which exist still.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:All crimes are committed in the past. Vengeance be damned; justice demands crimes not go unaddressed.
Originally posted by Russ:
There is no commandment to do down those who have mistreated others in the past. Vengeance for past injustice is not yours to take.
quote:Actually, your point seems to be to evade the question I'm asking.
Originally posted by Russ:
My point was not that maintaining an incline is good, but that the question of inclination is separate from the rules of the game.
<SNIP>
Vengeance for past injustice is not yours to take.
quote:The Bible that everybody else refers to uses the word, 'love God' and 'love your neighbour'.
Originally posted by Russ:
I reference the same Bible as everybody else. Wherein Jesus, talking about the greatest commandment, says (loosely paraphrased) first look to God - do His will (i.e. what is morally right) and don't put other considerations in front of that. And second treat your neighbour as yourself - don't do others down.
quote:I think you're underestimating the opportunities for personal service contracts.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Nope. In this future, there will be exactly two kinds of jobs.
Guarding the rich. Programming robots.
That's it.
The 'economy' is what we, the little people, need. The rich increasingly don't. Their wealth is becoming divorced from actual things, as they already have more than they can spend in a lifetime. They might keep some of us around, as pets - much like horses - but otherwise, their robot servants and labourers will do everything that's required.
The best we can hope for in such a scenario is a quick death.
quote:What about the assassination of a tyrant?
Exactly. I use murder as an example in the hope that we can all agree that murder is wrong. And that this moral duty binds everyone. Common ground.
quote:Actually they do change the incline all time, making it more and more in their favour! No wonder Christ promised that his yoke is easy and its burden light.
And apparently, you also regard it as wrong for the powerful, who may be able to change the incline, to make any effort to do so. They, too, should simply accept things as they are.
quote:How interesting. You seem to believe in a warped understanding of Kant's Categorical imperative - where moral actions are universal - but without Kant's sense of personal autonomy - his famous concept that one should only be bound by laws of one's own creation.
Originally posted by Russ:
I have no hotline to God. I reference the same Bible as everybody else. Wherein Jesus, talking about the greatest commandment, says (loosely paraphrased) first look to God - do His will (i.e. what is morally right) and don't put other considerations in front of that. And second treat your neighbour as yourself - don't do others down.
quote:Kant doesn't share Russ' view that the universality of moral laws is independent of personal circumstance. Kant wouldn't argue that 'rich people are obliged to assist those who are worse off' is personal as it seems Russ does.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You seem to believe in a warped understanding of Kant's Categorical imperative - where moral actions are universal - but without Kant's sense of personal autonomy - his famous concept that one should only be bound by laws of one's own creation.
quote:I admit, I find Kant difficult. I just can't get from the idea that (a) lying is always bad so that's a moral law which means
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Kant doesn't share Russ' view that the universality of moral laws is independent of personal circumstance. Kant wouldn't argue that 'rich people are obliged to assist those who are worse off' is personal as it seems Russ does.
quote:I know even less about Heidegger and nothing about Schmitt.
I've just come across Russ' idea that redistribution is not universal but personal in a different context. Apparently the idea originates with the right-wing political philosopher Carl Schmitt. I say right-wing political philosopher, but Schmitt's claim to fame is that he's the second-most important philosopher to be literally a card-carrying Nazi. With Heidegger it's still an open question as to whether or not the philosophy and the Nazism had anything to do with each other. Whereas Schmitt was a right-wing political philosopher who thought democracy was a threat to liberty, by which he meant property rights, that a strong state needs to have enemies to defeat, etc, where the connection to Nazism is obvious.
quote:You don't need billions of people for that - a few million on a reservation somewhere will do.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I think you're underestimating the opportunities for personal service contracts.
quote:The bible can clearly be read as a call to redistribute some of one's own wealth to the poor.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
...theology which suggests that the bible in general, and the New Testament in particular, cannot be honestly read as a call to redistribution...
quote:Wait, so are you basically one of those people who assumes that "Black Lives Matter" is intended to imply that white lives don't?
Originally posted by Russ:
It's the idea that those groups that one sympathizes with as being in some way disadvantaged have greater moral rights or fewer moral duties than others.
quote:Rant away. It's one way to avoid the reality that whether or not one can enjoy or exercise one's rights, or fulfill one's duties and responsibilities, fully and freely, DOES depend on one's individual privileges and disadvantages.
Originally posted by Russ:
...
The particular mindset I'm ranting about on this thread is not quite the same thing. It's the idea that those groups that one sympathizes with as being in some way disadvantaged have greater moral rights or fewer moral duties than others....
quote:Yeah. Socialism is further along the trajectory than mere charity.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:The bible can clearly be read as a call to redistribute some of one's own wealth to the poor.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
...theology which suggests that the bible in general, and the New Testament in particular, cannot be honestly read as a call to redistribution...
In the extreme case - St Francis comes to mind - to embrace poverty and redistribute all one's wealth to the poor.
I don't see that it can honestly be read as a call to redistribute other people's wealth to the poor.
But that's just socialism.
The particular mindset I'm ranting about on this thread is not quite the same thing. It's the idea that those groups that one sympathizes with as being in some way disadvantaged have greater moral rights or fewer moral duties than others.
Wherever you think the balance lies between the right to free speech and the duty not to offend people, or between the rights of buyers and the rights of sellers, if you draw that balance in a different place according to whether the people involved are or are not members of groups you sympathize with, then you're a corrupt judge. You have violated the principle which Wikipedia refers to as "moral universalism" (reference in the article on Kant that was linked to earlier).
I don't think such "moral particularism" is biblical, but feel free to try to make the case...
Note that I'm not saying that the sympathy is bad of itself. I'm saying that you should allow those you don't sympathize with the same moral rights as those you do.
quote:Does the word 'ranting' amount to an admission that you're not paying attention to what anyone else says? That this idea you associate with 'the social-progressive mindset' may not be associated with 'the social-progressive mindset' in reality?
Originally posted by Russ:
The particular mindset I'm ranting about on this thread is not quite the same thing. It's the idea that those groups that one sympathizes with as being in some way disadvantaged have greater moral rights or fewer moral duties than others.
quote:Sounds right to me. And there's no legal or moral requirement for the polling station to be exactly the same distance from everybody's house. Doesn't have to be equally easy, only reasonably possible.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
if a citizen who uses a walker can't get up the stairs to the polling station, they've been denied the right to vote solely because they can't walk. In order for that person to exercise the right to vote, accommodations must be made - accessible stations, absentee voting, whatever. That's not 'greater moral rights', that's still the same right - the right to vote.
quote:You're not making sense. I've argued for a universal right of all people to not have to sell what they don't want to sell (and would tend to argue similarly that people shouldn't have to buy what they don't want to buy.)
you've consistently argued that some people's rights matter more than others. You've argued that a shopkeeper's right to be racist matters more than the right of employees and customers to not be discriminated against because of race ... which is exactly what you claim you're ranting against ... some people having "greater" rights than others ...
quote:Might as well drink from it as the camel can't take the strain
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I'm going to need a long, tall drink to go with all that straw.
quote:I can scarcely, believe, after all this time, that Russ is still conflating "what you sell" with "who you sell it to", but here we have it again ladies and gentlemen.
Originally posted by Russ:
I've argued for a universal right of all people to not have to sell what they don't want to sell (and would tend to argue similarly that people shouldn't have to buy what they don't want to buy.)
Race doesn't enter into it.
Imagine there were 4 European countries with different laws about retailing.
In country A, vendors have absolute discretion as to whom they choose to sell or not sell.
In country B, the vendor has no choice - if something is advertised for sale at a price, the vendor is obliged to sell it to anyone who pays the price.
In country C, you can't refuse to sell to a white person, but you can refuse to sell to a black person.
In country D, you can't refuse to sell to a black person but you can refuse to sell to a white person.
As a moral universalist, I believe that C and D are morally wrong, for the same reason - that people should have equal rights. But that A and B have different customs which are equally valid.
quote:O.M.G.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The prospective purchaser magically converts the ingredients into gay flour, gay eggs, gay sugar etc.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
white flour, egg whites, white sugar...White cakes are for white people? Is this why I prefer chocolate cakes? Damn, my taste-buds are racist... ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:Yes, and bakeries are forced to have chocolate cakes for sale, by these nasty laws that don't give them the freedom to not sell chocolate cakes.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:O.M.G.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The prospective purchaser magically converts the ingredients into gay flour, gay eggs, gay sugar etc.
quote:Russ, might you not be forced to the conclusion:
I've argued for a universal right of all people to not have to sell what they don't want to sell.
Imagine there were 4 European countries with different laws about retailing.
In country A, vendors have absolute discretion as to whom they choose to sell or not sell.
In country B, the vendor has no choice - if something is advertised for sale at a price, the vendor is obliged to sell it to anyone who pays the price.
In country C, you can't refuse to sell to a white person, but you can refuse to sell to a black person.
In country D, you can't refuse to sell to a black person but you can refuse to sell to a white person.
As a moral universalist, I believe that C and D are morally wrong, for the same reason - that people should have equal rights. But that A and B have different customs which are equally valid.
quote:Amen.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
You are only posing a logical dilemma because your basic assumptions are incompatible and must, therefore, be faulty.
quote:Chocolate cake sounds good to me. With strong black coffee...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
O.M.G.
quote:Oh for heaven's sake, Russ, the point is that you keep claiming OTHERS want shops to be forced to sell things.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Chocolate cake sounds good to me. With strong black coffee...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
O.M.G.
That doesn't mean I want every shop in town compelled by law to sell these. Though it's a pleasant daydream...
quote:First, it's telling how often those making this kind of argument don't (or can't) distinguish between things (what's being bought or sold) and people (who is doing the buying and selling).
Originally posted by Russ:
You're not making sense. I've argued for a universal right of all people to not have to sell what they don't want to sell (and would tend to argue similarly that people shouldn't have to buy what they don't want to buy.)
Race doesn't enter into it.
Imagine there were 4 European countries with different laws about retailing.
In country A, vendors have absolute discretion as to whom they choose to sell or not sell.
In country B, the vendor has no choice - if something is advertised for sale at a price, the vendor is obliged to sell it to anyone who pays the price.
In country C, you can't refuse to sell to a white person, but you can refuse to sell to a black person.
In country D, you can't refuse to sell to a black person but you can refuse to sell to a white person.
quote:Yes. I'm glad you have a firm grasp on this distinction. If you hold onto that, you won't be tempted to confuse choosing not to sell an item (that a particular person or type of person might want), with choosing not to sell to that particular person or type of person.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
First, it's telling how often those making this kind of argument don't (or can't) distinguish between things (what's being bought or sold) and people (who is doing the buying and selling).
quote:It's not a big vs small distinction, it's a public vs private distinction. As a private individual, you are free to choose who you hang out with, and make or not make whatever trades you wish with your friends / acquaintances / cronies. But laws and government are public, for everyone.
Second, Russ seems to be proceeding from the idea that racial discrimination is fine and moral provided it's not the state that's doing the discrimination...
...I've heard this referred to as the "big bully" theory. The idea is that it only counts as oppression if the biggest entity (in this case the state) is involve. Other smaller power bases in society aren't the biggest bully around (they're medium or small bullies) so any action taken by them doesn't really count as oppressive
quote:No I don't. The tradition I come from is that restaurants are open to the public, and therefore have to serve the public. (With whatever food it is that they serve). But you and I are free to invite or not invite whomever we wish to dine in our homes.
Take the not-entirely-hypothetical example of a restaurant owner who decides to only serve white customers. Russ regards this as moral and proper.
quote:If you have a society with law A, a society which says in effect that all transactions are deemed private transactions, then a restaurant owner in that society can invoke the forces of law and order to remove squatters from his premises. In just the same way as you would have a right to have uninvited guests removed from your home.
So what happens if a group of non-white people take seats at that restaurant and refuse to leave until served ? Can the restaurant owner call upon the various agents of the state, like the police, to remove the interlopers? If so, how is this not state enforcement of racial discrimination, something Russ claims is immoral?
quote:It can be argued, in defence of Russ, that the issue is not one of racial discrimination but of the right of a vendor to refuse service to anyone he or she chooses. Sitters who remain having been asked to leave are guilty of trespass, and the owner has the right to expect the legal authority to enforce the law. The owner does not have the right, however, to take the law into his/her own hands, so that any use of force by the owner would have to be within the limits permitted by law. The civil rights sit-ins were an act of civil disobedience: the participants knew they were breaking the law and expected to be punished for so doing. Indeed, they provoked the violence against them (legal and otherwise) to demonstrate the injustice of laws that embedded a segregationist culture.
So what happens if a group of non-white people take seats at that restaurant and refuse to leave until served? Can the restaurant owner call upon the various agents of the state, like the police, to remove the interlopers? If so, how is this not state enforcement of racial discrimination, something Russ claims is immoral? Can the owner and staff use clubs and blunt instruments to enforce the ban? That seems kind of lawless.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
As a moral universalist, I believe that C and D are morally wrong, for the same reason - that people should have equal rights. But that A and B have different customs which are equally valid.
quote:These statements cannot both be true. You can either claim that racial discrimination is "universally" morally right (or wrong), or you can say its morality is dependent on whatever "tradition" you come from. You can't have your segregated diner and eat with your multi-racial friends too (to adapt that folk saying about cake).
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:No I don't. The tradition I come from is that restaurants are open to the public, and therefore have to serve the public. (With whatever food it is that they serve).
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Take the not-entirely-hypothetical example of a restaurant owner who decides to only serve white customers. Russ regards this as moral and proper.
quote:It is fairly easy to see how society A is immoral. Any society which allows some individuals special access to things, which allows corporations to (for example) pollute the environment, which allows loggers to invade and take-over common land is immoral.
Originally posted by Russ:
I've said I prefer B. Recognising that the public / private distinction may be a little fuzzy around the edges. But I'm not seeing how a society that runs on law A is necessarily immoral. It's just a society with a smaller public realm and a larger private realm.
quote:I fixed that for you.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
STM that Russ is confused
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
It's not a big vs small distinction, it's a public vs private distinction. As a private individual, you are free to choose who you hang out with, and make or not make whatever trades you wish with your friends / acquaintances / cronies. But laws and government are public, for everyone.
quote:
The tradition I come from is that restaurants are open to the public, and therefore have to serve the public. (With whatever food it is that they serve). But you and I are free to invite or not invite whomever we wish to dine in our homes.
quote:This runs the risk of making 'public' and 'private' into merely evaluative signifiers. That is: you're not saying that the state has no grounds saying whom you may associate with because that's private; you're saying your associations are private because the state has no grounds to say anything about it. And whether or not the state has grounds to do so is determined on your account by some other non-normative customary criterion.
Recognising that the public / private distinction may be a little fuzzy around the edges. But I'm not seeing how a society that runs on law A is necessarily immoral. It's just a society with a smaller public realm and a larger private realm.
quote:Too many social progressives appear to think social progressivism is a no-brainer...
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Russ’ problem is that he seems to argue that the right to sell and his antipathy to racial discrimination are both absolute rights, but demonstrably that cannot be the case. Experience leads me conclude that no rights, as we understand them, are absolute, (many liberals, for example, are OK with racial quotas in certain contexts), so the question here is whether the right to refuse service or the right not to be racially discriminated against should take precedence in the matter under discussion. To me it’s a no-brainer, but other shipmates may demur.
quote:Much of this discussion has assumed little distinction between moral universalism and rights, but I think we have failed to recognised a distinction between morals and rights, which is important in the context of social progressivism. Moral precepts are obligations, duties, which are imposed on us, “thou shalt honour thy father and thy mother”, “thou shalt not commit adultery”, whereas rights are claims which we have on others or institutions towards ourselves, “I have a right to choose”, “I have a right to bear arms”. The capacity to sell to whom one wishes is not a moral precept but a right (or not), and as such is not a matter of moral universalism but of the existence or not of human rights and how they are discovered.
“And is there a characteristically social-progressive way of resolving conflicts that can be contrasted with other approaches?”
quote:It really is as simple as that!
mr cheesy: “One assumes that you've never been on the receiving end of a custom within a society which allows everyone else to treat you like dirt, refuse to serve you and generally make your life uncomfortable.
If you had, you wouldn't even be posing the question.”
quote:The other problem with utilitarianism is that under the right circumstances it's prepared to sacrifice the people for the individual.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
The critique of these two approaches are that the first asserts universal rights without demonstrating any rationale for them: “nonsense on stilts”, and the second the problem of calculating how much happiness any policy might generate, and Utilitarianism being prepared to sacrifice the individual on behalf of a greater good: “someone must die for the people.”
quote:Number 5 seems like the same thing as number 3, but expressed from the perspective of an atheist.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Thinking about rights and their origins we can, perhaps, identify five sources:
Positive Rights which are created by law, and as such can be amended or revoked.
Customary Rights grounded in long-established practices, which may be enshrined in common law, but can be amended or revoked by formal legislation.
Rights derived from natural law, which are divine in origin but can be discovered by the use of right reason (Aquinas). These are universal and immutable.
Rights derived from divine revelation, as in the Mosaic Law. These are universal and immutable.
Natural rights, secular in origin and discoverable by reason. These are universal and immutable.
quote:I'd argue that rights and duties are two sides of the same thing. If you have a right to sonething then other people have a duty not to take it away from you. If you have a duty to honour your parents then they have a right to your respect. If people have a right to vote then people have a duty to accept the result.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Much of this discussion has assumed little distinction between moral universalism and rights, but I think we have failed to recognised a distinction between morals and rights, which is important in the context of social progressivism. Moral precepts are obligations, duties, which are imposed on us, “thou shalt honour thy father and thy mother”, “thou shalt not commit adultery”, whereas rights are claims which we have on others or institutions towards ourselves, “I have a right to choose”, “I have a right to bear arms”. The capacity to sell to whom one wishes is not a moral precept but a right (or not), and as such is not a matter of moral universalism but of the existence or not of human rights and how they are discovered.
quote:I don't believe so. Duties can be divided into perfect and imperfect: perfect duties can be fully discharged by action or inaction and must be fully discharged, whereas imperfect duties can't ever be fully discharged and require only appropriate pursuit. So the duty not to kill is a perfect duty, which is discharged by not killing anyone; whereas the duty to be generous to those worse off than I am is imperfect since it's beyond the power of any individual to be generous to everyone.
Originally posted by Russ:
I'd argue that rights and duties are two sides of the same thing.
quote:I agree with Dafyd's last post, and would like to add to it.
I'd argue that rights and duties are two sides of the same thing. If you have a right to sonething then other people have a duty not to take it away from you.
quote:I suspect I don't believe in imperfect duties.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Most imperfect duties do not have corresponding rights. If someone doesn't act generously towards me I have no right to recompense.
quote:Such a duty would make sense to me in one of two ways.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Conceptually speaking there could be perfect duties with no rights corresponding. If you think there is a duty to refrain from sexual activity outside marriage that isn't incoherent merely because nobody has the right.
quote:Thanks for your post. You raise some fair questions.
“I want to check that I've understood you right.”
quote:Yes, and woman, too! I can’t think of a country, incidentally, where you can go to a court and argue against its laws on the grounds of natural rights. Even in the US you could have to invoke a violation of the constitution and bill of rights i.e. pieces of legislation.
Russ:“And a man can have no intrinsic rights against the duly-constituted government of the territory in which he lives, he has only those rights which the laws of that government grant him ?”
quote:I think that the concept of natural rights underpins much of social progressivism, which I believe is an ideology of the liberal middle class, especially those with tertiary education, and seeks to promote their world view and cosmopolitan interests. I would also argue that its assumptions regarding the existence of natural rights is mistaken. On the other hand there is much about their stands on various issues that I applaud, even if they are built on sand.
Russ: “And are you saying that [natural rights] is the philosophy underpinning social progressivism? Or saying that that's why you think social progressivism is mistaken?”
quote:As a slightly different opinion from Kwesi's, I would say that language about universal human rights is usually shorthand for statement about other morally binding considerations. (Just as a political atomist would think that statements about corporations or governments doing this or that can be reduced to statements about the actions of the individuals within those corporations or governments.)
Originally posted by Russ:
That talk of moral rights is a nonsense, a philosophical error.
That moral duties are not of such a nature as to confer a corresponding right.
quote:I note that the positions you've espoused on this and other threads entail the view that the law ought to trump custom.
Within the socio-political arena, you think law trumps tradition, that any customary right can be legislated away.
quote:The question is whether talk of rights adds anything except convenience or rhetorical force to the assertion that a law is morally wrong?
And a man can have no intrinsic rights against the duly-constituted government of the territory in which he lives, he has only those rights which the laws of that government grant him ?
quote:Your position does seem to entail that there aren't any. I would say that the resulting work-to-rule morality is idiosyncratic. If you're arguing from premises that include the non-existence of imperfect duties you're going to be arguing from different premises to most people you're arguing with, social-progressives or not.
quote:I suspect I don't believe in imperfect duties.
Originally posted by Dafyd: Most imperfect duties do not have corresponding rights. If someone doesn't act generously towards me I have no right to recompense.
quote:I don't think it's coherent to talk about God having rights. Rights are defined and have limits and God's moral authority has no limits. And to whom would God appeal to claim rights against us?
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Such a duty would make sense to me in one of two ways.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Conceptually speaking there could be perfect duties with no rights corresponding. If you think there is a duty to refrain from sexual activity outside marriage that isn't incoherent merely because nobody has the right.
Either as some sort of duty to God to obey His wishes, implying that He has a moral right to our obedience.
quote:I agree that it's hard to distinguish morals from customs. We learn as children a whole lot of things that good people don't do, without making the distinction.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
One might question the natural character of a whole series of rights. The problem is that while they may seem obvious to us as to be universal they are not so in all societies and often in our own in the past.
quote:Nobody doubts that those exist. The question is whether it's meaningful to ask whether there are statutory or customary rights that societies should have.
Rights, for me, are the creation of positive law and common law as interpreted by the courts and tribunals, and as such are ephemeral and culture and time-bound rather than set in stone
quote:So if suicide bomber kills people as an act of resistance to the laws of your country, in the belief that his creed constitutes a superior set of values, that's OK ?
laws can legitimately create rights and deny rights which in my opinion are morally abhorrent. My moral and Christian religious convictions may well demand that I undertake various actions to resist them, even the murder of a tyrant. The grounds would be not that they offend non-existing natural rights but constitute a set of values inferior to those I hold.
quote:Your challenge is a more fundamental one than mine then.
I think that the concept of natural rights underpins much of social progressivism, which I believe is an ideology of the liberal middle class, especially those with tertiary education, and seeks to promote their world view and cosmopolitan interests. I would also argue that its assumptions regarding the existence of natural rights is mistaken. [/QB]
quote:i don't think that 'customary rights' can be regarded as being generally applicable because they are manifestly culture-bound, and would be expected to vary from one culture to another.
The question is whether it's meaningful to ask whether there are statutory or customary rights that societies should have.
quote:No, because it involves the indiscriminate killing of the guilty and innocent. I also think that violent action should only be resorted to in extremis, and particularly with reference to murderous tyrants, such as A. Hitler. If you recall, I raised it as an example to challenge the notion of a universal right not be murdered, killed extra-judicially. Natural righters are more prone than most to take violent action because for them governments should be resisted when they pass laws or behave contrarily to natural rights hence the rightt of the citizen to bear arms. Taking the law into one's own hands to promote natural justice is a powerful theme in American culture: the cowboy. The trouble is that in real life you end up with Timothy McVeigh and the like. Terrorism in the US is mostly of this type.
Russ: So if suicide bomber kills people as an act of resistance to the laws of your country, in the belief that his creed constitutes a superior set of values, that's OK ?
quote:I think that's right. ISTM you accept their framework of natural rights but from a more Lockeian seventeenth century perspective relating to the right to dispose of one's property the way one wishes.
:Kwesi: The concept of natural rights underpins much of social progressivism, which I believe is an ideology of the liberal middle class, especially those with tertiary education, and seeks to promote their world view and cosmopolitan interests. I would also argue that its assumptions regarding the existence of natural rights is mistaken.
Russ: Your challenge is a more fundamental one than mine then.
quote:Seems to me that you believe in a moral code that is "higher" than the law of the state. So that it is sometimes right to break that law.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
quote:No, because it involves the indiscriminate killing of the guilty and innocent. I also think that violent action should only be resorted to in extremis, and particularly with reference to murderous tyrants, such as A. Hitler. If you recall, I raised it as an example to challenge the notion of a universal right not be murdered, killed extra-judicially.
Russ: So if suicide bomber kills people as an act of resistance to the laws of your country, in the belief that his creed constitutes a superior set of values, that's OK ?
quote:If we agree that there is a moral duty not to steal, what if anything is wrong with expressing that the other way around as a right to property ?
:Kwesi: ISTM you accept their framework of natural rights but from a more Lockeian seventeenth century perspective relating to the right to dispose of one's property the way one wishes.
quote:Not all extra-judicial killings are murder. For example, accidental homicide is an extra-judicial killing (because it is done without judicial authority) but is not considered murder.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
If you recall, I raised it as an example to challenge the notion of a universal right not be murdered, killed extra-judicially.
quote:I suspect that most people do, though not all. There are Christians who believe that Paul's injunction to obey the emperor because all power is of God is inviolable.
Seems to me that you believe in a moral code that is "higher" than the law of the state. So that it is sometimes right to break that law.
quote:The question of innocent children is an instructive one. Most people would think it axiomatic that it’s wrong to kill innocent children. The Roman’s, however, were approving of the exposure of newborn infants. There is the dispute as to whether the unborn have the rights of personhood, or do they only kick in at the moment of birth. Is it permissible to abort a foetus if found to have severe abnormalities? Who should have the burden of making the moral decision, society or the mother? They are not easy questions to resolve.
Russ: If we agree that there is a moral duty not to murder innocents, what if anything is wrong with expressing the flip side of that duty as a right, and saying that innocents have a right to life ? Or more precisely to freedom from murder ?
quote:OK, but it does not show there is a natural right to private property. Communists take the view that the possession of private property is theft, and that the only legitimate property is that owned by the public. Some on the left describe the theft of private goods not as such but as the liberation of those items. In other words the injunction not to steal does not necessitate a belief in private property. Of course, some neo-liberals take the view that much of taxation is theft because it takes away private property to which an individual has a natural right.
Russ: “If we agree that there is a moral duty not to steal, what if anything is wrong with expressing that the other way around as a right to property?”
quote:Once you believe that the emperor - the State - can be morally wrong because there is a higher moral code of right and wrong, then it is possible that the emperor commits murder when he has people executed who don't agree with him, and possible that he commits theft when he uses his legions to take property away from his political opponents to give to his political supporters.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Russquote:I suspect that most people do, though not all. There are Christians who believe that Paul's injunction to obey the emperor because all power is of God is inviolable...
Seems to me that you believe in a moral code that is "higher" than the law of the state. So that it is sometimes right to break that law.
...Of course, some neo-liberals take the view that much of taxation is theft because it takes away private property to which an individual has a natural right.
quote:I don’t agree that the possession of private property is invariably or even mostly theft, nor do I believe that taxation is theft by definition. That sort of language is usually mendacious, self-serving, and a silly way of looking at the questions raised. I think any approach to taxation should be a sensible balancing on the one hand the need to encourage enterprise and economic growth, and on the other hand whatever the society determines should be its social objectives. (The two sides, of course, are inter-related, because a significant portion of government spending is related to infrastructural projects, and the creation of a well-educated and healthy workforce). Where the balance is struck between taxation and public spending varies from one society to another because there are differing views between polities as to what it is fair for the state to take. It’s a question of judging where taxation discourages enterprise and encourages tax evasion and avoidance. Taxation designed simply to deprive a group of individuals of their property for no purpose other than to be confiscatory is probably foolish, morally wrong, or both. By and large the most successful societies are characterised by high levels of income and states with higher levels of taxation, as I have argued earlier.
What criteria would you use to determine whether any particular act of taxation is in fact theft ?
quote:[emphasis added]
Originally posted by Russ:
(Of course we know that the unprincipled and biased will use the criterion of which group they sympathize with, but I don't see you as being in that camp).
quote:There's nothing wrong with that as long as it's merely expressing the duty in other terms. One can support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights regardless of one's ethical ontology.
Originally posted by Russ:
If we agree that there is a moral duty not to murder innocents, what if anything is wrong with expressing the flip side of that duty as a right, and saying that innocents have a right to life ? Or more precisely to freedom from murder ?
quote:Theft is in the central cases done by stealth. If something is done openly according to the rule of law it cannot be properly called theft.
What criteria would you use to determine whether any particular act of taxation is in fact theft ?
quote:What Leaf said.
(Of course we know that the unprincipled and biased will use the criterion of which group they sympathize with, but I don't see you as being in that camp).
quote:I think you're right that this is a key difference.
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:You refer, often and pejoratively, to "sympathy with a group." I suspect that, along with (and related to) a lack of belief in imperfect duty, the contemptuous references to "sympathy with a group" reveal the difference between your stance and that of socially-progressive people.
Originally posted by Russ:
(Of course we know that the unprincipled and biased will use the criterion of which group they sympathize with, but I don't see you as being in that camp).
quote:Oookay. But surely everyone agrees that there is a universal morality about murder. It doesn't matter who you are, randomly taking the life of another human (out of spite, jealousy, anger etc) is wrong.* Cultures and countries where people are murdered can't be explained away as acceptable cultural differences.
Originally posted by Russ:
Yes I go on about it a little too much. Because there's no point in trying to have a discussion about what's right and wrong on any other topic with someone who thinks the right answer is whatever furthers the interests of the side they've chosen to support.
Moral universality - a system of rights and duties that doesn't care if you're male or female, black or white, rich or poor - is just so fundamental.
quote:That would be a problem if that were what Leaf were doing.
Originally posted by Russ:
It's not having sympathy that's the problem, it's making that different level of sympathy that you have for the two parties involved in a question your criterion for judgment on that question.
quote:The irony.
Yes I go on about it a little too much. Because there's no point in trying to have a discussion about what's right and wrong on any other topic with someone who thinks the right answer is whatever furthers the interests of the side they've chosen to support.
quote:Interesting then that you don't include imperfect duties in your proposed system.
Moral universality - a system of rights and duties that doesn't care if you're male or female, black or white, rich or poor - is just so fundamental.
quote:Thank you for engaging with the question.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Theft is in the central cases done by stealth. If something is done openly according to the rule of law it cannot be properly called theft.
Originally posted by Russ:
[QUOTE] What criteria would you use to determine whether any particular act of taxation is in fact theft ?
Theft is not the only form of injustice so you can make some other case that a tax is unjust.
Arbitrary appropriation is not taxation. Appropriating property from the rulers' legitimate opponents and not from the rulers' supporters is arbitrary if it is based solely on considerations of personal attitude. If it's based on financial status or some other relevant policy consideration it isn't arbitrary.
quote:Yes, but surely you recognise that the same action might be "stealing" or "not-stealing" depending on who it is that is doing the thing and why.
Originally posted by Russ:
Not convinced by the stealth argument. There may be a good reason for using one word for breaking into a bank vault to steal the money when nobody's looking and another word for getting in in broad daylight by holding a gun to the head of the man with the combination. But it seems to me that the commandment against stealing pretty obviously covers both methods.
quote:I think it pretty much will do for everyone else who actually bothers to do the minimum of thought about this issue.
Whilst I agree that a ruler should not act arbitrarily, that won't do as an answer to the question.
quote:No, but then killing isn't always murder. A policeman shooting dead someone with a gun isn't in the same moral position as someone else shooting and killing. A soldier on the battlefield killing someone is a different moral category than a person in the street using the same weapons in a different circumstance.
Systematic murder committed by a government - ethnic cleansing for example - doesn't become morally OK because it's not arbitrary. It doesn't become morally OK if it's done openly in accordance with a statute that has been enacted to permit it. And it doesn't become morally OK because it's a policy.
quote:In what sense is it "lame"? It seems to me what is lame is your total inability to think through this issue before you post more drivel.
So why these lame attempts to justify systematic theft ?
quote:Your problem seems to be that you continue to make the discussion increasingly muddied by introducing more and more rubbish without ever actually addressing the previous points put to you.
Your problem seems to be that you want governments to have the moral right to enact policies like wealth redistribution that you approve of but not have the moral right to enact policies like apartheid that you disapprove of.
quote:Given you claim to consider racial discrimination to be morally justifiable I don't think this is an argument you can plausibly advance.
Originally posted by Russ:
Moral universality - a system of rights and duties that doesn't care if you're male or female, black or white, rich or poor - is just so fundamental.
quote:You mean we want governments to do good things and not bad ones? No shit, Sherlock...
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Thank you for engaging with the question.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Theft is in the central cases done by stealth. If something is done openly according to the rule of law it cannot be properly called theft.
Originally posted by Russ:
[QUOTE] What criteria would you use to determine whether any particular act of taxation is in fact theft ?
Theft is not the only form of injustice so you can make some other case that a tax is unjust.
Arbitrary appropriation is not taxation. Appropriating property from the rulers' legitimate opponents and not from the rulers' supporters is arbitrary if it is based solely on considerations of personal attitude. If it's based on financial status or some other relevant policy consideration it isn't arbitrary.
Not convinced by the stealth argument. There may be a good reason for using one word for breaking into a bank vault to steal the money when nobody's looking and another word for getting in in broad daylight by holding a gun to the head of the man with the combination. But it seems to me that the commandment against stealing pretty obviously covers both methods.
Whilst I agree that a ruler should not act arbitrarily, that won't do as an answer to the question.
Systematic murder committed by a government - ethnic cleansing for example - doesn't become morally OK because it's not arbitrary. It doesn't become morally OK if it's done openly in accordance with a statute that has been enacted to permit it. And it doesn't become morally OK because it's a policy.
So why these lame attempts to justify systematic theft ?
Your problem seems to be that you want governments to have the moral right to enact policies like wealth redistribution that you approve of but not have the moral right to enact policies like apartheid that you disapprove of.
quote:Whereas you seem to be arguing for individuals to have the "moral" right to enforce personal zones of apartheid, along with the "moral" right to enjoy all the benefits of civilization with no obligation towards those who don't.
Originally posted by Russ:
... Your problem seems to be that you want governments to have the moral right to enact policies like wealth redistribution that you approve of but not have the moral right to enact policies like apartheid that you disapprove of.
quote:Effects of Income Tax Changes on Economic Growth
The vast differences between taxes before 1913 and after World War II can therefore provide at least a first-order sense of the importance tax policy on growth. However, the growth rate of real GDP per capita was identical – 2.2 percent – in the 1870-1912 period and between 1947 and 1999 (Gale and Potter 2002).
...
More formally, Stokey and Rebelo (1995) look at the significant increase in income tax rates during World War II and its effect on the growth rate of per capita real Gross National Product (GNP). Figure 1 (next page) shows the basic trends they highlight – namely, a massive
increase in income tax and overall tax revenues during World War II that has persisted and since proven to be more or less permanent. There is, as shown in Figure 1, no corresponding break in the growth rate of per capita real GNP before or after World War II (though it is less volatile). A variety of statistical tests confirm formally
what Figure 1 shows; namely, the finding that the increase in tax revenue around World War II had no discernible impact on the long-term per-capita GNP growth rate.
...
Hungerford (2012) plots the annual real per-capita GDP growth rate against the top marginal income tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate from 1945 to 2010 (see Figure 2 next page), a period that spanned wide variation in the top rate. The fitted values suggest that higher tax rates are not associated with higher or lower
real per-capita GDP growth rates to any significant degree. In multivariate regression analysis, neither the top income tax rate nor the top capital gains tax rate has a statistically significant association with the real GDP growth rate.
...
The argument that income tax cuts raise growth is repeated so often that it is sometimes taken as gospel. However, theory, evidence, and simulation studies tell a different and more complicated story. Tax cuts offer the potential to raise economic growth by improving incentives to work, save, and invest. But they also create income effects that reduce the need to engage in productive economic activity, and they may subsidize old capital, which provides windfall gains to asset holders that undermine incentives for new activity.
...
Still, there is a sound theoretical presumption—and substantial simulation results — indicating that a base-broadening, rate-reducing tax reform can improve long-term performance. The key, however, is not that it boosts labor supply, saving or investment—since it raises the same amount of revenue from the same people as before—but rather that it leads to be a better allocation of resources across sectors of the economy by closing off targeted subsidies.
quote:Presuming Russ' arguments are genuine, there must be a logical fallacy name for his style. It is a sort of slow motion, response oriented version of the Gish Gallop. If there is none currently, I would nominate Russ' Waddle as the name for it.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Given you claim to consider racial discrimination to be morally justifiable I don't think this is an argument you can plausibly advance.
Originally posted by Russ:
Moral universality - a system of rights and duties that doesn't care if you're male or female, black or white, rich or poor - is just so fundamental.
quote:The commandment against adultery covers ogling people in public.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Not convinced by the stealth argument. There may be a good reason for using one word for breaking into a bank vault to steal the money when nobody's looking and another word for getting in in broad daylight by holding a gun to the head of the man with the combination. But it seems to me that the commandment against stealing pretty obviously covers both methods.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Theft is in the central cases done by stealth. If something is done openly according to the rule of law it cannot be properly called theft.
Theft is not the only form of injustice so you can make some other case that a tax is unjust.
Arbitrary appropriation is not taxation. Appropriating property from the rulers' legitimate opponents and not from the rulers' supporters is arbitrary if it is based solely on considerations of personal attitude. If it's based on financial status or some other relevant policy consideration it isn't arbitrary.
quote:I would think singling out one group of citizens as targets of killing does count as arbitrary myself unless you can make out a case why the grounds on which they're selected is morally relevant.
Whilst I agree that a ruler should not act arbitrarily, that won't do as an answer to the question.
Systematic murder committed by a government - ethnic cleansing for example - doesn't become morally OK because it's not arbitrary. It doesn't become morally OK if it's done openly in accordance with a statute that has been enacted to permit it. And it doesn't become morally OK because it's a policy.
quote:Tsk tsk. And you were doing so well.
So why these lame attempts to justify systematic theft ?
quote:What you're saying is that I think governments are morally permitted to do what I think they morally ought to do, and that if I think they ought not to do it then I think they ought not to do it. That's not a problem; that's a tautology.
Your problem seems to be that you want governments to have the moral right to enact policies like wealth redistribution that you approve of but not have the moral right to enact policies like apartheid that you disapprove of.
quote:Spot the difference ?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:What you're saying is that I think governments are morally permitted to do what I think they morally ought to do, and that if I think they ought not to do it then I think they ought not to do it.
Originally posted by Russ:
Your problem seems to be that you want governments to have the moral right to enact policies like wealth redistribution that you approve of but not have the moral right to enact policies like apartheid that you disapprove of.
quote:I see having a police force that protects everyone from immoral acts such as murder and theft as being a public good. That this is a good thing that governments can do better than private individuals. Clearly it costs money and has to be paid for. All people of good will benefit, but those with more wealth gain greater benefit, so I see nothing unjust in charging the cost to everyone in a way that is broadly proportional to income.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Do you think the government is morally permitted to run a police force funded by taxation?
quote:But not one that protects people from immoral acts such as racial discrimination or economic exploitation, right?
Originally posted by Russ:
I see having a police force that protects everyone from immoral acts such as murder and theft as being a public good.
quote:Yes - 'approve of' means to think morally commendable, objectively morally commendable if you think morals are objective. It doesn't mean that I subjectively like something. It makes no sense to approve of kittens or brown paper packets tied up with string.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Spot the difference ?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:What you're saying is that I think governments are morally permitted to do what I think they morally ought to do, and that if I think they ought not to do it then I think they ought not to do it.
Originally posted by Russ:
Your problem seems to be that you want governments to have the moral right to enact policies like wealth redistribution that you approve of but not have the moral right to enact policies like apartheid that you disapprove of.
You've converted "approve of" into "think they morally ought to do".
quote:What confusion? 'Approve' refers to objective moral judgement rather than subjective liking.
So the charge I'm making against social progressivism is that it confuses sympathy for a group of people (heart) with a moral understanding (mind) in their favour. The confusion you've just demonstrated.
quote:Russ is already on record as favoring the use of police to enforce racial discrimination (but not in a "racially prejudiced manner"!
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:But not one that protects people from immoral acts such as racial discrimination or economic exploitation, right?
Originally posted by Russ:
I see having a police force that protects everyone from immoral acts such as murder and theft as being a public good.
).
quote:You have repeatedly said that you do not think that an essentially immoral act becomes moral because it is done for the public good. Theft does not on your account cease to be theft because people of good will benefit. Except it turns out, when those with more wealth gain greater benefit you no longer apply your stated principles.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I see having a police force that protects everyone from immoral acts such as murder and theft as being a public good. That this is a good thing that governments can do better than private individuals. Clearly it costs money and has to be paid for. All people of good will benefit, but those with more wealth gain greater benefit, so I see nothing unjust in charging the cost to everyone in a way that is broadly proportional to income.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Do you think the government is morally permitted to run a police force funded by taxation?
quote:To the extent that what you mean by "economic exploitation" is a genuine moral wrong involving abuse of monopoly power, then yes it's right that the legal system should protect people against this. To the extent that what you mean is a sentiment that it would be nice if the going rate for unskilled labour were higher, then no the legal system doesn't exist for the purpose of imposing your sentiments on those who feel differently.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:But not one that protects people from immoral acts such as racial discrimination or economic exploitation, right?
Originally posted by Russ:
I see having a police force that protects everyone from immoral acts such as murder and theft as being a public good.
quote:Let's just take a moment to let this sink in.
Originally posted by Russ:
To the extent that what you mean is a sentiment that it would be nice if the going rate for unskilled labour were higher, then no the legal system doesn't exist for the purpose of imposing your sentiments on those who feel differently.
And the same for race.
quote:Indeed. Apparently the idea that a person who works 40 hours should make enough money from so doing to put food on the table and a roof over his head is mere sentiment, and not a matter of justice at all.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Let's just take a moment to let this sink in.
Originally posted by Russ:
To the extent that what you mean is a sentiment that it would be nice if the going rate for unskilled labour were higher, then no the legal system doesn't exist for the purpose of imposing your sentiments on those who feel differently.
And the same for race.
.
quote:Where your definition of 'morality' seems to be narrowly defined as 'maintaining current property rights' without addressing thorny issues around original accumulation
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm saying that the State has a duty to act morally.
quote:Russ, if you aren't around for me to ask whether my moral judgment on an issue is one that you agree with, how am I to distinguish a "principle" from a "sentiment"?
Originally posted by Russ:
the legal system doesn't exist for the purpose of imposing your sentiments on those who feel differently
quote:No, that's your understanding. Which you've repeated many times.
Originally posted by Russ:
...
The answer seems to be that s-ps see what is moral in terms of correcting an imbalance in the total life-satisfaction of groupings of people that they deem to have political significance.
For example, if they perceive life as a female to be tougher than life as a male, then any measure which will tend to redress this cosmic inequality is - other things being equal - moral.
Is that your understanding ?
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
quote:I don't see that there is anything to be gained by allowing Russ to think he has proprietary rights over the word 'morality'.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Let's play a game: stop using the word "moral". If you really wanted to understand or debate what you call the "social-progressive mindset", then you need to understand that yeah, we don't give a flip about morality, because morality is individually and culturally subjective. We're interested in fairness and justice. There's scientific evidence that even animals understand these concepts, which makes them more natural and universal than your "morals".
quote:Russ, I find this very confusing due to the double negative at the end of the second sentence. Do you mean it to read “A legal system exists for the purpose of imposing your sentiments on those who feel differently” or “A legal system doesn’t exist for the purpose of imposing your sentiments on those who feel differently.” Are you making a normative statement “a legal system ought/ought not to….” or simply stating what is the case “legal systems do/do not……..”
Russ: To the extent that what you mean by "economic exploitation" is a genuine moral wrong involving abuse of monopoly power, then yes it's right that the legal system should protect people against this. To the extent that what you mean is a sentiment that it would be nice if the going rate for unskilled labour were higher, then no the legal system doesn't exist for the purpose of imposing your sentiments on those who feel differently.
And the same for race
quote:I don’t think a “duty to act morally” is an “intermediate position”between anarchy and totalitarianism. Doesn't it simply mean that however constituted a state has a duty “to act morally.” It’’s not clear to me what “to act morally” means in this context.
Russ: “I'm saying that the State has a duty to act morally. Which is the intermediate position - neither anarchist not totalitarian.”
quote:Russ, are you saying that no government, even the most democratically constituted with processes subject to the rule of law, has a right to pass legislation in contravention of an individual’s “natural rights” or the dictates of “natural law”? In other words are you seeking to uphold the ideas of John Locke. If so, how does that relate to your argument?
Russ: I reject the idea that a duly-constituted government has carte blanche to do whatever it pleases, as well as the idea that all acts of government are dressed-up banditry.”
quote:No, not at all.
Originally posted by Russ:
The answer seems to be that s-ps see what is moral in terms of correcting an imbalance in the total life-satisfaction of groupings of people that they deem to have political significance.
quote:OK. Taking that as an example, what is the characteristically social-progressive approach ? And how does it contrast with how other people of goodwill might define and approach the problem ?
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
We can certainly identify groups of people who are generally given the shaft by our current society. Let's pick one of them - poor black kids in cities. We know that there are many ways in which these kids are disadvantaged compared to their suburban white coaevals - their family's resources, the quality of the public schools they attend, the way they are treated by the police, the opportunities for work experience that they are likely to be offered, etc., etc.
quote:That's clearly not the case. For one thing the right-wing approach almost always leads to higher costs later.
Originally posted by Russ:
I note also that left-leaning people will want to see more money spent on the problem and right-leaning people will want to see money spent more effectively.
[/QB]
quote:Posing the question these terms is to misconceive the question of social-progressivism, IMO, because it it not essentially about disadvantaged minorities but the economic organisation and objectives of society as a whole.
Russ: I note also that left-leaning people will want to see more money spent on the problem [of poverty amongst inner city immigrants] and right-leaning people will want to see money spent more effectively.
But neither of those aspects is central to the social progressive approach. What do you think best defines that approach ?
quote:There were people of goodwill long before social progressivism came along.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What you call "social progressive" is the outworking of being a person of good will.
quote:I'd say that if you find you want to see a particular outcome and don't much care how it happens, that's a sentiment. If you're willing to forgo your desired outcome for the sake of not achieving it by wrongful means, that's a principle.
Originally posted by Eliab:
Russ, if you aren't around for me to ask whether my moral judgment on an issue is one that you agree with, how am I to distinguish a "principle" from a "sentiment"?
quote:The question you seem to be trying to prejudge is what are and are not wrongful means.
Originally posted by Russ:
I'd say that if you find you want to see a particular outcome and don't much care how it happens, that's a sentiment. If you're willing to forgo your desired outcome for the sake of not achieving it by wrongful means, that's a principle.
quote:I think the social-progressive label covers a broad and indeed schismatic church. Anyone from a leftwing neo-liberal to a Trotskyist could count as a social-progressive.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Social-progressive approaches towards poverty have their roots in attitudes towards the economic crises of the inter-period (1918-1939) and post-war reconstruction.
quote:Dafyd, I mostly agree with your observations on the narrow scope of my approach and the tone of polemical complacency in my concluding sentence.
Kwesi: Until someone comes up with something better this mind-set is here to stay.
Dafyd: Incidentally I think you're playing down the degree to which neoliberal economics has overridden the Keynesian New Deal consensus.
quote:My starting point was the observation of an emerging-as-dominant mindset on the Ship. A cluster of attitudes that are to do with the politics of acial and sexual identity. One of my questions was whether "social progressive" was an appropriate name for that mindset or whether there is a better name. Hard to talk about something without being able to name it...
Originally posted by Kwesi:
There is, of course, an area of social progressivism which is outside the economic parameters: the politics of identity, ethnic and gender/sex, which do not sit easily within the economic debate, and have done much to compromise it.
quote:A quick observation: being opposed to racism and wanting to give females a decent shake should not be regarded as the peculiarities of an eccentric "progressive mindset" but a social norm. Rather it is racism and misogyny that should be regarded as deviant, the products of a "reactionary mindset".
Russ: My starting point was the observation of an emerging-as-dominant mindset on the Ship. A cluster of attitudes that are to do with the politics of [r]acial and sexual identity.
quote:Neither of us believes that all taxation is theft (or plunder).
Originally posted by Dafyd:
You've asserted that:
Premise A) taxation counts as wrongful means because it violates property rights...
...further on your account morality being a matter of rights is all or nothing. It can't be permissible to breach a right only a little bit.
quote:The question I'm putting to you is whether or not this is compatible with believing that any taxation is theft.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Neither of us believes that all taxation is theft (or plunder).
Originally posted by Dafyd:
You've asserted that:
Premise A) taxation counts as wrongful means because it violates property rights...
...further on your account morality being a matter of rights is all or nothing. It can't be permissible to breach a right only a little bit.
quote:Although I did note that I think genocide on the grounds of race is arbitrary, what I said was:
You've suggested, if I read you right, that the criterion is arbitrariness. It seems your rejection of the Nazi state's right to exterminate Jews rests on the selection of Jews being arbitrary. That argument doesn't work for me; I see the Nazis as having reasons - a rationale. But not good enough reasons. I recognise the right to life of every single individual Jewish person unless that individual has forfeited that right (by an act of murder for example).
quote:
There are reasons to think that killing is wrong regardless of who is doing it and what the circumstances. The value of life needs no justification. The value of absolute property rights does need justification.
quote:As you note the application of the term of consent to acts of government is somewhat looser than would be allowed under most contract or criminal laws.
Seems to me that the essence of theft is taking without consent. And so the issue is around the extent to which an individual can reasonably live in a society and benefit from particular government services while not consenting to pay a fair share of the cost of those programs.
quote:It depends on what you mean by 'in favour of government supporters'.
Having a collectively-provided and collectively-funded criminal justice system with a police force as part of it seems pretty inescapable.
A tax whose aim is entirely redistributive in favour of government supporters seems like the opposite end of the scale.
quote:Consent is given through the ballot box. Everyone is free to vote for a No Taxation Party if they want, and if they win the election there won't be any taxation.
Originally posted by Russ:
Seems to me that the essence of theft is taking without consent. And so the issue is around the extent to which an individual can reasonably live in a society and benefit from particular government services while not consenting to pay a fair share of the cost of those programs.
quote:So do you put no limits at all on what a democratically-elected government may do ? After all, the Jews could have voted against Hitler...
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Consent is given through the ballot box. Everyone is free to vote for a No Taxation Party if they want, and if they win the election there won't be any taxation.
Originally posted by Russ:
Seems to me that the essence of theft is taking without consent. And so the issue is around the extent to which an individual can reasonably live in a society and benefit from particular government services while not consenting to pay a fair share of the cost of those programs.
In countries where the government is not decided by free and fair elections then the people's consent to taxation (as well as to all other government policies) is less clear, and the taxation may indeed be immoral. However, none of us in this conversation lives in such a country.
quote:For clarity, Yes to the edited version above.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Do you mean it to read... ..“A legal system doesn’t exist for the purpose of imposing your sentiments on those who feel differently.” Are you making a normative statement “a legal system ought/ought not to….”
quote:I'm suggesting that most of us have a sense that it is in some way morally wrong to coerce others, to do unto them that to which they do not consent, by force or the threat of force.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I don’t think a “duty to act morally” is an “intermediate position”between anarchy and totalitarianism.
quote:Yes; I look to considerations of natural law as a basis for identifying what these "moral rights" might be.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Russ, are you saying that no government, even the most democratically constituted with processes subject to the rule of law, has a right to pass legislation in contravention of an individual’s “natural rights” or the dictates of “natural law”? In other words are you seeking to uphold the ideas of John Locke. If so, how does that relate to your argument?
quote:"Sentiment" is a way of describes a desire for an outcome. When Karl says
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I would would also like some clarification of where “sentiment” fits into your framework. Is it “moral sentiment” or some sort of emotional spasm that gets in the way of enforcing morality? Or what?
quote:he's stating an outcome that he desires to see. I don't think he's saying that when Moses came down the mountain he left behind an 11th tablet of stone commanding a minimum wage calculated on the basis of a 40-hour working week.
a person who works 40 hours should make enough money from so doing to put food on the table and a roof over his head
quote:No, I don't think you're right at all. I have no idea what sentiments Karl has about how much work he thinks appropriate, or what standards of living he'd like people to enjoy. I'd guess, though, that his sentiments would cause him to endorse rather less than 40 hours a week, and rather more than basic subsidence, as outcomes he'd like to see.
Originally posted by Russ:
"Sentiment" is a way of describes a desire for an outcome. When Karl says
quote:he's stating an outcome that he desires to see. I don't think he's saying that when Moses came down the mountain he left behind an 11th tablet of stone commanding a minimum wage calculated on the basis of a 40-hour working week.
a person who works 40 hours should make enough money from so doing to put food on the table and a roof over his head
quote:So such a state of affairs would be an outcome that we desire to see. Therefore, in your jargon, a sentiment.
Originally posted by Russ:
So it seems to me that anyone who rejects both of these extremes believes in some middle ground - a State which has a limited moral right to coerce - to tax and regulate the behaviour of the citizenry - up to a point that is sufficient so as to carry out its functions, while respecting the moral rights of citizens otherwise.
quote:As I've said before, social-progressivists are a motley group of people. A Marxist has doctrines that can be debated. A Christian social democrat has a different set of doctrines that can be debated. A third person may indeed be an agnostic who just has the principles and ideals that he has been brought up with without ever having thought them through and which he therefore takes to be common sense. All three can be described as social-progressives, because that terms just describes a broad political area in which someone ends up.
We're struggling to talk about what social progressivism is, seemingly because those who hold s-p views don't conceptualize those views as a set of doctrines that can be debated, but more as a natural obviously-right outworking of goodwill to one's fellow man.
quote:I'm suggesting to you that this is merely your perjorative characterisation. That it describes your position equally well.
I'm suggesting that one of the features of social progressivism is that it identifies a desired outcome - racial equality, a flat income distribution, a gender balance in parliament that reflects the general population. And then because that outcome is seen as good, the measures that are necessary to achieve it are justified.
quote:Er... no.
Is it fair to characterise it as an ends-justify-means worldview ? As totalitarian ?
quote:It seems to me that the principle that people who work full time should earn a livelihood by so doing is rather closer to your second option than the first. To the degree that your failure to think looks wilful and self-serving.
"Sentiment" is a way of describes a desire for an outcome.
When Karl says
quote:he's stating an outcome that he desires to see. I don't think he's saying that when Moses came down the mountain he left behind an 11th tablet of stone commanding a minimum wage calculated on the basis of a 40-hour working week.
a person who works 40 hours should make enough money from so doing to put food on the table and a roof over his head
quote:I'm sorry, the combination of "democratically elected" and "Hitler" has just destroyed any credibility your position may have had.
Originally posted by Russ:
So do you put no limits at all on what a democratically-elected government may do ? After all, the Jews could have voted against Hitler...
quote:Yes, if you also bear in mind that in a democratic nation they will need to remain popular enough to be re-elected next time. That need for continued popularity is as much a check on what the government can do as the need to be elected in the first place.
More prosaically, does a government have consent from the people for everything in their manifesto ? And things they decide to do afterwards that weren't in the manifesto ?
quote:...don't discriminate against based on race, sex, gender, belief, disability or sexuality?
Originally posted by Russ:
So that if we all refrain from doing unto others those things that we know are wrong - don't steal, don't cheat, don't assault, don't coerce...
quote:A few more thoughts on this.
Originally posted by Russ:
Which I contrast with a view of right conduct (by both individuals and the State) as being about respecting the natural rights of others. So that if we all refrain from doing unto others those things that we know are wrong - don't steal, don't cheat, don't assault, don't coerce - then there's a space of possible outcomes within which individuals are free to pursue whichever outcome seems to them to be good. A worldview - would you call it liberal ? - in which means are right or wrong and ends are for individuals to pursue by rightful means.
quote:In response-oriented mode, I'll answer, but you'd have to tell me what you mean by "discriminate"; it doesn't seem to me well-defined.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
...don't discriminate against based on race, sex, gender, belief, disability or sexuality?
Would you be prepared to add that extra item to your otherwise reasonable list? If not, why not?
quote:A national health service is a common good from which everyone benefits. Redistribution means taking from some to give to others, and that's not a common good.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The means used by a government taxing to fund a criminal justice system and the means used by a government taxing to fund a national health service or other form of redistribution are exactly the same.
quote:Seriously ? If I hack into your bank accounts and transfer all your funds to poor people in the 3rd World then I've done no wrong because you're still better off than they are ?
If people prefer being in group one to being in group two given the chance and after redistribution from group one to group two they still would prefer being in group one then it is hard to think any objectionable unfairness has been committed.
quote:You were saying earlier that the value of life needs no justification. Does that not imply that someone whose sentiments are all amoral is both bound by the moral injunction against murder and capable of knowing it ? Whether they care is beside the point. The injunction doesn't depend on them feeling it.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The point here is that there is no reason why someone whose sentiments are all amoral should care about Morality and indeed no way that even if they did care they could work out any rules of Morality from such a starting point. A system of conduct that someone cannot care about nor know about is a myth.
quote:In my experience, it is more often the socially-regressive right wing that pretends such things.
Originally posted by Russ:
Isn't the underlying point here that some left-leaning people like to pretend that their political aims are moral imperatives ?
quote:What about a national health service paid for by progressive taxation? What about a national education system paid for by progressive taxation? What about a transport infrastructure paid for by progressive taxation? What about a..............paid for by progressive taxation?
Russ: A national health service is a common good from which everyone benefits. Redistribution means taking from some to give to others, and that's not a common good.
quote:Sometimes, a person's politics really are an attempt to make their moral imperatives happen. They might happen to be mistaken about them. I think that can be true at every point on the political spectrum. People really can be trying to make the world a better, fairer place, be they right, left, extremists, or even terrorists. (Anon. saying: "One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.")
Originally posted by Russ:
Isn't the underlying point here that some left-leaning people like to pretend that their political aims are moral imperatives ?
quote:There's evidence that a more equal society is less stressful for everyone in the society regardless of one's wealth level, and therefore a more equal society is a good. Also people on lower incomes spend more of their money which drives more economic production, again a common good.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:A national health service is a common good from which everyone benefits. Redistribution means taking from some to give to others, and that's not a common good.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The means used by a government taxing to fund a criminal justice system and the means used by a government taxing to fund a national health service or other form of redistribution are exactly the same.
quote:I would think that if your employer paid you less than you needed to feed and shelter yourself that would damage the relationship between you and your employer.
quote:Seriously ? If I hack into your bank accounts and transfer all your funds to poor people in the 3rd World then I've done no wrong because you're still better off than they are ?
If people prefer being in group one to being in group two given the chance and after redistribution from group one to group two they still would prefer being in group one then it is hard to think any objectionable unfairness has been committed.
I wouldn't do it; it would be a breach of your rights. It would not respect you as a person who is capable of making your own decisions and managing your own affairs. It would be a wrongful act that would damage the relationship between us.
quote:My point is that I simply don't recognise your description of human motivation as divided between sentiments and injunctions.
You were saying earlier that the value of life needs no justification. Does that not imply that someone whose sentiments are all amoral is both bound by the moral injunction against murder and capable of knowing it ? Whether they care is beside the point. The injunction doesn't depend on them feeling it.
quote:They are moral imperatives (in my opinion, obviously).
Isn't the underlying point here that some left-leaning people like to pretend that their political aims are moral imperatives ?
quote:Thanks, Doc, for raising a most pertinent observation that smart elites recognise that for things to remain the same the more things have to change, with the consequence that social progressivism in a non-revolutionary context is about maintaining the fundamentals of the status quo.
Doc Tor: News just in: progressive taxation helps rich people hang on to their hoard of stuff without periodic revolutions featuring the forcible redistribution of their accumulated wealth to the poor and their brains against the wall.
quote:But this whole argument presupposes that one accept demand-side economics. Dyed-in-the-wool Neoliberals do not accept demand-side economics. They seem to believe -- contrary to all historical evidence -- that all that is required for a healthy economy is rich people, and are prepared to suffer the existence of everybody else only at the least possible short-term (note short-term, that's the lynchpin) cost to themselves.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm sitting in a city looking at the Christmas decorations in a shopping centre. Strictly speaking, I suppose, a shopkeeper could complain about the cost of the decorations. But, presumably, if the decorations are doing their job, then people are being attracted to the shopping centre to buy stuff. You might as well complain about the cost of providing a carpark - or any other cost to your business that isn't absolutely necessary. Like advertising.
The social contract is like this. It isn't an absolute necessity for rich people to pay for other people's healthcare. But in a roundabout way, those people are the people who are buying your shit. So if they die, that's going to affect your business. Sure, there are billions of other, less demanding and poorer people out there in the world - but the vast majority of capitalists operating in wealthier countries are not trying to service those customers.
If you want a healthy market to sell to, you've pretty much got to pay the taxes so that those within it are able to stay healthy enough to keep your bottom line in the black. You might not like paying taxes that go to pay for roads, but if they're not there then you can't move yourself, your staff or your crap around - and then you'd likely not have a business at all. Take yourself off to India and see how well you get on there.
quote:It’s very difficult isn’t it to establish a general causal relationship between religion and political action or inaction? I think the only way one can do this is on a case by case basis. At the present time the phenomenon of religious fundamentalism has been mobilised to great political affect: Christianity in the United States, Islam in the Middle East and elsewhere, Hinduism in India and so on, where traditional conservative social forces biased towards quietism and acceptance have become radicalised for all sorts of purposes, giving added impetus to inchoate social objectives by sanctifying them. One can speculate as to why that has been the case. Historically, the English might go back to John Ball, who was an important influence on the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381, “When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?” ; or one might consider the religio-political complexity of the Reformation and the Thirty Years War etc.etc..
quezalcoat : Another conduit for revolutionary energy is supposed to be religion - enthusiasm, and chiliastic fervour. But this also acts as a dampener.
I've no idea if this is correct, and I don't know how one would establish a link.
quote:If you feel that way then it's a good for you. If I feel differently then it may not be a good for me. I may be one of those people who buys lottery tickets that make one person a lot richer and a lot of people a little poorer. Because it's good to dream. I may prefer a city with hovels and palaces to a city of terraced suburbia.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There's evidence that a more equal society is less stressful for everyone in the society regardless of one's wealth level, and therefore a more equal society is a good.
quote:That's an argument for vanity projects.
On a different level, I think that looking at the society to which one belongs and being able to say that it is just and that one can be proud of it is a common good.
quote:That may well be true.
If you have a universal basic income that's a common good, presumably, whereas just paying welfare benefits to people out of work or whose work doesn't support them is just giving money to those people. But if a universal basic income is at a workable level then it will be more redistributive since the taxation to fund it will be higher.
Likewise, a national health service requires more tax to pay for it than a subsidy for people below a certain income threshold. So it's more redistributive.
quote:You're mixing up different things here. Consent is a moral issue. Whether an act is morally wrong or not may depend on the presence or absence of consent. The others seem more like criteria of good government.
quote:I wouldn't have any grounds to complain that I was being treated unfairly with respect to the donee. I might have other grounds to complain, for instance, that I was being treated unfairly with respect to other people more wealthy than I who weren't hacked into (fairness with respect to third parties). Or that I was then unable to plan my finances. Or as you say on the grounds of consent. That the hacker is high-handed and not subject to scrutiny of their actions and decisions.
If I hack into your bank accounts and transfer all your funds to poor people in the 3rd World then I've done no wrong because you're still better off than they are ?
quote:You're considering the opt-out at the wrong time. You see, by the time that you have been born, most of the dice have already been cast. Yes, I'm sure you like to think that you have achieved everything you have achieved entirely on your own merits, but that's not really true.
Originally posted by Russ:
The element of coercion lies in not allowing people to opt out, to make their own private arrangements instead. The moral issue is not in taxing members of the scheme, it's in forcing people to be members.
quote:I'm not talking about feelings. I'm talking about evidence: see graphs here. The point is that once a society has passed a certain threshhold of income per head, the inequality of that society is a much better predictor of overall life expectancy and other health measures than the income per capita. That applies even to the most well-off within the unequal societies.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:If you feel that way then it's a good for you. If I feel differently then it may not be a good for me.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There's evidence that a more equal society is less stressful for everyone in the society regardless of one's wealth level, and therefore a more equal society is a good.
quote:If there's less spending money then there's less getting money, and therefore less money to be saved.
quote:I don't believe that saving is inherently bad. There may be particular economic circumstances where it's better if more spending and less saving happens, but I don't see how it can be a universal truth. Traditionally saving for a rainy day is associated with the virtue of prudence.
Also people on lower incomes spend more of their money which drives more economic production, again a common good.
quote:I think you are perhaps confusing objective reality with other people's feelings.
quote:That's an argument for vanity projects.
On a different level, I think that looking at the society to which one belongs and being able to say that it is just and that one can be proud of it is a common good.
If you feel pleasure that your society reflects your values of order or freedom or uniformity or diversity then that's a private good for you and for those who share your views.
Are you perhaps confusing your feelings with objective reality ?
quote:A right that you can overrule any time you decide it's a practical impossibility to respect it is not a right.
The element of coercion lies in not allowing people to opt out, to make their own private arrangements instead. The moral issue is not in taxing members of the scheme, it's in forcing people to be members.
The practical impossibility of opting out of the criminal justice system is a reason for not considering this an issue in the case of funding the police.
quote:Would you like to argue for your narrow understanding of the word 'moral'? I've said several times that it seems to me neither supportable from reason nor from tradition nor from custom.
quote:You're mixing up different things here. Consent is a moral issue. Whether an act is morally wrong or not may depend on the presence or absence of consent. The others seem more like criteria of good government.
I wouldn't have any grounds to complain that I was being treated unfairly with respect to the donee. I might have other grounds to complain, for instance, that I was being treated unfairly with respect to other people more wealthy than I who weren't hacked into (fairness with respect to third parties). Or that I was then unable to plan my finances. Or as you say on the grounds of consent. That the hacker is high-handed and not subject to scrutiny of their actions and decisions.
quote:There are sufficient differences between property and faces to make the comparison void. Punching in the face is wrong for different reasons than taking property is. (One of them being that property is alienable, while faces are not.)
If someone punches you in the face, that doesn't become morally OK just because they do it to your friends as well. Moral rights and duties don't depend on comparing yourself with others in that way.
quote:You're against moral particularism aren't you? So you think that if you do x to somebody for a reason then that reason applies to everyone who is similarly situated in respect to that reason.
If you're suggesting that social progressives hold a theory of right and wrong that depends on such comparisons, then please explain further...
quote:In addition to Leorning Cniht (previous post), one would wish to point out that coercion is a basic feature of living in any politically constituted society. Citizens are forced to do all sorts of things whether they like it or not. Locke's argument for government was that it was necessary for the enforcement of natural rights against those who refused to obey them in a state of nature. The only alternative to being forced to behave in certain ways is anarchy: a state of nature, described by Hobbes as "a state of war of everyman against everyman," in which life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short".
Russ: The element of coercion lies in not allowing people to opt out, to make their own private arrangements instead. The moral issue is not in taxing members of the scheme, it's in forcing people to be members.
quote:Couldn't resist.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:... I feel differently ...
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There's evidence ....
quote:Most of that sounds true, in general terms.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Generally speaking, people who are successful tend to have several of these properties: have had the fortune to be born to parents who care about their education; have the fortune to be born with some useful set of inherent traits (intelligence, beauty, athleticism, whatever); have the fortune to be born in a place with a decent school system; have the fortune to be born with parents with money; have the fortune to be born at a time and in a place when their set of skills was valued (if Einstein had been born 1000 years earlier, he'd have been a really smart peasant).
quote:Not saying I want to opt out. Saying that not letting people opt out is coercion and coercion is a bad thing.
When you say you want to be able to opt out of the social safety net, you are wanting to opt out after those cards have already been played and you've seen that you're holding a winning hand.
quote:Russ, can I repeat the point I made about coercion in my previous post? Coercion is a basic feature of government and the need for collective action to resolve common issues. To describe coercion as a “bad thing” is to say that government is a bad thing. Perhaps that is your position.
Russ: Not saying I want to opt out. Saying that not letting people opt out is coercion and coercion is a bad thing.
I'm characterising the social-progressive mindset as an end-justifies-the-means point of view. And listening to the s-ps denying it whilst insisting that achieving their desirable ends by coercion is absolutely justified…
quote:There isn't "a certain amount of money" that I "deem significant" - it's about the resources that the family you are born to possesses. And why they have it does make a bit of a difference - people who inherit money generally don't have quite the same attitudes as those who started without much money and made their own - but not nearly as much as the difference between having some and not having any. Not every advantage that you're born with is financial: things like the attitudes your parents have matter too.
Originally posted by Russ:
And if there is some certain amount of money that you deem to be significant, then maybe the reason why the parents have that much is more important than the fact that they have it ?
quote:But that is equally bollocks. "Opting out" of the social safety net because you've discovered that you're alright, Jack is equivalent to playing cards with a marked deck. You know you're holding a winning hand. You don't get pretend that you don't know you're holding a pair of kings.
Not saying I want to opt out. Saying that not letting people opt out is coercion and coercion is a bad thing.
quote:Your argument is intellectually flawed. In short, it is complete bollocks. You repeatedly assert, without any actual evidence, that social progressives have and end-justifies-the-means philosophy, and are deaf to all the evidence that has been offered to the contrary.
I'm characterising the social-progressive mindset as an end-justifies-the-means point of view. And listening to the s-ps denying it whilst insisting that achieving their desirable ends by coercion is absolutely justified...
quote:And which would you be living in, Russ? Hovel or palace? And why?
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:If you feel that way then it's a good for you. If I feel differently then it may not be a good for me. I may be one of those people who buys lottery tickets that make one person a lot richer and a lot of people a little poorer. Because it's good to dream. I may prefer a city with hovels and palaces to a city of terraced suburbia.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There's evidence that a more equal society is less stressful for everyone in the society regardless of one's wealth level, and therefore a more equal society is a good.
quote:Coercion by definition implies the use of force. When the Artful Dodger lifts Mr Brownlow's pocket watch he does not use coercion; when Inspector Bucket stops the Artful Dodger and takes the watch off him Inspector Bucket does use coercion.
Originally posted by Russ:
Saying that not letting people opt out is coercion and coercion is a bad thing.
quote:Would you like to substantiate this characterisation? I think all your attempts have been answered.
I'm characterising the social-progressive mindset as an end-justifies-the-means point of view. And listening to the s-ps denying it whilst insisting that achieving their desirable ends by coercion is absolutely justified...
quote:It's not "neatly divided," but the country I live in is increasingly divided in just this way, as the middle class is shrinking.
Originally posted by Russ:
The one I'd quibble with us "parents with money". Because the world isn"t neatly divided into those who have money and those who don't.
quote:Do you pay taxes? Stop for red lights? Serve jury duty?
Not saying I want to opt out. Saying that not letting people opt out is coercion and coercion is a bad thing.
quote:This is simply a failure of imagination. It would not be at all impossible to opt out of the criminal justice system - many societies have had classes of people who were not expected to follow the criminal law, and were not entitled to benefit from its protections. In England they were called "outlaws".
Originally posted by Russ:
If there's an NHS or a UBI (or any other TLA) that you benefit from, then it seems to me that there's a moral obligation to pay a fair share of the cost, which justifies the government in levying a charge on you for that purpose.
The element of coercion lies in not allowing people to opt out, to make their own private arrangements instead. The moral issue is not in taxing members of the scheme, it's in forcing people to be members.
The practical impossibility of opting out of the criminal justice system is a reason for not considering this an issue in the case of funding the police.
quote:You're right that I'm struggling to distinguish what is characteristic of the social progressive mindset from positions that are more mainstream.
Originally posted by Eliab:
What I think is odd is that you seem to want to define reasoning like this as "progressive", when it's so clearly mainstream, and most self-identifying conservatives (who generally say that individual work should be rewarded) would agree with it, or identify "progressive" by your definition as being opposed to Christianity, when it seems to me that Karl could say this sort of thing from practically any pulpit in the English-speaking world and have it received as utterly uncontroversial.
quote:This is your empirical mistake: that you see yourself as mainstream.
Originally posted by Russ:
You're right that I'm struggling to distinguish what is characteristic of the social progressive mindset from positions that are more mainstream.
quote:What about free riding? Is that a bad thing? Most of the coercive nature of taxation is to prevent free riding (i.e. benefitting from a system without contributing).
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Not saying I want to opt out. Saying that not letting people opt out is coercion and coercion is a bad thing.
When you say you want to be able to opt out of the social safety net, you are wanting to opt out after those cards have already been played and you've seen that you're holding a winning hand.
quote:Russ, I find your position increasingly difficult to comprehend. I don't think most social progressives would demur from most of the observations you credit to those outside the mindset. As Doc Tor indicated, social progressive views are much more mainstream than you seem to recognise. Social reformers tend to be much more informed, analytically more sophisticated, and more hard-headed than you seem to appreciate. The opposite mindset, one would suggest, is to blame the disadvantaged for their own problems and unwillingness to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.
Russ: For example, Leorning Cniht suggested poor urban black kids as an example of a disadvantaged group, and no-one has answered the question as to what is the s-p approach to them.
Seems like to someone within the mindset the answer is "To care about them" and that's too obvious to be worth saying ?
Whereas from outside of the mindset, one might venture an answer as follows.
Poor urban black kids suffer from multiple difficulties.
Some are to do with their own choices. A toxic subculture of drugs and gang violence. A local environment that's degraded because they've vandalised it.
Some are to do with the parents. That too many kids grow up in homes without books, homes without fathers, and homes where good English is never spoken.
And some are to do with the attitudes of the non-black population. Racial prejudice in various forms, and a lack of interest among politicians.
Seems like the characteristic s-p approach is to emphasise the third group of factors at the expense of the other two. Because sympathy with the victims is important.
quote:Not to mention ancillary benefits like herd immunity, the economic benefits brought from the fact that one is living in a country where people are generally healthy, and able to both work and consume, that the associated regulation of health care means there is a range of health care treatments and procedures that are known to work, that the large subsequent market for healthcare means that companies have an incentive to develop drugs for this market and so on
Originally posted by Crœsos:
To take the example of a national health system, what would "opting out" look like? Most beneficiaries of such systems have benefitted from it literally from the moment they were born. At what point can they decide to opt out? And can they opt back in again? This seems an invitation to free riding.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I think he's right that there is a common thread, which is a sympathy with those classes of people deemed to be "under-privileged".
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Because people can talk from their disinterested moral intuition or they can talk from their perceived self-interest and their partisan sympathies and their attachment to their own culture's way of doing things.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I don't see anything wrong with that if you can formulate that "damage" as an impartial rule that applies equally to everyone regardless of where your sympathies lie.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I don't think that's part of the social progressive mindset that we're talking about at all.
Not only because it's economic rather than social. But mainlt because this mindset sees "workers" as a group who are traditionally disadvantaged (relative to the owners of land and capital) and are therefore Victims to be sympathised with and their interests supported.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If your position is that there is a specific anti-competitive practice which is having the effect of depressing wages, then it seems to me that you have a theory and not just a prejudice, a philosophical basis and not just a sympathy.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If people make decisions on sympathy rather than reason, then engaging their sympathies seems logical. Who's going to sympathize with Universal Megacorp ?
Considering the case when the employer is your neighbour and the employee is also your neighbour - the human-scale business - is an attenpt to bypass differential sympathies and focus on general principles.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Changing the rules to benefit those you sympathize with (and disbenefit those you don't) is the way of bias. That's the approach I'm arguing against.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Right and wrong do not depend on whether you sympathize with someone. That's corruption.
quote:And today's entry:
Originally posted by Russ:
So the charge I'm making against social progressivism is that it confuses sympathy for a group of people (heart) with a moral understanding (mind) in their favour. The confusion you've just demonstrated.
I'm suggesting that you can't construct an understanding of morality that follows those sympathies without failing the test of moral universalism, of the impartiality of natural law.
quote:Sometimes he veers off course though, and argues that it's only stupid to have sympathy for people Russ doesn't have compassion for, or to not have compassion for anyone Russ does have "sympathy" for.
Originally posted by Russ:
Seems like the characteristic s-p approach is to emphasise the third group of factors at the expense of the other two. Because sympathy with the victims is important.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
One of those is a general lack of sympathy with business; a tendency to think profit a dirty word that is synonymous with exploitation; a tendency to think that employing someone involves obligations beyond paying a fair day's wage for a fair day's work, & to sympathize always with the employee against the employer.
quote:So here we are, 16 pages in, with no more insight into what's so terrible about "the social-progressive mindset" than repeated assurances from Russ that compassion is stupid and you shouldn't have "sympathy" for anyone. Especially not if they've been the victim of some kind of horrific abuse or suffered some terrible tragedy. That seems an awful lot of pixels devoted to a fairly simple point.
Originally posted by Russ:
From the comments so far the problem with that seems to be entirely that social progressives sympathize with labourers in a way that they don't sympathize with landlords and bankers. Not sure about governments...
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Russ--
quote:And which would you be living in, Russ? Hovel or palace? And why?
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:If you feel that way then it's a good for you. If I feel differently then it may not be a good for me. I may be one of those people who buys lottery tickets that make one person a lot richer and a lot of people a little poorer. Because it's good to dream. I may prefer a city with hovels and palaces to a city of terraced suburbia.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There's evidence that a more equal society is less stressful for everyone in the society regardless of one's wealth level, and therefore a more equal society is a good.
quote:There may be a reason for that.
Originally posted by Russ:
You're right that I'm struggling to distinguish what is characteristic of the social progressive mindset from positions that are more mainstream.
quote:Again, you speak as if social-progressives are a unified political party with a single approach.
For example, Leorning Cniht suggested poor urban black kids as an example of a disadvantaged group, and no-one has answered the question as to what is the s-p approach to them.
quote:I don't know that one emphasises one group of factors because of sympathy. One does owe it to people to believe the truth about them, and therefore not to believe falsehoods about them especially falsehoods motivated by a lack of charity, the easy speeches that comfort cruel men.
Seems like the characteristic s-p approach is to emphasise the third group of factors at the expense of the other two. Because sympathy with the victims is important.
quote:I'd expect that a city with hovels and palaces would also have dwellings in between - don't think I buy into the binary split between haves and have-nots.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Russ--
When you get a chance, would you please answer this? Thx.
quote:And which would you be living in, Russ? Hovel or palace? And why?
Originally posted by Russ:
I may prefer a city with hovels and palaces to a city of terraced suburbia.
quote:Spoken like someone who's never missed a meal in his life. Those who emphasize the importance of keeping others in poverty never seem to envisage themselves enjoying the "benefits" of such austerity.
Originally posted by Russ:
And I envisage myself in-between. But maybe that's dodging the question and you want me to make a binary choice ?
I'm conventional enough. Other things being equal, I'd prefer the palace.
But if everyone has to clean their own dwelling, maybe there's something to be said for appreciating the beauty of the palace from the outside and then going home to one's own one-room hovel ?
And sharing a hovel with someone you care for may be a better choice than marrying whoever lives in the palace. There's more to life than material wealth.
quote:Not at all. It's good to have compassion for others, and for that to motivate acts of grace - supererogatory acts of kindness - towards them, within the space of actions that one has the moral right to perform.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Russ' position seems to boil down to making the case that it's stupid to have sympathy or compassion towards anyone.
quote:Not suggesting that they're anything as constructive as a party. But that they have a characteristic approach, yes.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
you speak as if social-progressives are a unified political party with a single approach.
quote:This and your emphasis on evidence would be admirable if you applied it even-handedly to everyone.
One does owe it to people to believe the truth about them, and therefore not to believe falsehoods about them
quote:Poor schools could be a result of the majority being unwilling to vote inner city schools the same level of resources as schools elsewhere. That would be category three.
I wonder whether or not you include factors like poor provision of schools, the parents having jobs that require them to be away from home more than a five-day week to make a living: do those fall under your category two or your category three?
quote:This is back to the delusion that anyone who disagrees with you does so from lack of goodwill.
Perhaps the difference is that non-social-progressives jump to blaming other people's misfortunes on their own choices, and don't ask any further questions, because they don't want to know the answers?
quote:Or ever been even temporarily disabled.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Spoken like someone who's never missed a meal in his life.
quote:Teach a man to fish and you feed the person who owns the fishing rights to the area for a lifetime.
Originally posted by Russ:
Whereas on the contrary, it's about understanding the situation and targeting assistance appropriately. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime... [/QB]
quote:But isn't that a perfectly sound social progressive position?
Russ: Whereas on the contrary, it's [non-social progressivism] about understanding the situation and targeting assistance appropriately. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime...
quote:"I'd prefer the palace unless I have to do the housework." Really? That's your answer? You expect anyone to believe that? You expect anyone to believe you are trying to make a coherent moral argument if that's your response?
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:... I'm conventional enough. Other things being equal, I'd prefer the palace.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Russ--
When you get a chance, would you please answer this? Thx.
quote:And which would you be living in, Russ? Hovel or palace? And why?
Originally posted by Russ:
I may prefer a city with hovels and palaces to a city of terraced suburbia.
But if everyone has to clean their own dwelling, maybe there's something to be said for appreciating the beauty of the palace from the outside and then going home to one's own one-room hovel ?...
quote:Both Social Progressives and Conservatives use the fishing metaphor. The first group does it to help and the other to avoid helping.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
quote:But isn't that a perfectly sound social progressive position?
Russ: Whereas on the contrary, it's [non-social progressivism] about understanding the situation and targeting assistance appropriately. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime...
ISTM you are tilting at windmills.
quote:So here you're endorsing the view that showing goodwill towards victims is characteristic of the social-progressive position.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Not suggesting that they're anything as constructive as a party. But that they have a characteristic approach, yes.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
you speak as if social-progressives are a unified political party with a single approach.
It goes something like
- identify who are the victims
- sympathize with the victims
- dismiss any alternative as politically incorrect
quote:'Bias' doesn't mean a position that you find uncomfortable or irksome.
quote:This and your emphasis on evidence would be admirable if you applied it even-handedly to everyone.
One does owe it to people to believe the truth about them, and therefore not to believe falsehoods about them
But you seem happy enough to infer racism as a characteristic of the majority group, whilst demanding evidence that drugs and gangs are a factor for the minority group.
Bias and double standards all the way down...
quote:You said above that showing goodwill towards victims is characteristically social-progressive; and by implication non-social-progressives withhold goodwill from people they consider victims. If it's a delusion you're sharing it.
quote:This is back to the delusion that anyone who disagrees with you does so from lack of goodwill.
Perhaps the difference is that non-social-progressives jump to blaming other people's misfortunes on their own choices, and don't ask any further questions, because they don't want to know the answers?
quote:So if that is what social-progressives want to do, what is your objection to it? Are you saying that non-social-progressives don't want to understand the situation? or that they don't want to target assistance appropriately?
Whereas on the contrary, it's about understanding the situation and targeting assistance appropriately. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime...
quote:I don't know if I agree, because I still don't know whose attitudes you are taking about. Your OP set out a range of positions which at least overlap with many mainstream views, including some fairly right-wing mainstream views, and called these "progressive". Plenty of people on this thread who might not pick "social-progressive" as their self-identifier of choice have identified with the views that you appear to be attacking.
Originally posted by Russ:
Whereas from outside of the mindset, one might venture an answer as follows.
Poor urban black kids suffer from multiple difficulties.
Some are to do with their own choices. A toxic subculture of drugs and gang violence. A local environment that's degraded because they've vandalised it.
Some are to do with the parents. That too many kids grow up in homes without books, homes without fathers, and homes where good English is never spoken.
And some are to do with the attitudes of the non-black population. Racial prejudice in various forms, and a lack of interest among politicians.
Seems like the characteristic s-p approach is to emphasise the third group of factors at the expense of the other two. Because sympathy with the victims is important.
Would you agree ?
quote:Those who believe in the thing don't use those words to describe it.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Has anyone on this thread used the phrase 'politically incorrect' other than you?
quote:No I didn't. Sympathy and goodwill are not the same thing.
You said above that showing goodwill towards victims is characteristically social-progressive;
quote:Doesn't follow at all.
and by implication non-social-progressives withhold goodwill from people they consider victims.
quote:The mindset I'm talking about is more concerned with the feelings of a man who doesn't know how to fish. Who rather than teach him, prefer to whinge instead about the high price of fishing rods. Who seem to feel compelled to locate the problem in other people, rather than in that individual's ignorance, because if you don't then that's blaming the victim.
quote:So if that is what social-progressives want to do, what is your objection to it? Are you saying that non-social-progressives don't want to understand the situation? or that they don't want to target assistance appropriately?
Whereas on the contrary, it's about understanding the situation and targeting assistance appropriately. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime...
quote:I see. So what exactly is your solution to being poor or being sick or being black in apartheid South Africa? Just tell them to try a bit harder?
Originally posted by Russ:
No I didn't. Sympathy and goodwill are not the same thing.
If you have goodwill towards someone, you want them to take the medicine that will make them better. You want them to face up to their problems, shoulder their responsibilities and succeed. If you have sympathy you want to validate their feelings.
quote:Right. So who exactly is this mythical person who lives by water but doesn't know how to fish. There's a good chance he's a refugee from somewhere far from water. There is a good chance that he's been exploited, pushed around, and is at his lowest ebb. There is a good chance he actually could quite easily do his own fishing with rods if they weren't so flaming expensive.
The mindset I'm talking about is more concerned with the feelings of a man who doesn't know how to fish. Who rather than teach him, prefer to whinge instead about the high price of fishing rods. Who seem to feel compelled to locate the problem in other people, rather than in that individual's ignorance, because if you don't then that's blaming the victim.
quote:And not care about them. Not caring about people is big with Russ, as far as I can tell from what he's said here. He seems to regard caring about others ("sympathy") as a moral failing.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I see. So what exactly is your solution to being poor or being sick or being black in apartheid South Africa? Just tell them to try a bit harder?
Originally posted by Russ:
No I didn't. Sympathy and goodwill are not the same thing.
If you have goodwill towards someone, you want them to take the medicine that will make them better. You want them to face up to their problems, shoulder their responsibilities and succeed. If you have sympathy you want to validate their feelings.
quote:One of my questions was what words we should use to describe this mindset. I'm not wedded to "social-progressive" - for one thing it takes too long for me to one-finger type - and others seem to use this to mean someone who favours redistribution of wealth for social reasons. Kwesi came closest with a reference to "identity politics", but no-one's suggested a good alternative terminology.
Originally posted by Eliab:
Your OP set out a range of positions which at least overlap with many mainstream views, including some fairly right-wing mainstream views, and called these "progressive". Plenty of people on this thread who might not pick "social-progressive" as their self-identifier of choice have identified with the views that you appear to be attacking.
quote:You're one of the most even-handed people posting on these boards, and I don't see you as displaying the s-p mindset.
I have no idea, for example, whether you think I'm a social progressive. I tick at least 4 of the 5 boxes in the OP... ...internationalism ; not being a sexist or homophobic (I description I prefer to "gender-bending"); political correctness (if it means "basic politeness" rather than being anti-free speech); and anti-racism. I also think that businesses should be subject to law, so you might check the "anti-capitalist" box for me, making me 100% "social-progressive" according to your definition, even though I've never used that description for myself and would say that I'm Centrist or Liberal if pushed.
quote:You're saying that a political answer is appropriate to a question framed politically, and vice versa. Hard to argue against that. But why frame the question that way ?
Do I agree that I would emphasise racial prejudice as a reason for racial disadvantage, over the shitty choices of black families? Sure - in the context of social policy anyway. Because that's the thing that wider society can try to fix, and fixing it makes it easier for disadvantaged people to make non-shitty choices, and see the benefits of making non-shitty choices.
Obviously in a personal context if I'm advising someone of any race, I'm going to emphasise their choices, not wider social problems, because in the personal context, their own choices are the things that they can do something about.
quote:Doesn't that make you a "social progressive", given your advocacy of a tax policy that redistributes wealth from workers to those who make their money through interest and speculation? A preference for those who earn their income from their existing wealth over those who earn their income through labor would seem to qualify as "social reasons".
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:One of my questions was what words we should use to describe this mindset. I'm not wedded to "social-progressive" - for one thing it takes too long for me to one-finger type - and others seem to use this to mean someone who favours redistribution of wealth for social reasons.
Originally posted by Eliab:
Your OP set out a range of positions which at least overlap with many mainstream views, including some fairly right-wing mainstream views, and called these "progressive". Plenty of people on this thread who might not pick "social-progressive" as their self-identifier of choice have identified with the views that you appear to be attacking.
quote:In this case that would be because you're describing a caricature.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Those who believe in the thing don't use those words to describe it.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Has anyone on this thread used the phrase 'politically incorrect' other than you?
quote:Let's set aside the fact that you're using the English language in a non-standard way again. Goodwill: Kindly, friendly feelings or helpful attitude towards another person or other people; feelings of support or favour for, or an attitude of cooperation towards, a cause, scheme, etc.; benevolence, friendliness.
quote:No I didn't. Sympathy and goodwill are not the same thing.
You said above that showing goodwill towards victims is characteristically social-progressive;
If you have goodwill towards someone, you want them to take the medicine that will make them better. You want them to face up to their problems, shoulder their responsibilities and succeed. If you have sympathy you want to validate their feelings.
quote:It's social-progressives who want to teach the man to fish. However, education costs money. How's that to be paid for? Any practical suggestion would require someone who already has money to pay for it, and you want firmly to argue that nobody with money already has any obligation or responsibility to do so.
The mindset I'm talking about is more concerned with the feelings of a man who doesn't know how to fish. Who rather than teach him, prefer to whinge instead about the high price of fishing rods. Who seem to feel compelled to locate the problem in other people, rather than in that individual's ignorance, because if you don't then that's blaming the victim.
quote:The problem is that you deny that any form of obligation to care for others forms part of those "universal moral rights and duties", and that you define any call for such care to be provided as "bias in favour of [those who need to be cared for]".
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm arguing for the notion of a framework of moral rights and duties that applies equally to everyone, against the notion that all religion and all ethics can be reduced to a bias in favour of whoever is deemed the disadvantaged party.
quote:I think this is true, but that you overstate the role of formal education here. Mostly when people make choices, they choose from options that they are already familiar with - because they have friends, family, or other people they know who have previously made a similar choice.
Originally posted by Russ:
Government - wider society acting collectively for the common good - has a role in funding and facilitating education, and education should lead to people making better choices. That may be a much more constructive answer.
quote:It should also be noted that publicly-funded education is a form of "redistribution of wealth for social reasons", something Russ considers to be very bad indeed in other contexts.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:I think this is true, but that you overstate the role of formal education here.
Originally posted by Russ:
Government - wider society acting collectively for the common good - has a role in funding and facilitating education, and education should lead to people making better choices. That may be a much more constructive answer.
quote:In a subsistence economy people who have learnt to fish can feed themselves - at least until such point as the fishing rate is unsustainable. But in a modern industrial economy it doesn't matter how much education you have; you need someone with money to pay you. And Russ is quite clear that no employer is under any obligation to provide anybody with a job or a sustainable living wage now matter how much they 'face their problems' or 'shoulder their responsibilities'.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It should also be noted that publicly-funded education is a form of "redistribution of wealth for social reasons", something Russ considers to be very bad indeed in other contexts.
quote:Is bullshit. There are multiple countries that prove this thought wrong. Britain is one of them.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The thought is that if there is a sufficient supply of educated workers jobs for them will appear.
quote:Yesterday, in the course of conversation with colleagues, I described some of the current political spectacles as "the last stand of the straight white man." Upon reflection, I think that is the theme that loosely links the elements of what Russ' is calling 'social progressivism':
Originally posted by Russ:
...
As a starting point, my first attempt at describing it was in terms of
doctrines of
- internationalism (migrants good, Brexit bad)
- gender-bending (anything goes so long as you don't speak in favour of traditional gender roles)
- political correctness (can't believe anyone voted for Trump; free speech as long as you don't say what we don't like)
- anti-capitalism (profit is bad, small business has no rights and unlimited liability)
- anti-racism (racism is a huge sin that the whole white race should atone for)
...
quote:Thanks SM, great post. Couple of questions to start with:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I described some of the current political spectacles as "the last stand of the straight white man." Upon reflection, I think that is the theme that loosely links the elements of what Russ' is calling 'social progressivism'
quote:It sounds like you're saying that any SWM living today inherits the guilt of all the bad things that SWMs have done in the past. That their membership of the previously-successful SWM "team" is primary, and any individual successes or failures that they may have are secondary. Is that what you believe ?
They will think they are being made to "atone" for having won all those games so easily in the past...
quote:To the extent that I've argued for an alternative to the s-p mindset, rules that apply to everyone are a big part of that alternative. So this bit rings less true than your other points.
Now the referees are taking away their "rights" with those pesky rules about fouling other players.
quote:Impractical, contradictory, fallacious; take your pick.
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Can we legitimately object to Russ's categorizing attempts on the grounds of impracticality?
quote:This got me thinking about another oddity: Russ's attitude toward time. As in: it doesn't matter. There is no past, there is no future, there is only how Russ feels about the present.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's odd what an impractical attitude you have to money.
quote:If you perceive that people have been wronged by coercion in the past, should that not make you seek to avoid coercing others in future ? To try to act more morally than the people you believe to be wrong ?
Originally posted by Leaf:
"Coercion is immoral." But past coercion has led to grossly tilted playing fields, such as in the example Soror Magna gave about indigenous peoples being forced off their lands and are now, still, suffering the effects of that coercion.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Thanks SM, great post. Couple of questions to start with:
quote:No, that's what they think. Probably because they're unable to read for fucking comprehension; no wonder they feel so threatened by the loss of privilege.
quote:It sounds like you're saying that any SWM living today inherits the guilt of all the bad things that SWMs have done in the past. That their membership of the previously-successful SWM "team" is primary, and any individual successes or failures that they may have are secondary. Is that what you believe ?
They will think they are being made to "atone" for having won all those games so easily in the past...
quote:I put "rights" is in quotes because was I actually referring to past privileges taken for granted. Russ has repeatedly argued on this thread for the "right" to refuse service to gay customers and the "right" to refuse to hire a black baker. While some form of "scare quotes" dates back to antiquity, they became much more common near the end of the 20th Century, so a reader from the 18th or 19th Century might not immediately recognize the intended distinction between "rights" and rights.
quote:To the extent that I've argued for an alternative to the s-p mindset, rules that apply to everyone are a big part of that alternative. So this bit rings less true than your other points.
Now the referees are taking away their "rights" with those pesky rules about fouling other players.
quote:"You stole our land!"
Originally posted by Russ:
If you perceive that people have been wronged by coercion in the past, should that not make you seek to avoid coercing others in future ? To try to act more morally than the people you believe to be wrong ?
quote:You may call all you like for other people to care about the plight of whichever group has the benefit of your particular sympathies. There are no end of worthy causes.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:The problem is that you deny that any form of obligation to care for others forms part of those "universal moral rights and duties", and that you define any call for such care to be provided as "bias in favour of [those who need to be cared for]".
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm arguing for the notion of a framework of moral rights and duties that applies equally to everyone, against the notion that all religion and all ethics can be reduced to a bias in favour of whoever is deemed the disadvantaged party.
quote:This statement is perfectly fair and correct in and of itself. Where we disagree is where you go on to say that everybody should be able to act on a preference for their own race and I go on to say that nobody should. I think you'll agree that's a fairly significant difference!
Originally posted by Russ:
Or the people who object to white people having and acting on a preference for people of their own race but think it's fine for black people to have and act on a preference for people of their own race.
quote:As we have noted before, you're perfectly happy with coercion some of the time. For example, if a thief steals something you're happy to coerce them into giving it back. I'm pretty sure you're happy to coerce anyone who buys the item off the thief no questions asked.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:If you perceive that people have been wronged by coercion in the past, should that not make you seek to avoid coercing others in future ? To try to act more morally than the people you believe to be wrong ?
Originally posted by Leaf:
"Coercion is immoral." But past coercion has led to grossly tilted playing fields, such as in the example Soror Magna gave about indigenous peoples being forced off their lands and are now, still, suffering the effects of that coercion.
quote:I'd say that it depends. That if you're acting on behalf of the state, you have to serve everyone, act for the common good, and not let your preferences interfere with that.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Where we disagree is where you go on to say that everybody should be able to act on a preference for their own race and I go on to say that nobody should.
quote:This is an interesting and relatively recent understanding of moral duty. In earlier times it was popular to assert that you had a duty to do your best for your customers. According to more modern sensibilities, like Russ', "universal morality" dictates that if you can short-change or cheat your customers you should do it. If you can use racial stereotypes and prejudice to get away with it, you're morally obligated to do so.
Originally posted by Russ:
I'd say that it depends. That if you're acting on behalf of the state, you have to serve everyone, act for the common good, and not let your preferences interfere with that.
If you're acting on behalf of your employer, you have to do what's best for the firm.
quote:The problem lies in defining the standard that is being applied. If the principle is the right of national self-determination then you have a strong point. If, however, independence is a means to achieve other ends then your criticism is less secure. For example, a region may be poor as a consequence of oppression by a malign central government, so that independence way be the best means of promoting its economic and social good. Catalonia, however, is a rich region seeking independence in order to relieve itself of its duty towards the common good of Spain. In which case it can be morally argued that its claims for independence deserve to be rejected or treated with great circumspection.
Russ: When I complain about double standards, I mean the sort of people who would be in favour of Catalan independence if it were a poor region but aren't because it's a rich region. Relatively speaking.
Or the people who object to white people having and acting on a preference for people of their own race but think it's fine for black people to have and act on a preference for people of their own race.
In short, the doctrine that victims can do no wrong.
quote:Yes, in the simple case where the owner has a moral right to it and the thief doesn't.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
if a thief steals something you're happy to coerce them into giving it back.
quote:.
I'm pretty sure you're happy to coerce anyone who buys the item off the thief no questions asked.
quote:No; sympathy has nothing to do with it.
In other words, you're happy to coerce people if you see them as being the beneficiaries of an injustice where you sympathise with the victim.
quote:Hang on a second, weren't you the one who is "arguing for the notion of a framework of moral rights and duties that applies equally to everyone"? Surely "everyone" includes the government, those acting on behalf of an employer, and those acting in a private capacity?
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I'd say that it depends. That if you're acting on behalf of the state, you have to serve everyone, act for the common good, and not let your preferences interfere with that.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Where we disagree is where you go on to say that everybody should be able to act on a preference for their own race and I go on to say that nobody should.
If you're acting on behalf of your employer, you have to do what's best for the firm.
But if you're having a private party, you can invite who you want.
You really disagree with that ?
quote:There are surely moral rules surrounding even this apparent 'freedom to invite who ever you wish', situation?
Russ Posted: But if you're having a private party, you can invite who you want.
quote:Isn't that begging the question ? If Catalonia meets whatever reasonable criteria you apply for being an independent state, then what duty does it have to Spain ? Beyond the normal moral duties of keeping promises etc that apply to relationships with any other state.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Catalonia, however, is a rich region seeking independence in order to relieve itself of its duty towards the common good of Spain.
quote:That's an argument from self-defence. A punches B first and so B feels justified in punching A back. Is it a valid argument ? Is "punching back" in a different moral category from just punching ?
Similarly, your argument regarding discrimination by ethnic minorities in favour of their own race is less than straightforward where there is discrimination by the dominant ethnic group controlling most of the job opportunities in the economy. It seems to me perfectly justifiable for an ethnic group unfavourably treated in terms of employment opportunities by the dominant race, i.e. operating a system of job protectionism based on ethnicity, to respond in a similar manner.
quote:Does the previous owner still have a moral right in the case that the shopkeeper bought it in innocence? That doesn't seem like the sort of thing that ought to abolish a right. And yet, if it's wrong to coerce the shopkeeper into returning the item then in what sense on your theory can the original owner can be said to still have a right?
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Yes, in the simple case where the owner has a moral right to it and the thief doesn't.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
if a thief steals something you're happy to coerce them into giving it back.
quote:.
I'm pretty sure you're happy to coerce anyone who buys the item off the thief no questions asked.
Yes if they bought it knowing fully that it was stolen; they're then an accessory to the crime. No if they bought it in innocence. "No questions asked" seems to denote a grey area in between ?
quote:You're quick to attribute disagreements with your moral opinions to partial sympathy. I don't see why you should expect us to believe your protestations that you don't do that.
quote:No; sympathy has nothing to do with it.
In other words, you're happy to coerce people if you see them as being the beneficiaries of an injustice where you sympathise with the victim.
quote:The problem for you here is that if coercion is justified in the case of enforcing a moral injunction, you can't then go on to argue that it's wrong to use coercion until you've demonstrated that there is no moral injunction being enforced.
It's a recognition of a moral law outside oneself rather than sympathy from within oneself that justifies coercion in the exceptional circumstance of that moral law being broken.
quote:You permit a lot of things that are doing unto others that which one would not have done to oneself. For example, you permit an employer to take advantage of one's need for a job to beat one's wages down, or to refuse one a job on the grounds of race where there's a business justification. You can't draw your dividing line solely on the basis of the Golden Rule.
I suggest to you that no healthy person wants to be coerced. It's always a doing unto others that which one would not have done to oneself.
quote:Bravo, Marvin.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Hang on a second, weren't you the one who is "arguing for the notion of a framework of moral rights and duties that applies equally to everyone"? Surely "everyone" includes the government, those acting on behalf of an employer, and those acting in a private capacity?
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I'd say that it depends. That if you're acting on behalf of the state, you have to serve everyone, act for the common good, and not let your preferences interfere with that.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Where we disagree is where you go on to say that everybody should be able to act on a preference for their own race and I go on to say that nobody should.
If you're acting on behalf of your employer, you have to do what's best for the firm.
But if you're having a private party, you can invite who you want.
You really disagree with that ?
So if racial discrimination is wrong, then it's wrong regardless of whether you're doing it in the name of your country, your employer or yourself. And if it's OK then it's OK regardless of whether you're doing it in the name of your country, your employer or yourself.
As you keep telling us, you can't have the same thing being right or wrong depending on who does it.
quote:Yes there's a moral question, but it revolves around the "everyone else but" rather than the characteristics of the person.
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:There are surely moral rules surrounding even this apparent 'freedom to invite who ever you wish', situation?
Russ Posted: But if you're having a private party, you can invite who you want.
Supposing you invited everyone else but the black, asian or muslim person who works with you? Is that immoral discrimination?
quote:Quite so! Manners are not to be regarded as a 'duty' punctiliously performed but as an act of grace in line with the teachings of Christ.
As a matter of degree, it's worse to exclude someone who is in a situation where they are more prone to feeling not part of the group. But I don't think that such a matter of degree creates a duty when one would not otherwise exist.
quote:It depends why you've invited a whole tranche of people from work to a party in your home.
Supposing you invited everyone else but the black, asian or muslim person who works with you? Is that immoral discrimination?
quote:WOW!!!
Quite so! Manners are not to be regarded as a 'duty' punctiliously performed but as an act of grace in line with the teachings of Christ.
quote:"I'm not bigoted/ racist/ anti-semitic/ homophobic but ..." What the HELL is anything that is "typically Jewish"???
The above advice is obviously delivered with typical Jewish deliberate exaggeration ...
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:If an act is wrong because it is a breach of another person's inherent right, then yes it's wrong whoever does it.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
if racial discrimination is wrong, then it's wrong regardless of whether you're doing it in the name of your country, your employer or yourself. And if it's OK then it's OK regardless of whether you're doing it in the name of your country, your employer or yourself.
As you keep telling us, you can't have the same thing being right or wrong depending on who does it.
quote:I disagree. In elections politicians frequently make promises to the electorate that on further reflection are seen to be foolish and ill-advised. Whether they had deliberately lied to the electorate or not in giving such undertakings they would be remiss to pursue them further if judged to be inimical to the public good.
Russ:........... keeping promises being a universal moral duty -
quote:Thank you Doc Tor. Spot on.
But perhaps you didn't know that. I certainly did.
quote:Do you regard racial discrimination as such an act?
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:If an act is wrong because it is a breach of another person's inherent right, then yes it's wrong whoever does it.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
if racial discrimination is wrong, then it's wrong regardless of whether you're doing it in the name of your country, your employer or yourself. And if it's OK then it's OK regardless of whether you're doing it in the name of your country, your employer or yourself.
As you keep telling us, you can't have the same thing being right or wrong depending on who does it.
quote:OK, so if your employer instructs you to break a promise to a contractor because it would be in their interests to do so, are you free to act on your notions of honesty to the detriment of your employer? I'm guessing you'll say "yes", because you view keeping promises as a universal moral duty.
But some things are wrong for you to do because you've promised not to do them - keeping promises being a universal moral duty
...
If you accept a salary in return for acting in the interests of your employer, then you're not free to act on your notions of social progress to the detriment of your employer.
quote:That's still begging the question: why should it matter whether or not the government serves everyone equally if individuals don't have to? If government treating people unfairly is wrong, why is it ok for individuals to do it? Why is treating people fairly an "extra" duty for government but not a "moral" duty for all citizens?
Originally posted by Russ:
If an act is wrong because it is a breach of another person's inherent right, then yes it's wrong whoever does it.
...
If you take a vow to protect and to serve the community, then you're not free to indulge your prejudices as to who's deserving of your protection and service. ...
You're bound by the moral duties that bind everyone and by the extra duties to which you've bound yourself by your promise.
...
quote:I agree - it doesn't abolish any right. I'd venture to suggest that a right can only be extinguished by consent (you agree to waive it), by wrongdoing (you forfeit it as punishment) or by death.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Does the previous owner still have a moral right in the case that the shopkeeper bought it in innocence? That doesn't seem like the sort of thing that ought to abolish a right.
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
so if your employer instructs you to break a promise to a contractor because it would be in their interests to do so, are you free to act on your notions of honesty to the detriment of your employer? I'm guessing you'll say "yes", because you view keeping promises as a universal moral duty.
quote:Turning that around, so it's a statement about the social progressive mindset rather than about my (possibly idiosyncratic) view of the world, you seem to be saying that s-p people believe in a moral duty to be colourblind.
you don't think people have the inherent right to be treated the same way regardless of their race.
No wonder you have such a problem understanding social progressives.
quote:Oddly enough, that's what most thieves believe as well. Even continents have been stolen with that rationale.
Originally posted by Russ:
... I'm driven to the conclusion that possession over time confers a right of ownership. That our right, while not extinguished, is nonetheless now less than someone else's.
quote:That's one way of admitting it, I suppose. Though I think accepting racism counts as a bit more than "idiosyncratic".
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Turning that around, so it's a statement about the social progressive mindset rather than about my (possibly idiosyncratic) view of the world
you don't think people have the inherent right to be treated the same way regardless of their race.
No wonder you have such a problem understanding social progressives.
quote:No, I'm saying they believe in a moral duty not to discriminate against people based on their race. Whether that includes a duty to correct the ongoing effects of historical discrimination or merely means treating everyone the same in the modern day is a moot point, especially given the fact that whichever of those options is chosen you will reject it as an unfair abrogation of people's innate right to be racists.
you seem to be saying that s-p people believe in a moral duty to be colourblind.
quote:If you mean "Levelling the playing field" then you're bang on. The playing field didn't get its shape and slope by accident.
Originally posted by Russ:
<snippety-snip>
My experience on these boards is that this mindset scorns colourblindness in favour of pro-ethnic-minority action such as "reverse discrimination".
quote:I think that's right, but would also want to say that though largely moot for the purpose of this discussion, questions about what can, in practical terms, be done to correct past injustices, and whether doing whatever can be done with that objective might violate some other principle of fairness, are real, and often difficult, ones.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
No, I'm saying they believe in a moral duty not to discriminate against people based on their race. Whether that includes a duty to correct the ongoing effects of historical discrimination or merely means treating everyone the same in the modern day is a moot point [...]
quote:would be a clear example - it sets out the problem as being one of collectivist justice between different groups characterising all straight white men as playing for the same "team", and having a common interest against other groups.
in the course of conversation with colleagues, I described some of the current political spectacles as "the last stand of the straight white man." [...] Obviously, those who have been playing with no opponents on a sloping field will be disturbed by any attempt to level the field or let other teams on to the field. They will consider it "unfair". They will think they are being made to "atone" for having won all those games so easily in the past. Now the referees are taking away their "rights" with those pesky rules about fouling other players.
quote:If you believe that the end-state "equality of outcome" justifies the use of means that you call wrong when other people use them in pursuit of their ends, then that's a particular approach to ethics.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Yeah, that's to obtain equality of outcome. You know, justice, righteousness.
quote:Actually it's more about how you define the means and the end in any scenario.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:If you believe that the end-state "equality of outcome" justifies the use of means that you call wrong when other people use them in pursuit of their ends, then that's a particular approach to ethics.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Yeah, that's to obtain equality of outcome. You know, justice, righteousness.
quote:That is funny. And sadly accurate.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I Think All People Should Be Treated Equally, Regardless of Whether Their Skin is White or Purple or Green or Black or Black or Black or Black or Black
quote:Russ gets a bit pretzeled-up about racial discrimination. To take an historical example, a school system that's racially segregated by law, such as existed in the American south in the first half of the twentieth century, would seem to meet all of Russ' criteria for moral action. The members of the New Orleans School Board personally believed in racial segregation, their employer had a policy that black and white students should not attend the same schools, and their employer was also the government, which held the same policies. And yet Russ somewhat inexplicably claims Ruby Bridges has the same right to attend William Frantz Elementary School as her white age peers. It's almost as if he's spinning out post hoc justifications for what he personally feels are the "right" answers, regardless of whether they contradict his previously stated beliefs. This is called "universal morality".
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Do you regard racial discrimination as such an act?
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:If an act is wrong because it is a breach of another person's inherent right, then yes it's wrong whoever does it.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
if racial discrimination is wrong, then it's wrong regardless of whether you're doing it in the name of your country, your employer or yourself. And if it's OK then it's OK regardless of whether you're doing it in the name of your country, your employer or yourself.
As you keep telling us, you can't have the same thing being right or wrong depending on who does it.
quote:If I say "I believe murder is a horrible crime. And I'll kill anyone who thinks differently..." you won't take me seriously. Because the second half undermines the first.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
No, I'm saying they believe in a moral duty not to discriminate against people based on their race. Whether that includes a duty to correct the ongoing effects of historical discrimination...
quote:You want to draw a line between those who share your views on race, gender and homosexuality and those who don't. And say to everyone your side of the line "we're all good guys here, let's not over-state our differences."
Originally posted by Eliab:
I would prefer to assume, until convinced of the contrary, that the discussion between the "progressive" and the more "classically liberal" sides of the issue represent an in-group tactical conference within an alliance of non-racist/non-sexist/non-homophobic people who share the common objective of being fair to everyone, than as a clash between two (or more) different mindsets.
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I Think All People Should Be Treated Equally, Regardless of Whether Their Skin is White or Purple or Green or Black or Black or Black or Black or Black
quote:Some people argue that a legitimate government can do whatever it wants. I've said I don't agree with that, and that a government has a duty to respect the moral rights of individuals, and a duty to serve all the people.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
To take an historical example, a school system that's racially segregated by law, such as existed in the American south in the first half of the twentieth century, would seem to meet all of Russ' criteria for moral action. The members of the New Orleans School Board personally believed in racial segregation, their employer had a policy that black and white students should not attend the same schools, and their employer was also the government, which held the same policies. And yet Russ somewhat inexplicably claims Ruby Bridges has the same right to attend William Frantz Elementary School as her white age peers.
quote:It's only possible to treat everybody the same way if everybody is the same to start with.
Originally posted by Russ:
You're talking nonsense. Because if you think it's OK to treat people of different races differently in pursuit of the aim of righting historic wrongs then you evidently don't believe in a moral duty not to discriminate, i.e. to treat people of different races differently.
quote:No - I'm addressing your question of whether s-p is a distinct mindset that it's worth discussing. Once you'd made it clear that although you see anti-racism as a mark of social progressiveness, being anti-racist doesn't necessarily make someone s-p, it's reasonable to ask whether dividing up the non-racists into s-p/non-s-p sides is a useful thing to do.
Originally posted by Russ:
You want to draw a line between those who share your views on race, gender and homosexuality and those who don't.
quote:I'm not saying that all the anti-racists are "good" - and have acknowledged that there can be real differences of principle in terms of what justice requires amongst anti-racists (ones that I've been quite willing to argue vociferously elsewhere, as I'll call lilBuddha to witness).
And say to everyone your side of the line "we're all good guys here, let's not over-state our differences."
quote:Good thing that my side is both liberal and progressive, then. I don't think we'll be needing to send our white hats and haloes back to store just yet.
In reply I say to you that being your side of that line doesn't make you one of the good guys.
What makes you one of the good guys is how fair and tolerant and respecting of their rights you're prepared to be to those who don't share your views. On any issue.
quote:You could probably persuade me on "people who do bad things often justify it by thinking of themselves as good", but no, it's not generally true that it works the other way around, and people who think themselves good automatically use that to justify doing bad things.
It's the people who are convinced they're the good guys who are prepared to do bad things to their opponents.
quote:Well, clearly: you've called racists racist, and racists don't like to be called racist because they know that most people these days don't like racists and they'd rather not be known as racists, in case people don't like them.
Originally posted by Eliab:
But - specifics? In what way has my opinion that being anti-racist is good caused me to do bad things to my opponents?
quote:Not sure it matters: they aren't often well-liked in the first place.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Well, clearly: you've called racists racist, and racists don't like to be called racist because they know that most people these days don't like racists and they'd rather not be known as racists, in case people don't like them.
Originally posted by Eliab:
But - specifics? In what way has my opinion that being anti-racist is good caused me to do bad things to my opponents?
And that's bad.
quote:We'd all like to like ourselves however and it's hard to square that with being told one is racist. Cognitive dissonance, innit?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Not sure it matters: they aren't often well-liked in the first place.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Well, clearly: you've called racists racist, and racists don't like to be called racist because they know that most people these days don't like racists and they'd rather not be known as racists, in case people don't like them.
Originally posted by Eliab:
But - specifics? In what way has my opinion that being anti-racist is good caused me to do bad things to my opponents?
And that's bad.
quote:You've implied that you think people who commit murder thereby lose their right to life. So I don't think you're entirely committed to this principle.
Originally posted by Russ:
If I say "I believe murder is a horrible crime. And I'll kill anyone who thinks differently..." you won't take me seriously. Because the second half undermines the first.
quote:Don't treat people of different races differently is your gloss of the principle. It's evidently oversimplified.
You're talking nonsense. Because if you think it's OK to treat people of different races differently in pursuit of the aim of righting historic wrongs then you evidently don't believe in a moral duty not to discriminate, i.e. to treat people of different races differently.
quote:There are many things that government can/cannot do which citizens cannot/can. It does seem weird that citizens that doesn't believe all citizens are equal would end up with a government that treats them as equals.
Originally posted by Russ:
... But sending black kids to worse schools seems to me a breach of the duty to serve all the people.
(A duty which private individuals don't have).
quote:I notice that you're deliberately avoiding using the word "equally" here. It would seem an obvious modifier since a student attending an inferior school is still being "served" by the government, just not as well as one attending the better school down the street.
Originally posted by Russ:
Some people argue that a legitimate government can do whatever it wants. I've said I don't agree with that, and that a government has a duty to respect the moral rights of individuals, and a duty to serve all the people.
I don't see that a child has an inherent pre-existing right to attend any particular school.
But sending black kids to worse schools seems to me a breach of the duty to serve all the people.
(A duty which private individuals don't have).
quote:Russ is actually on record agreeing with that. He doesn't seem to consider that being singled out by the state in and of itself creates an inherently unequal situation.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So you'd be cool with separate white and black schools as long as the black ones weren't worse than the white ones?
quote:Seems weird to you. You come from a society (as do I) with the notion of "public". Where motor dealers, insurance brokers etc advertise their wares to the public, And therefore have an obligation, arising from the moral duty of promise-keeping, to sell what they've offered to any member of the public.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
But it is more than weird to have a society where e.g. women - or black people, or gay people, or Jewish people - are entitled to government services but can denied service by private individuals. They cannot be denied a driver's licence, but other citizens can refuse to sell them a car, refuse them insurance, refuse to sell them gas, refuse to let them park their car in the mall parking lot, refuse to repair their car ....
quote:Unless, of course, a member of the public wants to buy The Joy of Gay Sex and a cake with two grooms. Then all of a sudden, the baker doesn't do custom cakes and the bookseller doesn't do special orders. We've been through this.
Originally posted by Russ:
... Where motor dealers, insurance brokers etc advertise their wares to the public, And therefore have an obligation, arising from the moral duty of promise-keeping, to sell what they've offered to any member of the public...
quote:Here in Ireland it is relatively common for secondary schools to be single-sex. There are mixed schools also, but there are probably rural towns which have only an all-boys school and an all-girls school.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So you'd be cool with separate white and black schools as long as the black ones weren't worse than the white ones?
quote:Wait. You are seriously comparing separate education of boys/girls - which in the UK (presumably also in Ireland) has no clear educational impoverishment of either - with segregation by skin colour. Which almost always leads to black and brown people getting a shit education whilst white kids get all the good schools, teachers and outcomes.
Originally posted by Russ:
ere in Ireland it is relatively common for secondary schools to be single-sex. There are mixed schools also, but there are probably rural towns which have only an all-boys school and an all-girls school.
Whilst that wouldn't be my preference, it doesn't seem to me to breach anyone's moral rights.
quote:I'm sorry, there is a clear link between segregation and abuse of black people. You might say that this is not inevitable, but the history books say otherwise.
I'm guessing that you have an aversion to racially-segregated schools because of their associations in your mind. Associations with various last-century regimes in majority-white countries which did commit the wrongs of denying black people equal legal rights and equally-good state education.
Rather than a moral philosophy which views segregation as inherently wrong.
But I'm guessing.
quote:I'm not going to argue with you about Grammar schools and single sex education, other than to say you've been shown to be wrong over and over again.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm not going to argue that these educations were remotely 'equal'.
quote:Wrong. There is no legal obligation (in common law) upon a shopkeeper to sell at the advertised price. They're legally entitled to auction off the last item in stock if they so choose. It's not a promise but an invitation. (You could say an announcement of intention rather than a promise.)
Originally posted by Russ:
Where motor dealers, insurance brokers etc advertise their wares to the public, And therefore have an obligation, arising from the moral duty of promise-keeping, to sell what they've offered to any member of the public.
quote:mr cheesy, you might have quoted in your support the US Supreme Court judgement of 1954 in Brown v Topeka Board of Education, which ruled that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."
mr cheesy: I'm sorry, there is a clear link between segregation and abuse of black people.
quote:I have no idea where this has come from, whether you're mistaking me for someone else, or misremembering previous conversations.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I'm not going to argue with you about Grammar schools and single sex education, other than to say you've been shown to be wrong over and over again.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm not going to argue that these educations were remotely 'equal'.
quote:Maybe you should stop writing shite and pretending it is coming from me. I've never said that and there is nothing inevitable about Grammar schools and segregation by class.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Perhaps there's some measure of agreement between you and Russ that separate education (of middle-class and working-class children) is equal?
quote:Knock yourself out. If you support grammar schools and the 11+, you encourage the segregation of the children of the middle classes from the children of working classes.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Maybe you should stop writing shite and pretending it is coming from me. I've never said that and there is nothing inevitable about Grammar schools and segregation by class.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Perhaps there's some measure of agreement between you and Russ that separate education (of middle-class and working-class children) is equal?
quote:Shall we call it the Russ approach to ethics?
Originally posted by Russ:
If you believe that the end-state "equality of outcome" justifies the use of means that you call wrong when other people use them in pursuit of their ends, then that's a particular approach to ethics.
quote:Bullshit. If you live in a suburb in the catchment of a good comprehensive, then you support class segregation.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If you support grammar schools and the 11+, you encourage the segregation of the children of the middle classes from the children of working classes.
quote:I think segregation by attainment is far, far more justifiable than segregation by the catchment you happen to live in. But that's just me, I guess.
You might see this is as a good thing. You're entitled to your opinion. What you can't have are your own facts.
quote:Separation by class is at best a problem but the worst aspect of the 11+ was that it was based on faked evidence (mostly using twins that had been brought up separately - yes you Professor Cyril Burt
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Bullshit. If you live in a suburb in the catchment of a good comprehensive, then you support class segregation.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If you support grammar schools and the 11+, you encourage the segregation of the children of the middle classes from the children of working classes.
quote:I think segregation by attainment is far, far more justifiable than segregation by the catchment you happen to live in. But that's just me, I guess.
You might see this is as a good thing. You're entitled to your opinion. What you can't have are your own facts.
). The crowning evil however was that the "grammar schools" received far better resources, resulting in smaller classes, and that has been perpetuated to those comprehensives based predominantly on grammars rather than new schools or and those based on secondary moderns.
quote:This isn't true and hasn't been for many years. Grammar schools simple do not have far more resources and in the list of school spending per pupil are a long way down the list. As they should be.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The crowning evil however was that the "grammar schools" received far better resources, resulting in smaller classes, and that has been perpetuated to those comprehensives based predominantly on grammars rather than new schools or and those based on secondary moderns.
quote:Well when I was in a Grammar school, a long time it has to be admitted, our class sizes were typically about 30. Secondary modern classes on the other hand were in the upper 30's and my wife attended a school with typically 40 per class and three per desk for two.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:This isn't true and hasn't been for many years. Grammar schools simple do not have far more resources and in the list of school spending per pupil are a long way down the list. As they should be.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The crowning evil however was that the "grammar schools" received far better resources, resulting in smaller classes, and that has been perpetuated to those comprehensives based predominantly on grammars rather than new schools or and those based on secondary moderns.
quote:Yes, it is just you.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think segregation by attainment is far, far more justifiable than segregation by the catchment you happen to live in. But that's just me, I guess.
quote:My child has only ever got As in every exam they've taken and is at university. Not that this kind of boasting aids either side of the argument.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Yes, it is just you. [/I]
No, it really isn't.
we had a choice as to which secondary the Torlets went to - and many rural people don't - so we chose carefully.
I didn't. I lived in a poor area in a run-down rented house in a run-down neglected town and my kid went to the Grammar. It was entirely possible for people from poorer areas to go to the school and do well.
[Quote]
School A was a 'Christian ethos' academy which was selective by interview, very strict, excellent exam results. It has 8% (and falling) of the roll on the Pupil Premium.
School B was a bog-standard comp still (at the time) under LEA control. It has 50%+ (and rising) of the roll on Pupil Premium.
After much discussion with the kids, and the head of the comp, that's where the Torlets both went. Both are now at Russell Group universities studying STEM subjects. Master Tor managed to get 3 As at A level.
quote:Yeah, yeah whatever. Obviously.
So, yes. I put my money where my mouth is. And I reiterate: anyone who supports the grammar school system is supporting segregation by class. The idea that the 11+ is 'segregation by attainment' is deluding themselves.
quote:Yes, grammar schools preferentially select children from "nice middle class homes". So do local schools with catchment areas - take a school which mostly serves a relatively wealthy part of town, and compare it to the neighbouring school that serves mostly council housing, including a couple of "sink" estates.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So, yes. I put my money where my mouth is. And I reiterate: anyone who supports the grammar school system is supporting segregation by class. The idea that the 11+ is 'segregation by attainment' is deluding themselves.
quote:I went to a Grammar school 30 years ago and it wasn't like that, my child went to grammar school in the last 10 years and it wasn't like that.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I suppose my rock solid anecdata doesn't count but where are your sources?
quote:I taught in both types of school 30 years ago and that was my experience - my largest class was 39.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Well when I was in a Grammar school, a long time it has to be admitted, our class sizes were typically about 30. Secondary modern classes on the other hand were in the upper 30's and my wife attended a school with typically 40 per class and three per desk for two.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:This isn't true and hasn't been for many years. Grammar schools simple do not have far more resources and in the list of school spending per pupil are a long way down the list. As they should be.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The crowning evil however was that the "grammar schools" received far better resources, resulting in smaller classes, and that has been perpetuated to those comprehensives based predominantly on grammars rather than new schools or and those based on secondary moderns.
I suppose my rock solid anecdata doesn't count but where are your sources?
quote:Fixed that for you.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Even though throughout your life you have been offered things based on your parents' attainment
quote:Really. You were accepted for a doctoral programme based on your parent's attainment?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Fixed that for you.
quote:Yeah, that sort of thing never happens.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Really. You were accepted for a doctoral programme based on your parent's attainment?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Fixed that for you.
I don't believe it.
quote:I'm sure it does happen, but I'm equally sure it didn't happen to Doc Tor. He got into uni both times on merit, as did his kids.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yeah, that sort of thing never happens.
quote:It is a fair point.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think segregation by attainment is far, far more justifiable than segregation by the catchment you happen to live in.
quote:There are plenty of people, particularly poor, who would benefit from attending the local grammar school in counties like Kent but who never get the chance.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It is a fair point.
On the other hand, I believe it is recognised that just as IQ tests test for the ability to pass IQ tests, so grammar school entrance exams these days chiefly test for training in passing grammar school entrance exams. That training is far more easily available to wealthier people. So the selection by attainment effect of grammar schools is rather lower than you suggest.
quote:Then by that measure, it isn't the fault of Grammars that the testing system is messed up.
Furthermore, once upon a time, before Maggie sold off the country's supply of council housing, urban planners made a conscious effort to distribute council housing widely so that the effect of segregation by catchment was lessened. That's largely not the fault of advocates of the comprehensive system.
quote:Actually that seems pretty reasonable to me.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Let's say I have to recruit a team member. My team is currently all white, male, middle class.
The end I have in mind is to recruit the candidate who both:
(1) meets the criteria for the post in the best way; and
(2) improves the team's performance by bringing a very different perspective, life experience and fit to potential clients...
...I doubt we'll ever agree on this, but so be it.
quote:Asserting the second sentence rather implies that you have an answer to the question in the first.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
The first issue is what do we understand by ‘social progressive’ and what is the alternative? As Dafyd pointed out, social progressives can stand for a variety of approaches to public policy
quote:Russ, I don’t have an implied answer to my question, nor, with respect, is it my task to provide one since you raised the issue. ISTM that you are critical of the social-progressive mindset but don’t seem to be offering an alternative. What other mind-sets do you identify? And which of them do you prefer? I think an answer to those question would be a great help in clarifying the current debate.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
The first issue is what do we understand by ‘social progressive’ and what is the alternative? As Dafyd pointed out, social progressives can stand for a variety of approaches to public policy
Russ: Asserting the second sentence rather implies that you have an answer to the question in the first.
quote:Yes. Real inclusion means giving everyone the opportunity to fulfil their potential, increasing productivity and improving group decision-making. The challenge always is determining what is involved in giving everyone opportunity - but if the current outcome is *not* inclusive, and therefore, as a consequence, productivity and performance are unlikely to be optimal, it follows that we need to do something differently.
Originally posted by Russ:
Presumably your principled approach would mean that if your team were currently all black females, then you'd be arguing that team performance would be improved by the recruitment of a white male ? And that you'd therefore - amongst those fully qualified for the job - give preference to white male applicants ? Are you comfortable with that ?
quote:Actually, in tenders, we're seeing competitors being ruled out for presenting non-inclusive teams. Our clients are ahead of us, so there is a lot of hope for the future, even if things are moving slowly.
Originally posted by Russ:
I suspect there are also jobs - pethaps in sales - where making a good impression on potential clients in the first five seconds is a critical success factor, but that may well not be the case in whatever industry you're thinking of.
quote:I think that's a potentially illuminating analogy.
Originally posted by Russ:
Seems to me that "progress" is used in two related senses. One is to do with movement towards a subjective goal. If you want our ship to sail to the north and I want it to sail to the south, then a wind that blows us northward is progress to you and a backward step to me.
And the other usage refers to an objective increase in abilities that assists us towards whatever goal we may have. Like getting the engine working.
quote:I'd agree that that isn't a breach of anyone's rights.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
For example, testing people with West African ancestors for sickle-cell anaemia is treating people of different races differently but isn't discrimination in any objectionable sense.
quote:That's an utterly ridiculous statement.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I'd agree that that isn't a breach of anyone's rights.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
For example, testing people with West African ancestors for sickle-cell anaemia is treating people of different races differently but isn't discrimination in any objectionable sense.
Do you accept that it is, technically racial discrimination ?
And therefore go on to draw the obvious conclusion - that racial discrimination is not something that is inherently & axiomatically morally wrong ?
So that when faced with examples of someone treating someone else unjustly because of their race, it's not wrong because it's racial discrimination, it's wrong for another reason ?
It may, for example, be wrong because someone is acting in circumstances where they have a duty not to judge using irrelevant criteria ?
Or does your thinking not get that far ?
quote:No. The word 'discrimination' has several senses, one of which is specifically unjust treatment. In the phrase 'racial discrimination' it is used in that sense.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Do you accept that it is, technically racial discrimination ?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
For example, testing people with West African ancestors for sickle-cell anaemia is treating people of different races differently but isn't discrimination in any objectionable sense.
quote:As noted, 'racial discrimination' refers only to unjust treatment because of race. The above sentence is therefore equivalent to saying that when faced with examples of someone killing someone else unjustly, it's not wrong because it's murder, it's wrong for another reason.
So that when faced with examples of someone treating someone else unjustly because of their race, it's not wrong because it's racial discrimination, it's wrong for another reason ?
quote:Would you agree that someone always has a duty not to cause someone else material disadvantage based on irrelevant criteria?
It may, for example, be wrong because someone is acting in circumstances where they have a duty not to judge using irrelevant criteria ?
quote:You think that's far?
Or does your thinking not get that far ?
quote:No. You're trying to write your value judgement "unjust" into the definition of the act, thereby preventing any serious consideration of the rights and wrongs of the act.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
'racial discrimination' refers only to unjust treatment because of race.
quote:No I wouldn't. I suggest to you that private individuals are rightly free to make choices in their own lives - which pub to go to of an evening, whom to invite to go with them - on the basis of whatever criteria seem good to the individual concerned.
Would you agree that someone always has a duty not to cause someone else material disadvantage based on irrelevant criteria?
quote:No. If someone has been robbed, "rectifying" that by giving them some of your own money is acting within your rights. "Rectifying" it by stealing money from a random stranger to give to them isn't. The fact that you are trying to right a past wrong does not increase your rights to act in any way. It may take away from the rights of the particular individual who committed the original wrong.
You haven't specifically questioned the principle that if someone has been unfairly treated in the past, it is not unfair to try to rectify that. May I take it that's agreed?
quote:It's a recognised definition of the word:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:No. You're trying to write your value judgement "unjust" into the definition of the act, thereby preventing any serious consideration of the rights and wrongs of the act.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
'racial discrimination' refers only to unjust treatment because of race.
quote:OED.
5. Unjust or prejudicial treatment of a person or group, esp. on the grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
quote:I suggest to you that this is not to the point.
quote:No I wouldn't. I suggest to you that private individuals are rightly free to make choices in their own lives - which pub to go to of an evening, whom to invite to go with them - on the basis of whatever criteria seem good to the individual concerned.
Would you agree that someone always has a duty not to cause someone else material disadvantage based on irrelevant criteria?
quote:If this is the outcome of choices based on relevant criteria: the beer in the pub run by the black man isn't as good or the chairs are uncomfortable, then that's ok. If that is the outcome of choices based on criteria that they don't want black people running pubs round here then it is not morally ok. Though they may still be legally free to do that.
Whether or not that means that the black guy who tries running a pub doesn't make a profit. Whether or not that means that the pub becomes a male-dominated environment where women feel less than totally comfortable.
quote:Obviously not. If you take somebody else's property without permission you do not get let off because you were acting on your own behalf and hadn't promised not to.
The duty to act only on relevant considerations kicks in when you act on behalf of others, or when you bind yourself by promises.
quote:I ask you a question about fairness and unfairness and you respond with an answer about rights. What do you accuse me of? Trying to confuse other people's sense of right and wrong by resorting to abstraction? It doesn't get much more abstract than talk of rights and duties, does it?
quote:No. If someone has been robbed, "rectifying" that by giving them some of your own money is acting within your rights. "Rectifying" it by stealing money from a random stranger to give to them isn't.
You haven't specifically questioned the principle that if someone has been unfairly treated in the past, it is not unfair to try to rectify that. May I take it that's agreed?
quote:If you mean "inflict injury" literally, then you're right, that's not a morally permissible choice (apart from exceptional cases such as preventing a wrongdoer from committing a serious crime).
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Furthermore, if an individual in their own life makes a choice according to criteria that seem good to them to inflict injury on someone else, you do not therefore consider it permissible.
quote:And if people feel more comfortable with those from their own culture, is that comfort a relevant consideration for where to spend leisure time ?
If this is the outcome of choices based on relevant criteria: the beer in the pub run by the black man isn't as good or the chairs are uncomfortable, then that's ok. If that is the outcome of choices based on criteria that they don't want black people running pubs round here then it is not morally ok.
quote:Of course not. The right to property is a different right from the right that is infringed by genuine cases of "unfair discrimination".
If you take somebody else's property without permission you do not get let off because you were acting on your own behalf and hadn't promised not to.
quote:"Amen to that," cry the ignored!
Russ: You don't have a moral duty to give everyone in the world an equal chance at enjoying the pleasure of your company.
quote:The point here being that your suggestion:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:If you mean "inflict injury" literally, then you're right, that's not a morally permissible choice (apart from exceptional cases such as preventing a wrongdoer from committing a serious crime).
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Furthermore, if an individual in their own life makes a choice according to criteria that seem good to them to inflict injury on someone else, you do not therefore consider it permissible.
However, if you mean it in the sense of "injuring someone's interests", then that's not sufficient to constitute a moral wrong.
quote:does nothing to establish which interests may be injured. Nor have you established a clear dividing line here with your reference to physical injury, since theft and promise breaking are not physical injury.
I suggest to you that private individuals are rightly free to make choices in their own lives
quote:As it stands this sentence means that moral wrongs are things that are morally wrong.
I'm arguing for wrongs being trespasses against the moral rights of others, and people being morally free within those boundaries.
quote:No, I'm a Catholic Aristotelian.
You've said you believe in imperfect moral duties, which shrink the space for free action to nothing at all. If every penny you have and every minute of your life is something that you have an unsatisfiable moral duty to devote to others in need, then the notion of a morally free choice may seem strange. Are you a Calvinist, by any chance ?
quote:Why do you think there must be exact boundaries? Common sense morality takes it that that there are gradations.
And if people feel more comfortable with those from their own culture, is that comfort a relevant consideration for where to spend leisure time?
You're saying that the act is morally OK or not based on the reason that underlies the preference.
Where exactly do you think the boundary lies between OK reasons and non-OK reasons ? Given that people generally have mixed motives, subconscious drives, etc.
quote:Assuming that you are not acting on anyone else's behalf and you haven't made the contestants any personal promises, what on your account is wrong with that?
quote:Of course not. The right to property is a different right from the right that is infringed by genuine cases of "unfair discrimination".
If you take somebody else's property without permission you do not get let off because you were acting on your own behalf and hadn't promised not to.
If you hold an egg-and-spoon race and then give the prize to someone other than the winner, because you like the runner-up best, then that's unfair.
quote:It may help this conversation along if you explained your understanding of "the moral rights of others". A list will suffice.
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm arguing for wrongs being trespasses against the moral rights of others, and people being morally free within those boundaries.
quote:I think Russ' argument here boils down to:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
As it stands this sentence means that moral wrongs are things that are morally wrong.
quote:I think Russ's objection to "People have the moral right to be treated equally regardless of their race" is twofold. Firstly, he disagrees that there is an obligation to treat others "equally" at all - which is where the state/individual distinction comes from, the state having equal obligations to all citizens, but private individuals not having any equivalent duty.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I think Russ' argument here boils down to:
- Only things that violate the moral rights of others are wrong
- People do not have the moral right to be treated equally regardless of their race
- Therefore there's nothing wrong with racism
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Eliab:
Firstly, he disagrees that there is an obligation to treat others "equally" at all - which is where the state/individual distinction comes from, the state having equal obligations to all citizens, but private individuals not having any equivalent duty.
quote:I don't think that can be true.
Secondly, he appears to think that motivation is essentially irrelevant to ethics.
quote:"Because you're black" isn't an intent. I'd tend to agree that boycotting a particular pub in the hope that the landlord will thereby go bankrupt and starve to death is uncharitable.
Thus if it's not a violation of your rights for me not to drink in your pub [because I'm teetotal] then it's not a violation of your rights for me not to drink in your pub [because you're black].
quote:I didn't set out to develop a scheme of ethics. I find myself trying to put forward an alternative to the s-p mindset, because those who identify with that mindset seem to think that their way of looking at things is obvious and natural and free of assumptions.
Russ's scheme jettisons all virtue ethics (a fairly significant part of the Christian moral tradition) in favour of a system of strict rights and duties regardless of intention. I don't see that as an improvement.
quote:Sort of, but his position is something of a contradictory mish-mash. For example, he claims that there is an individual right to not associate with others due to their race, and that the state should not interfere with that individual right, yet he's also on record as being in favor of (or at least not opposed to) the state violating the rights of white students who don't want to attend classes with non-white students.
Originally posted by Eliab:
I think Russ's objection to "People have the moral right to be treated equally regardless of their race" is twofold. Firstly, he disagrees that there is an obligation to treat others "equally" at all - which is where the state/individual distinction comes from, the state having equal obligations to all citizens, but private individuals not having any equivalent duty.
quote:I don't see anything controversial in saying that it is good to be brave and kind.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
the formula being that to act virtuously is to do what a virtuous person would do for the reason a virtuous person would do it in the way a virtuous person would do it. (This looks tautologous until filled out empirically.) Precisely because people have complicated and subconscious motives those motives are the subject of morality within Aristotelian or virtue ethics. Hence the existence of terms describing moral character traits, such as cowardice or cruelty or kindness
quote:The concept of a race includes an implied promise that first across the line (having complied with any other rules) wins the prize.
quote:Assuming that you are not acting on anyone else's behalf and you haven't made the contestants any personal promises, what on your account is wrong with that?
If you hold an egg-and-spoon race and then give the prize to someone other than the winner, because you like the runner-up best, then that's unfair.
quote:Literally none of us are saying this. This is a strawman we've burnt to the ground time and time again, but you don't seem to be able to take that on board.
Originally posted by Russ:
You may think it's cosmically unfair that some people are born with the talents that the job requires and some aren't. But that's a separate question, that you should take up with God rather than with the interviewer.
quote:Good in what way? The only moral considerations you recognise are rights and duties. So if kindness and bravery aren't morally good then what kind of good are they? I don't think your professed concepts have a place for them.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I don't see anything controversial in saying that it is good to be brave and kind.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Hence the existence of terms describing moral character traits, such as cowardice or cruelty or kindness
quote:Aristotle has a different framework and the concept of a supererogatory act doesn't really fit. (One of his famous positions is that virtue is a mean between two extremes, so giving away too much is just as much a departure from generosity as giving too little.)
Does Aristotle have anything to say about the distinction between moral duty and supererogatory morally good acts ?
quote:The category of 'implied promise' seems to me to be rather vague.
If we do visit this pub, it would be kind of you to buy me a drink. But - in the absence of any circumstantial explicit or implied promise to do so - I'd say that you don't have a duty to buy me a drink. And I don't have a right to drink at your expense.
quote:As I've said, I that promises are a Procrustean bed on which to put the particular moral obligations here.
In much the same way that holding job interviews implies a promise that whoever can best convince the interviewer that they'd be really good at the job will be offered the job.
quote:In the abstract this is true. However, as you note, if you consider matters in the abstract you confuse your sense of right and wrong.
Thirdly, I don't believe that race has any particular moral significance. If an act that you commit against a black person because you have an irrational dislike for black people is wrong then it would be wrong when committed against a Scotsman because of an irrational dislike of Scotsmen. The blackness or Scottishness is neither the act nor the intent.
quote:And I'd agree that for the majority of jobs these are irrelevant factors. And have said that awarding jobs on the basis of irrelevant factors is wrong, being a breach of universal moral duties - the manager's contractual duty to the employer, and the duty to keep the implied promise to the job applicants.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What we actually think is cosmically unfair is that some people, when it comes to deciding what the talents for the job are, think that white and straight and male are over-riding factors.
quote:Exactly the argument an 'intellectual racist' would use, manufacturing reasons why being white is such an important part of the job description.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:And I'd agree that for the majority of jobs these are irrelevant factors. And have said that awarding jobs on the basis of irrelevant factors is wrong, being a breach of universal moral duties - the manager's contractual duty to the employer, and the duty to keep the implied promise to the job applicants.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What we actually think is cosmically unfair is that some people, when it comes to deciding what the talents for the job are, think that white and straight and male are over-riding factors.
What I'm saying is that the irrelevant factor being race (rather than height, left-handedness or anything else) does not create any new moral duty.
And that in order to make the case that any hirer is guilty of this wrong, it is necessary to show that the factor is in fact irrelevant for this particular job. And not merely "would be irrelevant in an ideal world".
quote:There is surely some incongruity in holding simultaneously that race never has any moral relevance and yet that it may be sometimes relevant to whether a candidate is best suited for a particular job.
Originally posted by Russ:
And that in order to make the case that any hirer is guilty of this wrong, it is necessary to show that the factor is in fact irrelevant for this particular job.
quote:I humbly apologise for all the times my presence, or that of any of my fellow ethnics, has destroyed the traditional local* ambience of your pub.
Originally posted by Russ:
Preferring another pub because of its traditional local ambience is a different intention.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
quote:Is this "local" enough?
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:I humbly apologise for all the times my presence, or that of any of my fellow ethnics, has destroyed the traditional local* ambience of your pub.
Originally posted by Russ:
Preferring another pub because of its traditional local ambience is a different intention.
*racist
quote:A local pub for local people?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Is this "local" enough?
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:I humbly apologise for all the times my presence, or that of any of my fellow ethnics, has destroyed the traditional local* ambience of your pub.
Originally posted by Russ:
Preferring another pub because of its traditional local ambience is a different intention.
*racist
quote:Because "everyone wins" is just another way of saying "no-one wins".
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Why not set things up so everyone wins
quote:Because winning inevitably involves beating someone else? If you have a surplus of tomatoes and your neighbour carrots then if you swap tomatoes for carrots nobody wins?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Because "everyone wins" is just another way of saying "no-one wins".
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Why not set things up so everyone wins
quote:Good! No one gets to the top of the greasy pole, no one gets to lord it over anyone, no one gets gold whilst others eat shit.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Because "everyone wins" is just another way of saying "no-one wins".
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Why not set things up so everyone wins
quote:You are mistaken.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
We see straight through this alleged reasoning. It's racist.
quote:No, really I'm not.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:You are mistaken.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
We see straight through this alleged reasoning. It's racist.
quote:"Duty" seems to be an endlessly malleable term for Russ. For example, you'd think that New Orleans' segregationist school board was both "doing its duty" and "keeping its promises" when enforcing the racially discriminatory caste system enacted into law by Louisiana, but for some reason even Russ flinches back from that one, though he can't convincingly explain why.
Originally posted by Russ:
It says instead that your moral duty, today and every other day, is to keep your promises, leave other people's stuff alone, refrain from assaulting your neighbour, no matter how annoying he or she may be.
quote:This.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:No, really I'm not.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:You are mistaken.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
We see straight through this alleged reasoning. It's racist.
Non-racism, the sort which you appear to espouse, that allows people to choose not to serve, hire or otherwise interact with people of a different colour, is inherently and most definitely racist.
quote:No apology needed, Erroneous. You have the same right to drink there as every other member of the public. And the same right to look in the door, decide that it's full of grumpy old men, and choose to drink elsewhere.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I humbly apologise for all the times my presence, or that of any of my fellow ethnics, has destroyed the traditional local ambience of your pub.
quote:Whose choice are you talking about? Surely the customer's right of choice is going to be severely limited if the barman exercises his freedom of choice to exclude him.
Originally posted by Russ:
No apology needed, Erroneous. You have the same right to drink there as every other member of the public. And the same right to look in the door, decide that it's full of grumpy old men, and choose to drink elsewhere.
Surely you don't object that I extend to others the same right of choice ?
quote:Liking some people and not liking others is a fact of life, and is not of itself morally right or wrong.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
The position "I just don't actually like black people/Jews/Armenians/whatever" is racist and the end results are always evil.
quote:I'm not sure I get the distinction between "[a]n essentially imagined dislike" and "a non-rational dislike". Aren't imagined dislikes by definition non-rational?
Originally posted by Russ:
If someone says that they don't actually like Armenians, seems to me there are 3 broad possibilities.
a) a reasoned dislike, e.g. based on supposed Armenian collective responsibility for something that they are supposed to have done
b) a non-rational dislike of the otherness of Armenians
c) a prejudice, an attribution to all Armenians of characteristics that only some (possibly only a small minority) actually possess. An essentially imagined dislike.
quote:In other words, you don't think racism is evil.
Originally posted by Russ:
... I think you're objecting that my account of morality is not anti-racist. It doesn't identify racism with evil. ...
quote:Yes, obviously. That's what the word means.
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Because winning inevitably involves beating someone else?
quote:No, because in that scenario there is no contest to be won. You might as well say I "win" every time I do my weekly food shopping.
If you have a surplus of tomatoes and your neighbour carrots then if you swap tomatoes for carrots nobody wins?
quote:Or to put it another way, it asserts that the way the world is now is perfectly good and proper. That the white male dominance of politics, power and wealth is just the way things are, rather than the result of centuries of prejudice and oppression.
Originally posted by Russ:
And you're right. It ignores completely, denies the moral relevance of, the meta-narrative of the social progressives. The one that says Western civilisation is built entirely on the oppression of black people by white people, women by men, and gay people by straight people. The narrative that suggests that "collective justice" requires working to redistribute the status, wealth and power away from the straight white males.
quote:Basically, now that you've lied, stolen and murdered your way to the top you suddenly find it very important that nobody else ever lie, steal or murder.
It says instead that your moral duty, today and every other day, is to keep your promises, leave other people's stuff alone, refrain from assaulting your neighbour, no matter how annoying he or she may be.
quote:It is not race as such that is morally relevant, but the relevance of the decision criteria to the job.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There is surely some incongruity in holding simultaneously that race never has any moral relevance and yet that it may be sometimes relevant to whether a candidate is best suited for a particular job.
quote:That's what I find, er, incongruous. That you seem to want to count unfair discrimination as being a wrong - a crime against natural law - in the same way that thieving from someone or mugging someone is a wrong. But you don't want to count the accused as innocent until proven guilty.
I think also that the burden of proof in a civil court would lie with the person asserting that race was relevant to the job; it being asserted falsely far more often than truly (if ever truly).
quote:Given that you consider preparing baked goods to be within the bounds of that "racial discrimination is okay" set, I think you're willing to draw that boundary way more extensively than anyone else here.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:It is not race as such that is morally relevant, but the relevance of the decision criteria to the job.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There is surely some incongruity in holding simultaneously that race never has any moral relevance and yet that it may be sometimes relevant to whether a candidate is best suited for a particular job.
And there is a non-empty set of jobs (playing Shakespeare's Othello, bidding for contracts with a Council that has a policy of favouring ethnically-diverse teams) where race is relevant to performance in the job.
quote:It's like you've never heard of blackface.
Originally posted by Russ:
playing Shakespeare's Othello
quote:Patrick Stewart once played the role in ordinary stage makeup. Click through for details.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:It's like you've never heard of blackface.
Originally posted by Russ:
playing Shakespeare's Othello
quote:As a description of my life that is so far away from reality that nobody could possibly take it seriously.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Basically, now that you've lied, stolen and murdered your way to the top you suddenly find it very important that nobody else ever lie, steal or murder.
quote:I don't think one can justify preventing white or east asian actors from playing Othello, or a policy of ethnically-diverse teams, except by allowing the present relevance of past injustice in ways you want to rule out. (For example, the justification for only hiring ethnically diverse teams is that ethnically homogenous teams are evidence of a hiring policy based on unjust criteria rather than based on merit alone.)
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:It is not race as such that is morally relevant, but the relevance of the decision criteria to the job.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There is surely some incongruity in holding simultaneously that race never has any moral relevance and yet that it may be sometimes relevant to whether a candidate is best suited for a particular job.
And there is a non-empty set of jobs (playing Shakespeare's Othello, bidding for contracts with a Council that has a policy of favouring ethnically-diverse teams) where race is relevant to performance in the job. Do you disagree ?
Don't think I'm suggesting anything conceptually difficult here.
quote:You want to count breaking a contract as a wrong in the same way that mugging someone is a wrong. Now suppose Plumbers Inc does a job for Mr Dodger, and Mr Dodger alleges that he handed over cash at the time and wasn't given a receipt. Plumbers Inc sue. Now in the UK Plumbers Inc just have to show the court on the balance of probabilities that they were not paid. They don't need to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. It's a civil court; not a criminal court.
quote:That's what I find, er, incongruous. That you seem to want to count unfair discrimination as being a wrong - a crime against natural law - in the same way that thieving from someone or mugging someone is a wrong. But you don't want to count the accused as innocent until proven guilty.
I think also that the burden of proof in a civil court would lie with the person asserting that race was relevant to the job; it being asserted falsely far more often than truly (if ever truly).
Why bother with the niceties of a trial, if you're happy to accept that accusations are made truly far more often than falsely ?
quote:Russ, your comment is such an utter non sequitur that I'm at a loss to explain it in any other way than desperation.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:As a description of my life that is so far away from reality that nobody could possibly take it seriously.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Basically, now that you've lied, stolen and murdered your way to the top you suddenly find it very important that nobody else ever lie, steal or murder.
And reveals that what you're really asking for is to be allowed to do a little bit of lying, stealing and murdering. Until you're just about as bad as the people you've a moral objection to. (But not more, of course. That wouldn't be fair...)
That's your idea of goodness ?
Brilliant move, Marvin. You've single-handedly discredited social progressivism in a way my plodding logic can only dream of.
quote:I quite agree. The case of Othello is a red-herring. The whole point about plays is that they are performed by hypocrites (actors),- as Hamlet says, "What's Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba, that he should weep for her?"
Dafyd: I don't think one can justify preventing white or east asian actors from playing Othello,
quote:Just to be clear, you cut off my sentence at the qualifier. I was saying that I think that there's a good case for giving black actors priority when casting Othello; however, the case depends on considerations that Russ doesn't acknowledge.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
quote:I quite agree. The case of Othello is a red-herring.
Dafyd: I don't think one can justify preventing white or east asian actors from playing Othello,
quote:Yeah, but we also use "winning" in situations where the winner hasn't actually demonstrated more skill or whatnot. For example, the person who "wins" the lottery hasn't done anything different or better to "beat" all the other ticket buyers.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Yes, obviously. That's what the word means.
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Because winning inevitably involves beating someone else?
...
quote:Utter embarrassment on my part!
Kwesi: as far as I'm aware it is not de regeur that only Jews should play the part of Malvolio or, indeed, that the cast of Twelfth Night should be confined Italians.
I Meant to refer to Shylock and The Merchant of Venice. quote:The problem for me is not that black actors have been excluded from playing Othello but that they have been excluded from roles representing white people. If a white person can play Othello then black actors can assume white roles.
Dafyd: I was saying that I think that there's a good case for giving black actors priority when casting Othello; however, the case depends on considerations that Russ doesn't acknowledge.
quote:Point well and truly missed.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:As a description of my life that is so far away from reality that nobody could possibly take it seriously.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Basically, now that you've lied, stolen and murdered your way to the top you suddenly find it very important that nobody else ever lie, steal or murder.
quote:Why would I want to prevent anything of the sort ?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I don't think one can justify preventing white or east asian actors from playing Othello
quote:No, that would be an example of egalitarian prejudice. In Erroneous Monk's example, the justification for hiring ethnically diverse teams is because the client wants it and therefore ethnicity is relevant to the needs of the business.
For example, the justification for only hiring ethnically diverse teams is that ethnically homogenous teams are evidence of a hiring policy based on unjust criteria rather than based on merit alone.
quote:I think you're confusing the burden of proof with the standard of proof. The English tradition is that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than that one innocent is wrongly convicted. I don't see that factor of 10 as a God-given constant of the moral universe. It's a cultural thing. If the French tradition used a factor of 3, that doesn't make the French system of government immoral.
Now suppose Plumbers Inc does a job for Mr Dodger, and Mr Dodger alleges that he handed over cash at the time and wasn't given a receipt. Plumbers Inc sue. Now in the UK Plumbers Inc just have to show the court on the balance of probabilities that they were not paid. They don't need to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. It's a civil court; not a criminal court.
Do you think that is unjust?
quote:Depends what you mean by "racist". If you use it in to mean something morally wrong, if "Dafyd the racist" carries the same sort of moral condemnation as "Dafyd the cheat", "Dafyd the bully", then yes, nobody should call you that without evidence. It's an assault on your good name.
Do you think that there's a right to be not considered racist until proven guilty?
quote:No. Once again, you are free to dislike whomever you will for whatever reason you will. As a private individual, you can act on those likes and dislikes in choosing whom you do or do not associate with. The moral imperative is firstly to respect the rights of each person - even those you dislike. And secondly, where you are acting in some official capacity (for the government, for your firm, on behalf of the Residents Association or the Tiddlywinks Club, whatever) you should fulfil your office impartially, keeping your private dislikes to yourself.
It's peculiar the way you think it's perfectly permissible to take an irrational dislike to someone because of their race; but disliking someone because of their opinions based on the rational assessment of evidence is a terrible offence.
quote:I refer you to my earlier reply to Eliab, regarding intent.
[No, I do not seem to want to count unfair discrimination as a crime against natural law. You want to believe that all moral wrongs are crimes in the same way as all other moral wrongs, and that therefore anything that is not an actual crime is not on those grounds a moral wrong at all. So that therefore someone trying to bring it about that someone goes bankrupt and starves to death is not acting in a way that is morally wrong if they do not breach any moral rights.
quote:I see it differently.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
The problem for me is not that black actors have been excluded from playing Othello but that they have been excluded from roles representing white people. If a white person can play Othello then black actors can assume white roles.
quote:Up to a point. I think that my point about the history of interactions of different racial backgrounds still applies.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Why would I want to prevent anything of the sort ?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I don't think one can justify preventing white or east asian actors from playing Othello
I'm suggesting that where casting a black or white actor or actress is relevant to what the producer is trying to do artistically, then there is no unfair discrimination involved in using race or gender as part of the casting decision. Othello black & everyone else white ? Fine. Vice versa ? Equally fine.
quote:Do you think that the business ought to be pandering to what the client wants if what the client wants is itself unjustified?
quote:No, that would be an example of egalitarian prejudice. In Erroneous Monk's example, the justification for hiring ethnically diverse teams is because the client wants it and therefore ethnicity is relevant to the needs of the business.
For example, the justification for only hiring ethnically diverse teams is that ethnically homogenous teams are evidence of a hiring policy based on unjust criteria rather than based on merit alone.
quote:So let's see. You're saying Plumbers Inc ought to believe that Mr Dodger is innocent until such time as they've proven him guilty. So are you saying that they should sue a man they believe to be innocent?
quote:I think you're confusing the burden of proof with the standard of proof.
Now suppose Plumbers Inc does a job for Mr Dodger, and Mr Dodger alleges that he handed over cash at the time and wasn't given a receipt. Plumbers Inc sue. Now in the UK Plumbers Inc just have to show the court on the balance of probabilities that they were not paid. They don't need to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. It's a civil court; not a criminal court.
Do you think that is unjust?
Plumbers Inc have to prove their case about Mr Dodger, to whatever standard of proof applies. He doesn't have to prove his innocence - the burden of proof is on the person bringing the complaint. And the proof has to relate to him as an individual person. Generalities about other people of his age/profession/wealth/class/nationality etc won't do. That way lies prejudice.
quote:It is no doubt unkind to call someone a racist without evidence, but you don't think unkindness is itself a moral wrong. Do you think there is an actual right not to be called 'racist' so that calling someone 'racist' without proof is a moral wrong of the same sort as calling them a 'thief'?
quote:Depends what you mean by "racist". If you use it in to mean something morally wrong, if "Dafyd the racist" carries the same sort of moral condemnation as "Dafyd the cheat", "Dafyd the bully", then yes, nobody should call you that without evidence. It's an assault on your good name.
Do you think that there's a right to be not considered racist until proven guilty?
quote:I don't know. You're the one who is objecting that there's a problem when the cause of the dislike is a perception of unfair discrimination.
quote:No. Once again, you are free to dislike whomever you will for whatever reason you will. As a private individual, you can act on those likes and dislikes in choosing whom you do or do not associate with. The moral imperative is firstly to respect the rights of each person - even those you dislike. And secondly, where you are acting in some official capacity (for the government, for your firm, on behalf of the Residents Association or the Tiddlywinks Club, whatever) you should fulfil your office impartially, keeping your private dislikes to yourself.
It's peculiar the way you think it's perfectly permissible to take an irrational dislike to someone because of their race; but disliking someone because of their opinions based on the rational assessment of evidence is a terrible offence.
Where's the problem ?
quote:Have you acknowledged the point that other people simply reject your model that all moral wrongs are crimes of the same type?
quote:I refer you to my earlier reply to Eliab, regarding intent.
You want to believe that all moral wrongs are crimes in the same way as all other moral wrongs, and that therefore anything that is not an actual crime is not on those grounds a moral wrong at all. So that therefore someone trying to bring it about that someone goes bankrupt and starves to death is not acting in a way that is morally wrong if they do not breach any moral rights.
quote:You've said earlier that morality consists in respecting other people's rights and adhering to your promises. And that within those boundaries you are free to do or act on whatever motive you like.
I agree that morality involves both ends and means. Having a wrong intention - an evil end - is wrong even if the means are otherwise morally legitimate.
quote:Disregarding people's human rights is a moral wrong. Don't you think you have a moral obligation to believe social progressives innocent of it until proven guilty?
And that seems the more relevant temptation for social progressivism - to disregard the rights of others in pursuit of their political utopia.
quote:Prejudiced people are fine once you get to know them...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I'm not sure I get the distinction between "[a]n essentially imagined dislike" and "a non-rational dislike". Aren't imagined dislikes by definition non-rational?
Originally posted by Russ:
If someone says that they don't actually like Armenians, seems to me there are 3 broad possibilities.
a) a reasoned dislike, e.g. based on supposed Armenian collective responsibility for something that they are supposed to have done
b) a non-rational dislike of the otherness of Armenians
c) a prejudice, an attribution to all Armenians of characteristics that only some (possibly only a small minority) actually possess. An essentially imagined dislike.
quote:Depends on if you're the target of that prejudice, I suppose. The Little Rock Nine knew pretty well which of their fellow students were spitting on them or yelling slurs at them, but I wouldn't call that "fine". Your mileage may vary, of course.
Originally posted by Russ:
Prejudiced people are fine once you get to know them...
quote:Right. It's just a matter of "efficiency" to assume that African-Americans are ignorant near-savages who can't be trusted with a vote or that women are all morons who don't have the brainpower to work in IT. You also seem to have decided that "efficient" = "moral", which is fairly interesting for someone who usually complains about utilitarianism.
Originally posted by Russ:
An irrational distaste, like a phobia - an irrational fear - doesn't necessarily disappear on closer acquaintance.
Whereas prejudice is arguably rational. If you lack the resources to gather the information to judge fairly, pre-judging may be an efficient strategy. A cost/quality trade-off.
quote:If by "racism" you mean the doctrine that it's OK to breach other people's rights if they are of a different race from you - which is what I think you're suggesting in the above - then I agree that that is a false doctrine that leads people to commit evil acts.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Racism says it's ok to break a promise for racist reasons (treaties with Indigenous peoples). Racism says it's ok to mess with people's stuff for racist reasons (colonization). Racism says it's ok to assault people for racist reasons (ethnic cleansing).
quote:No. Russ has said multiple times that if you have a business serving the public then you have to serve all the people who make up the public.
Russ says it's ok to tell the fruits to go away and shop somewhere else
quote:A client's preference may be a personal whim or a corporate policy that lacks any justification. But they're paying the piper... On the other hand, if what the client wants crosses the line into a moral wrong, then no the business should not be party to it.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think that my point about the history of interactions of different racial backgrounds still applies.
That does seem like an emerging theme of this discussion.
[QUOTE][qb]Do you think that the business ought to be pandering to what the client wants if what the client wants is itself unjustified?
quote:The director of Plumbers Inc should review the testimony of the staff involved and prove to his own satisfaction that Mr Dodger is guilty before commencing legal action to try to prove it to the satisfaction of the court. Neither the director nor the court should start from a presumption of guilt.
You're saying Plumbers Inc ought to believe that Mr Dodger is innocent until such time as they've proven him guilty. So are you saying that they should sue a man they believe to be innocent?
quote:I don't think "racist" has an inherent meaning. I observe it used in different senses, all obviously related to the concept of race.
Do you think there is an actual right not to be called 'racist' so that calling someone 'racist' without proof is a moral wrong of the same sort as calling them a 'thief'?
quote:Happier and better off without irrational likes and dislikes, probably.
Most of us would say that while disliking someone on irrational grounds is hardly a crime or a breach of their rights, we would still be better people and all concerned would be better off and happier if we didn't do it.
quote:Individual people, yes. If I've accused you (or Marvin or anyone else) personally of anything, without there being evidence in your words of it, I willingly apologise.
Don't you think you have a moral obligation to believe social progressives innocent of it until proven guilty?
quote:So, your solution is "Oooh, I don't have the common sense a toddler has, so I shall continue to do things any one with that much sense would consider racist."?
Originally posted by Russ:
Seems like much talking at cross-purposes, suspicion and misunderstanding could be avoided if people could just pick a precise meaning and stick to it.
quote:That's the whole problem with your position in a nutshell.
Originally posted by Russ:
Prejudiced people are fine once you get to know them...
quote:The problem is that you're defining racism as a "personal political view" whereas the rest of us define it (or more accurately avoiding it) as a "moral imperative".
Originally posted by Russ:
Which is where a clear distinction between personal political views (which you may have to set aside in your professional or official capacity) and moral imperatives (which you should never set aside) comes in.
quote:Of all your various apologia for segregation and racial discrimination, this semantic argument that all words can only have one very precise meaning seems the most obviously disingenuous. This is especially true when paired with your willingness to use the term "thief", despite the fact that it can and is often used in a wide variety of contexts, from someone who takes two pennies from the "Take A Penny" jar to armed brigands to con men to hackers who only reassign some ones and zeros. It's even sometimes applied to those who operate under cover of law, such as the "thieves" who stole people's homes by "retro-signing" mortgage documents. (Some will rob you with a six-gun, and some with a fountain pen.) The pretense that you can't wrap your head around using the term "racist" differently in different contexts despite being able to (presumably) do so for the term "thief" stretches credulity past the breaking point.
Originally posted by Russ:
I don't think "racist" has an inherent meaning. I observe it used in different senses, all obviously related to the concept of race.
If you believe that "racism" refers to a moral wrong - a breach of someone's rights in the same way that thieving is a breach of someone's rights - then yes calling someone "racist" without proof is the same sort of slander as calling them "thief" without proof.
quote:Kinda like that particular corpse is the most obviously dead?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
most obviously disingenuous.
quote:Supposing the director having established to his own satisfaction that none of his staff have received the money, and trusting his staff, he now asks Mr Dodger if there is an innocent explanation. Mr Dodger tells him that the onus is on the director to prove that there is no innocent explanation, and it is not his, Mr Dodger's, responsibility to provide one, and that unless the director has proved that there isn't one the director should believe in Mr Dodger's innocence. Is this a reasonable response from Mr Dodger?
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:The director of Plumbers Inc should review the testimony of the staff involved and prove to his own satisfaction that Mr Dodger is guilty before commencing legal action to try to prove it to the satisfaction of the court. Neither the director nor the court should start from a presumption of guilt.
You're saying Plumbers Inc ought to believe that Mr Dodger is innocent until such time as they've proven him guilty. So are you saying that they should sue a man they believe to be innocent?
quote:I mistyped in a hurry. I meant to ask whether you thought calling someone a racist is the same sort of moral wrong as thieving? (Or that calling someone a thief is the same sort of moral wrong as thieving?)
If you believe that "racism" refers to a moral wrong - a breach of someone's rights in the same way that thieving is a breach of someone's rights - then yes calling someone "racist" without proof is the same sort of slander as calling them "thief" without proof.
quote:That's not an inconsistency. Many virtue or vice terms work in the same way.
Just as one minute it's used as an explanation why an act is morally wrong, and the next you're defining it to exclude acts that you consider morally OK so it's a wrong-by-definition.
quote:Sadly, the world is not precise and therefore words with precise meanings are not much help in talking about it.
Seems like much talking at cross-purposes, suspicion and misunderstanding could be avoided if people could just pick a precise meaning and stick to it.
quote:We don't choose our characters or personalities as if off the shelves of a supermarket either. We are not straightforwardly at the mercy of our likes and dislikes.
quote:Happier and better off without irrational likes and dislikes, probably.
Most of us would say that while disliking someone on irrational grounds is hardly a crime or a breach of their rights, we would still be better people and all concerned would be better off and happier if we didn't do it.
Better people, no. We don't choose our likes and dislikes.
quote:You haven't defined it; I haven't defined it. The meaning of words is determined by common usage. And common usage is imprecise.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The problem is that you're defining racism as a "personal political view" whereas the rest of us define it (or more accurately avoiding it) as a "moral imperative".
quote:They get to choose which particular ditch they die in, as with all right-wing libertarian fantasies.
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
What about their desires and aspirations in this libertarian paradise?
quote:Don't you think that everyone should have the freedom associated with privileged classes in past societies ? Rather than the level of freedom associated with lower classes - slaves and serfs - in past societies ?
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
The libertarian “ freedom” espoused by Russ is ultimately the freedom of privileged classes.
quote:If that were true, then the notion of a win-win outcome would be meaningless.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Yes, obviously. That's what the word means.
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Because winning inevitably involves beating someone else?
quote:What happened to your recognition a couple of days ago that acts that don't infringe the rights of others can be morally wrong if they're based on a morally wrong intention? For example, an intention motivated by prejudice, unfair discrimination, or antagonism directed against people of a different racial or ethnic group?
Originally posted by Russ:
Yes, the problem is that some talk as if avoiding racism is a moral imperative. Whereas I'm saying that the term is used so broadly that it covers both acts that are morally wrong because they infringe the rights of others and acts that are not.
quote:In tenth century France everyone, the privileged classes and the serfs, had the freedom to extort tribute from other people.
Originally posted by Russ:
Don't you think that everyone should have the freedom associated with privileged classes in past societies ? Rather than the level of freedom associated with lower classes - slaves and serfs - in past societies ?
quote:Likes and dislikes are immutable. But skin colour, secondary sex characteristics, and physical ability are choices one makes at birth, and one ought to serenely accept the consequences if one has chosen a non-preferred set.
Originally posted by Russ:
We don't choose our likes and dislikes.
quote:So you're saying "racism" means something like "an attitude of hostility to people of other races" ?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Nobody else would say racism is a moral wrong in the way theft is a moral wrong, because racism is an attitude or belief, and theft is an action. In the same way, hatred or avarice are attitudes that are morally wrong.
quote:For about the bazillionth time, not hiring a black guy because your customers are racists is pandering to racism, and is in itself a racist act.
Originally posted by Russ:
So not hiring the black guy because you think the customers might not like it isn't racist because it isn't done out of hostility ?
quote:I know you think that. So why aren't you disagreeing with Dafyd when he characterises racist acts as those undertaken from the particular motive of inter-racial hostility ?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
For about the bazillionth time, not hiring a black guy because your customers are racists is pandering to racism, and is in itself a racist act.
quote:Because he's not wrong?
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I know you think that. So why aren't you disagreeing with Dafyd when he characterises racist acts as those undertaken from the particular motive of inter-racial hostility ?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
For about the bazillionth time, not hiring a black guy because your customers are racists is pandering to racism, and is in itself a racist act.
quote:If I don't hire a black candidate because I think my customers don't want dirty black hands touching their stuff or whatever, that is a motive of inter-racial hostility.
Originally posted by Russ:
I know you think that. So why aren't you disagreeing with Dafyd when he characterises racist acts as those undertaken from the particular motive of inter-racial hostility ?
quote:I thought that acts done for innocent reasons could still be morally wrong according to your theory? That to be morally permissible the motivation must be innocent and the act itself must be innocent?
Originally posted by Russ:
If you find people guilty on the basis of motivation you have to be prepared to find them innocent on the same basis.
quote:Because the person who's untimely death it is doesn't get much of a say in the matter.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Motivation is the difference between murder and manslaughter. The legal systems of our various countries seem to think it's a reasonable distinction to make.
quote:But not in the way that Russ is using "motivation". It's murder if you intended to cause someone serious damage, and manslaughter if you didn't (more or less).
Originally posted by mousethief:
Motivation is the difference between murder and manslaughter. The legal systems of our various countries seem to think it's a reasonable distinction to make.
quote:Intent. The difference between manslaughter and murder is intent, not motive. Motive might go to build a case, but intent is the important factor.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Motivation is the difference between murder and manslaughter. The legal systems of our various countries seem to think it's a reasonable distinction to make.
quote:Because it fails applied logic. By itself, it might seem reasonable: Anybody should be able to play any role. But in reality, "other" has been linked to villainy since theatre began. So, until that is redressed, "other" playing the baddie will be a continuation of the stereotype.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
A few weeks ago, I had a difficult conversation with the writer of a TV drama. In that drama, an obviously disabled actor portrayed a baddie. I told him about my discomfort at this part of the story. For me, it felt like the disability was being used to "other" the character, particularly as there were no other disabled characters in the cast.
The writer was insisting to me that the actor had been chosen on their merits and that disabled people should have the chance to play evil bastard characters too.
I'm still not comfortable with this explanation.
quote:Probably? quetzacoatl; let me introduce you to the human race.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You can see it as a double bluff - disabled are stigmatized, therefore should not be cast as villains, so we will, not to reinfoce the stigma, but to get rid of it. It's probably too sophisticated though.
quote:I don't think you're overly sensitive. This, from Changing Faces, is excellent.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I suppose the difficulty is whether or not I'm over-sensitively noticing the disabled actor and ignoring other flawed and/or evil bastard characters in the drama.
quote:It is a recognised trope, so likely not.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I suppose the difficulty is whether or not I'm over-sensitively noticing the disabled actor and ignoring other flawed and/or evil bastard characters in the drama.
quote:Yes. Using English as an 'othering' characteristic is a response to the power England has over Wales. It is a response to a power imbalance. Othering the disabled is creating a power imbalance.
It was a Welsh-language drama and alongside other dramas it is interesting to see how English-only speaking characters are used. Often they're hated authority figures or the fact that they don't speak in Welsh is a distinguishing part of their character.
Was the disability used to "other" the character in a way that the English language wasn't "other-ing" other characters?
quote:Part of the difficulty might lie in the pretence that every show is judged by itself. But they do not exist in a vacuum. So it is possible that you can write a drama where the black, disabled, butch lesbian from the hood is a rapping drug dealing pervert baddie for non-stereotypical reasons; but it can still be part of the overall problem.
Were there other subtleties of othering - to do with sex, marital status, sexuality - that I didn't even notice?
quote:No. It isn't. Once again, most roles are written generically, but they are not cast that way. Casting actors who are not straight or white or perfectly able in those generic roles is the way forwards. And it is done, just not often enough.
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Of course there's another way of looking at it, which is that you're essentially saying the disabled actor shouldn't have gotten the part, no matter how talented he is, simply because of his disability. That seems counter productive somehow.
quote:Nice example of social-progressive thinking.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I conclude that it is a dangerous thing to reinforce notions of prejudice in TV dramas. It might be that it is society, not you the individual writer, which is prejudiced. I don't think that makes it ok.
quote:I'd argue that having a villain with some outward deformity to mirror his or her inner corruption is a fairly common trope with a very long history, probably because it's easy shorthand for an author to use. Shakespeare used it in his Richard III. It shows up in the Iliad, where Homer uses Thersites' deformities to let us know that he's a thoroughly unpleasant person. Contemporary portrayals are more common than you seem to think. Darth Vader (prosthetic limbs, artificial respiration, massive scarring) comes to mind as an obvious example. Any number of Bond villains fall into this category as well.
Originally posted by Russ:
4. It's not an issue of stereotyping - there are few disabled villains in contemporary culture. And you'd be quite happy with a greedy rich villain, which is far more of a cliche.
quote:Not even slightly. I am aware that disabled people can be evil bastards, I think I even said this above.
Originally posted by Russ:
Nice example of social-progressive thinking.
You're uncomfortable with a TV drama having a disabled villain.
From outside the mindset, it seems clear that:
1.Such casting is disconcerting because it challenges the meta-narrative that disabled people are Victims who can do no wrong.
quote:Not sure I said that either. I think it is a morally problematic idea to contribute to negative stereotypes about a minority of people.
2. It's not a morally-wrong decision because nobody's rights have been infringed and nobody's intent is evil.
quote:I see. So now I'm not allowed to consider the impacts on certain minorities of stereotypes in popular media.
3. Watching this TV drama didn't make you feel hostility to disabled people in general, but you seem to be worried that it will affect other lesser mortals that way.
quote:And here is your problem right there: you simply don't accept the notion of "punching down" because you are so comfortable and privileged that you don't see the effects are disproportionate on minorities.
4. It's not an issue of stereotyping - there are few disabled villains in contemporary culture. And you'd be quite happy with a greedy rich villain, which is far more of a cliche.
quote:Correct. Because it is bullshit, as anyone who bothered to read what I originally wrote could tell you.
But I don't expect you to admit any of that.
quote:Anyone with a minimum level of consciousness or conscience would understand Russ' "reasoning" to be false. No need to read what anyone else wrote.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Because it is bullshit, as anyone who bothered to read what I originally wrote could tell you.
quote:And when they do have the symptoms of privilege, you get 'Draco in leather pants', or Raffles becoming a hero or in the physical world...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I'd argue that having a villain with some outward deformity to mirror his or her inner corruption is a fairly common trope with a very long history, probably because it's easy shorthand for an author to use. Shakespeare used it in his Richard III. It shows up in the Iliad, where Homer uses Thersites' deformities to let us know that he's a thoroughly unpleasant person. Contemporary portrayals are more common than you seem to think. Darth Vader (prosthetic limbs, artificial respiration, massive scarring) comes to mind as an obvious example. Any number of Bond villains fall into this category as well.
Originally posted by Russ:
4. It's not an issue of stereotyping - there are few disabled villains in contemporary culture. And you'd be quite happy with a greedy rich villain, which is far more of a cliche.
quote:Wrong. It can be problematic if it promotes the narrative that disabled persons are unhappy and angry and hate 'able-bodied' people. For starters, it's simply not true for the overwhelming majority of people with disabilities.
Originally posted by Russ:
...1.Such casting is disconcerting because it challenges the meta-narrative that disabled people are Victims who can do no wrong.
quote:And I don't expect you to admit that you've never heard of Shakespeare's Richard III, or to admit you didn't actually take any time to research disabled characters in film or theatre before writing your post, or admit that "victims can do no wrong" is your favourite straw thing.
...But I don't expect you to admit any of that.
quote:However:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So many straw men, we could collect them together and build a straw house. The one about disabled people not being shown as evil made me blink. Eh?
I, that am curtailed of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinished, sent before my time
Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them–
Dick III.
quote:Yes but also no.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
However:
--The real Richard really was disabled. His remains were found several years ago, under a parking lot. He had spinal problems.
quote:I'm not sure what you think you are proving here. Richard III is a scheming, murdering hunchback according to Shakespeare. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see how this attitude might affect other disabled people.
--He's seen as evil because of allegedly murdering the two young princes. (For another view, read "Truth Is The Daughter Of Time", by Josephine Tey.)
quote:I don't see that this makes any difference. Shakespeare's racism is often couched in ways that are supposedly excusable - eg Shylock being a sympathetic character.
--In the bit you quoted, he's talking about how other people see and treat him.
His disabilities do augment people's view of him as evil. BUT that quote presents him as a *person* who is mistreated because of his disabilities.
quote:I wish you'd stop posting this - my mileage certainly does vary when what you've posted is bollocks.
YMMV.
quote:I agree that such a narrative isn't true of disabled people in general.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It can be problematic if it promotes the narrative that disabled persons are unhappy and angry and hate 'able-bodied' people. For starters, it's simply not true for the overwhelming majority of people with disabilities.
quote:Richard III wasn't disabled. He wasn't blind, deaf, dumb, crippled. What he was is ugly - unpleasing to the eye.
And I don't expect you to admit that you've never heard of Shakespeare's Richard III or to admit you didn't actually take any time to research disabled characters in film or theatre before writing your post
quote:No-one admits to believing it. You'd sort of hope that nobody is stupid enough to literally believe it. But it does seem to explain social progressive attitudes rather well.
or admit that "victims can do no wrong" is your favourite straw thing.
quote:
[ Croesos ] So here we are, 16 pages in, with no more insight into what's so terrible about "the social-progressive mindset" than repeated assurances from Russ that compassion is stupid and you shouldn't have "sympathy" for anyone. Especially not if they've been the victim of some kind of horrific abuse or suffered some terrible tragedy.
quote:I have read through some of this very long thread and reached the conclusion that Russ seems very misunderstood.
[ Russ ] Not at all. It's good to have compassion for others, and for that to motivate acts of grace - supererogatory acts of kindness - towards them, within the space of actions that one has the moral right to perform.
quote:What exactly counts as "crippled" if a spinal curvature and withered arm don't count?
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Richard III wasn't disabled. He wasn't blind, deaf, dumb, crippled. What he was is ugly - unpleasing to the eye.
And I don't expect you to admit that you've never heard of Shakespeare's Richard III or to admit you didn't actually take any time to research disabled characters in film or theatre before writing your post
quote:
Then be your eyes the witness of this ill:
See how I am bewitch'd; behold mine arm
Is, like a blasted sapling, wither'd up
quote:Going strictly by the cinematic Bond:
Originally posted by Russ:
And yes, Ian Fleming and others use ugliness on the outside as a metaphor for ugliness on the inside. If MrCheesy had complained of a stereotype of ugly villains, there would be something in what he says.
quote:Fair point.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
'
It's easy to give a counter-example - feminism has often fought bitter internecine wars, far from totally positive about various groups of women.
quote:I believe the term you're looking for is "straw feminist".
Originally posted by Russ:
Fair point.
Put it the other way around. If someone does think that the man is always in the wrong and the woman always in the right, would that not be reason enough to call that person a feminist ? Possibly even an extreme feminist ?
quote:No. It may be a motive of profit maximization. It may be a motive of pleasing one's neighbours.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If I don't hire a black candidate because I think my customers don't want dirty black hands touching their stuff or whatever, that is a motive of inter-racial hostility.
quote:Whether you believe your customers to be nursing racial hostility, or ignorant, or simply more comfortable with others like themselves, is beside the point.
You want to argue that I wouldn't be being personally racist - I just think all my customers are racists, and I'm just a perfectly moral businessman dealing with economic realities; that my motives are pure, but I'm imputing immoral racial hostility to my customers.
quote:I agree - resemblance is a relevant consideration.
An example of non-racist racial discrimination would be not hiring a white man to play Martin Luther King in a biopic, or not hiring a black man to play King George III. Having actors look like the people they are portraying is a reasonable reason for using the physical appearance of an actor as a deciding factor.
quote:If this thread is solely about debating Russ, then it is a complete waste of time.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But why bother, since Russ is not really putting forward a reasoned position, but a collection of half-baked generalizations.
quote:Racism is not a synonym for hatred.
Originally posted by Russ:
And it's racism if you're wrong to do it. And you're wrong to do it if you act from your own feelings of animosity or hostility. Or if you breach his moral rights by so doing.
quote:It is absolutely, most emphatically not. IMO, the article makes the the case with easy examples. There are others, though they are less comfortable to read.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Racism is not a synonym for hatred.
Originally posted by Russ:
And it's racism if you're wrong to do it. And you're wrong to do it if you act from your own feelings of animosity or hostility. Or if you breach his moral rights by so doing.
quote:The article talks about racism as being an intellectual belief in the inferiority of other races.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Racism is not a synonym for hatred.
Originally posted by Russ:
And it's racism if you're wrong to do it. And you're wrong to do it if you act from your own feelings of animosity or hostility. Or if you breach his moral rights by so doing.
quote:Of course you're allowed to think about and talk about stereotypes. Your experience is what it is. If you're aware that your feelings about some group of people have been changed by media stereotyping, then sharing that awareness with us is highly relevant to the conversation. I just had the sense - perhaps wrongly - that you want us to credit you with having a point of view that hasn't been suggested to you by the various media you read/watch/listen to, but are unwilling to credit others with the same power of independent thought.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I see. So now I'm not allowed to consider the impacts on certain minorities of stereotypes in popular media.
Originally posted by Russ:
[QUOTE]3. Watching this TV drama didn't make you feel hostility to disabled people in general, but you seem to be worried that it will affect other lesser mortals that way.
quote:"Punching up" is ISTM, part of the virtue of chivalry.
here is your problem right there: you simply don't accept the notion of "punching down" because you are so comfortable and privileged that you don't see the effects are disproportionate on minorities.
quote:Once again this seems at odds with your position on school segregation. Here you're arguing that it's morally acceptable to send black students to inferior schools if the school board sincerely believes that it would be a waste of scarce educational resources on what they believe to be inferior intellects, while elsewhere you've claimed integration is "morally . . . the right thing to do". I'm getting the impression that your permissive attitude towards racism is mostly just thrashing around to find acceptable justifications for prejudice.
Originally posted by Russ:
Holding in good faith false beliefs is clearly not good, not desirable. But it is not morally wrong. Just as getting less than full marks in an exam is a failing but it is not a moral failing.
So we have some arguing that moral wrongness is part of the definition of racism, and now you're apparently arguing that racism isn't morally wrong at all.
quote:Well, snow is white and skis are straight, so it Just Makes Sense.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Fox News senior editor John Moody seems to take it as a given that straight, white athletes are inherently better at winter sports than athletes who aren't white or aren't straight.
quote:No on both counts.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Russ:
[qb] Here you're arguing that it's morally acceptable to send black students to inferior schools if the school board sincerely believes that it would be a waste of scarce educational resources on what they believe to be inferior intellects, while elsewhere you've claimed integration is "morally . . . the right thing to do".
quote:My reading of that link is that what it's bemoaning is that to so many commentators the blackness/whiteness of the team is the important issue, rather than their sporting prowess.
To take a more contemporary example, Fox News recently published an editorial bemoaning the fact that less of the U.S. Winter Olympic team was white and straight than had been the case in past Winter Olympics.
quote:In a lot of cases that's not possible. Ruby Bridges and her parents want Ruby to attend William Frantz Elementary School along with her white age-peers. Most of the white parents of Ruby's age-peers want their kids to go to an all white public school, which William Frantz Elementary will no longer be if Ruby attends classes there. Exactly how does the government give everyone their choice here?
Originally posted by Russ:
On integration, I think you're misquoting me. For government to serve the whole of the people is morally the right thing to do, not to de-segregate as such.
Because I think parents have the right to choose - within the options available to them - what is best for their children.
quote:Out of curiosity does this include neglect? Some parents are indifferent to educating their children at all. Heck, some parents are indifferent to feeding their kids enough. Is there any point at which you'd consider the state justified in considering the welfare of children to be more important than the wishes of their parents?
Originally posted by Russ:
Maybe what's lacking in the SP mindset is that sense of other people having the right to make choices that one doesn't approve of ?
quote:I'm arguing that you should distinguish actions of which you disapprove from (the smaller set of) actions which are morally wrong.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Out of curiosity does this include neglect? Some parents are indifferent to educating their children at all
Originally posted by Russ:
Maybe what's lacking in the SP mindset is that sense of other people having the right to make choices that one doesn't approve of ?
quote:I don't think this as an abstract idea is so weird. I disapprove of high-heels but I don't think wearing them is a moral failing. I do rather despair of living in a culture which not only finds them as desirable, but in many circumstances essential.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Why would anyone disapprove of something if they didn't think it was morally wrong?
quote:It's all of a piece with Russ' general thesis that racism is something about which honest, well-intentioned people can disagree. As opposed to thinking it's something that is clearly and unambiguously wrong, like the rest of us.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But I struggle to understand how this can apply to racism.
quote:I asked before whether you think that all actions that you consider morally wrong should be illegal?
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm arguing that you should distinguish actions of which you disapprove from (the smaller set of) actions which are morally wrong.
quote:This isn't consistent with your previously stated position.
So what you're asking is which category parental neglect falls into. Is it a breach of moral duty ? Or merely (in one's humble opinion) a Bad Thing ?
I tend to the view that parents do have a particular moral duty to care for their children, and that that duty of care includes education. I imagine you'd agree.
quote:I disapprove of smoking. Because I judge that the pleasure gained thereby is not worth the risk (of addiction, and of serious long-term physical harm to the body of the smoker).
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Why would anyone disapprove of something if they didn't think it was morally wrong?
Examples Russ. What do you disapprove of but don't think is morally wrong? Why do you then disapprove of it?
quote:You've not got it yet.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's all of a piece with Russ' general thesis that racism is something...
quote:How many English words have just one definition? You used the word "mean" in the previous post despite the fact that it can be defined as "stingy" or "mathematical average" or "cruel" or "lowly", and yet most of us can somehow understand you're using it in the sense of "conveys information".
Originally posted by Russ:
Racism isn't a thing at all.
"Racism" is a word which people use to mean different things.
quote:Puh-leez. Belief is a choice. Surely that was mentioned at your baptism or confirmation?
Originally posted by Russ:
... But belief isn't a choice and therefore cannot be morally wrong.
....
quote:The OED definition, which I've alluded to before now:
Originally posted by Russ:
"Racism" is a word which people use to mean different things.
quote:That seems to cover all the bases in one definition.
A belief that one’s own racial or ethnic group is superior, or that other such groups represent a threat to one's cultural identity, racial integrity, or economic well-being; (also) a belief that the members of different racial or ethnic groups possess specific characteristics, abilities, or qualities, which can be compared and evaluated. Hence: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against people of other racial or ethnic groups (or, more widely, of other nationalities), esp. based on such beliefs.
quote:Just a few posts back you said that an action is still morally wrong even if the belief it is based on is held in good faith.
Some like Mr Cheesy use it to mean a belief in inherent superiority of some races over others. Which I understand to be empirically false. But belief isn't a choice and therefore cannot be morally wrong.
quote:OK then Russ, what do you take racism to mean?
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:You've not got it yet.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's all of a piece with Russ' general thesis that racism is something...
Racism isn't a thing at all.
"Racism" is a word which people use to mean different things.
Some use it to mean racial hatred. Which is morally wrong. (Just like non-racial hatred).
Some like Mr Cheesy use it to mean a belief in inherent superiority of some races over others. Which I understand to be empirically false. But belief isn't a choice and therefore cannot be morally wrong.
Some like Leorning Cnicht use it to mean wrongful discrimination on grounds of race. Which includes moral wrongness as part of the definition.
Some use it to mean anything which acts to the disadvantage of racial minorities. Which includes both wrong and non-wrong acts.
quote:I'm not sure I do believe that nor did I say it. My position is that it is possible to believe in some things does not necessarily inevitably lead to discrimination of an individual.
Originally posted by Russ:
Some like Mr Cheesy use it to mean a belief in inherent superiority of some races over others.
quote:Empirically false?! Why would you claim that?
Which I understand to be empirically false.
quote:It absolutely can when it is the type of belief that inevitably hurts others. Like racism.
But belief isn't a choice and therefore cannot be morally wrong.
quote:How is something that acts against a weaker minority somehow not-wrong? Wtf are you talking about?
Some like Leorning Cnicht use it to mean wrongful discrimination on grounds of race. Which includes moral wrongness as part of the definition.
Some use it to mean anything which acts to the disadvantage of racial minorities. Which includes both wrong and non-wrong acts.
quote:Obviously this is false. The words education, conversion, and persuasion would not exist if it were true.
Originally posted by Russ:
belief isn't a choice
quote:Don't follow your logic here.
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:Obviously this is false. The words education, conversion, and persuasion would not exist if it were true.
Originally posted by Russ:
belief isn't a choice
quote:I fear that increasing polarisation is rapidly diminishing any consensus on what "reasonable" consists of.
What I find interesting are the categories that Russ is trying to exclude from his system, which I think of as gifts of the Enlightenment. Categories such as reasonable ("what would a reasonable person do?"), evidence, and harm.
quote:The only time you can ever act morally is in the present. And moral truths are unchanging.
He is also trying to exclude any time other than the present...
quote:Of course you should learn from the wisdom accumulated in the past. It's called tradition.
...that history is not a source of learning...
quote:Of course you can. But avoiding a future outcome you disapprove of does not justify breaching the moral rights of others now.
...nor may one attempt to predict future outcomes
quote:No, you're supposed to have principles that you apply equally to those that you do and don't feel for at any particular moment.
All one is left with are one's individual feelings in the moment as a basis for morality, and whether one is able to convince oneself of the sincerity of those feelings.
quote:C'mon Russ, an answer please. No flannelling. I'm not going to give you an opportunity to equivocate.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:OK then Russ, what do you take racism to mean?
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:You've not got it yet.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's all of a piece with Russ' general thesis that racism is something...
Racism isn't a thing at all.
"Racism" is a word which people use to mean different things.
Some use it to mean racial hatred. Which is morally wrong. (Just like non-racial hatred).
Some like Mr Cheesy use it to mean a belief in inherent superiority of some races over others. Which I understand to be empirically false. But belief isn't a choice and therefore cannot be morally wrong.
Some like Leorning Cnicht use it to mean wrongful discrimination on grounds of race. Which includes moral wrongness as part of the definition.
Some use it to mean anything which acts to the disadvantage of racial minorities. Which includes both wrong and non-wrong acts.
quote:The hit musical "Hamilton" has done just that. (This link is to "Hamilton's America" (PBS), a show about the making of the musical, with many video clips from it. People of color (almost all African Americans) play almost all of the parts--Founding Fathers, their wives, etc. And it *works*.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
quote:The problem for me is not that black actors have been excluded from playing Othello but that they have been excluded from roles representing white people. If a white person can play Othello then black actors can assume white roles.
Dafyd: I was saying that I think that there's a good case for giving black actors priority when casting Othello; however, the case depends on considerations that Russ doesn't acknowledge.
quote:A child who naively thinks that people who look different must be inferior may be not be making a choice. I suppose there might be some adults (living in caves, in island etc with no exposure to anyone else) who have no reason to think anything else.
Originally posted by Russ:
Don't follow your logic here.
If you believe something, then it strikes you as true. So you can be educated/persuaded into a different belief only by exposure to evidence.
If belief were a choice then you could get people to change their beliefs just by asking them nicely. Are you suggesting that is effective ?
quote:You're missing Leaf's point.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:No, you're supposed to have principles that you apply equally to those that you do and don't feel for at any particular moment.
All one is left with are one's individual feelings in the moment as a basis for morality, and whether one is able to convince oneself of the sincerity of those feelings.
quote:So Leaf touched a nerve then.
I don't doubt your sincerity. Only your ability to think straight.
quote:I'm not saying that there is a true meaning and that people misuse the word to mean other things.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
OK then Russ, what do you take racism to mean?
quote:What a load of shite. First the definitions are fairly clearly different ways of describing the same thing. Second no "acquiring" is necessary - each is a moral wrong anyway.
Originally posted by Russ:
But a belief or act that is racist in one of those senses does not thereby acquire the moral wrongness of racism in any of the other senses.
quote:Show me anyone else on this thread who has agreed with you that negative discrimination of a minority racial group is not inherently wrong.
We've talked about discrimination and how that is not inherently wrong but can be wrong where there's a moral duty not to judge on irrelevant criteria.
But that says nothing about the innocence or wrongness of the acts or beliefs referenced by the other five meanings of the word. You could reasonably argue that antagonism is always bad, for example.
I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.
quote:No. There is no thing. There are a range of human behaviours to which you ascribe particular significance when they are directed towards minority ethnic groups.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
First the definitions are fairly clearly different ways of describing the same thing.
quote:From the other things you say, I think you mean wrong when directed towards racial minorities and not otherwise. Or should I read this sentence literally ?
Second no "acquiring" is necessary - each is a moral wrong anyway.
quote:Think whatever you like. Your thinking doesn't change by one iota the experience of discrimination felt by those from a minority who experience continual racism. Those actions may well amount to little when anyone else experiences them - that doesn't change the fact that they're part-and-parcel of the thing that is racism.
Originally posted by Russ:
No. There is no thing. There are a range of human behaviours to which you ascribe particular significance when they are directed towards minority ethnic groups.
So I can only conclude that it is not the behaviours that you think are wrong, but the direction.
quote:You can't have racial discrimination against a powerful, privileged and/or majority group. It is always directed negatively against a minority.
From the other things you say, I think you mean wrong when directed towards racial minorities and not otherwise. Or should I read this sentence literally ?
In other words you don't believe in a universal moral code that applies equally to everyone. You believe in privileging the groups you sympathize with. Special pleading. Double standards.
quote:Quite so, mr cheesy.
mr cheesy: Show me anyone else on this thread who has agreed with you that negative discrimination of a minority racial group is not inherently wrong.
quote:Yet again, no.
Originally posted by Russ:
In other words you don't believe in a universal moral code that applies equally to everyone. You believe in privileging the groups you sympathize with. Special pleading. Double standards.
quote:Let's have a closer look at this quick elision from history -> wisdom -> tradition. It is a fast and convenient transition, although in context it's understandable that you would attempt this particular rhetorical gallop. History is messy, complicated, sometimes ambiguous and often horrifying, while "tradition" has such a nice folksy ring to it and is accompanied by the connotation that it is something to be emulated.
Originally posted by Russ:
Of course you should learn from the wisdom accumulated in the past. It's called tradition.
quote:This seems appealing because it is partly true, and yet it also lacks wisdom. For example: Why do we need judges? One would think it would be a simple matter to follow a grid of Conviction A merits Punishment A, Conviction B merits Punishment B, etc. But we have found, as a society, that it isn't that simple to disregard context - to take into consideration the history behind the offense and likely outcomes of different punishments.
... you're supposed to have principles that you apply equally to those that you do and don't feel for at any particular moment.
quote:If you wish to continue to attack my abilities rather than my arguments, you can avail yourself of another venue.
I don't doubt your sincerity. Only your ability to think straight.
quote:If your argument holds neither do you hold a universal moral code. You think it's ok for someone to maximise their profit or their income. But not for them to do so when they have a monopoly on the market.
Originally posted by Russ:
In other words you don't believe in a universal moral code that applies equally to everyone. You believe in privileging the groups you sympathize with. Special pleading. Double standards.
quote:There are two problems that have already been mentioned.
But a belief or act that is racist in one of those senses does not thereby acquire the moral wrongness of racism in any of the other senses.
quote:This taxonomy is quite bogus:
Russ: 1) The belief that ethnic groups can have characteristics or qualities
2) The value judgment that some ethnic groups are inferior to others
3) Feeling threatened by other ethnic groups
4) Discrimination - treating people differently according to their ethnicity
5) Prejudice - pre-judging what people are like on the basis of their ethnicity
6) Antagonism - hostility to people of other races.
quote:Of course you bloody can. An ISIS terrorist who wants to kill as many white westerners as possible for no other reason than because they're white westerners is being just as racist as the Klan.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You can't have racial discrimination against a powerful, privileged and/or majority group.
quote:Islamic terrorism about culture, not race.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Of course you bloody can. An ISIS terrorist who wants to kill as many white westerners as possible for no other reason than because they're white westerners is being just as racist as the Klan.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You can't have racial discrimination against a powerful, privileged and/or majority group.
Racism is equally morally wrong regardless of who does it (and to whom). The difference is that racist treatment of minority ethnicities by whites is far more prevalent and thus a more serious problem in society.
quote:IS is many things, but racist isn't one of them. Given that some of them are white, it is tricky to argue that they're racist against white people anyway.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Of course you bloody can. An ISIS terrorist who wants to kill as many white westerners as possible for no other reason than because they're white westerners is being just as racist as the Klan.
quote:No.
Racism is equally morally wrong regardless of who does it (and to whom). The difference is that racist treatment of minority ethnicities by whites is far more prevalent and thus a more serious problem in society.
quote:This is true. I think one also say that it's more excusable in someone who has been and is generally disadvantaged by the reverse, and also more excusable if the consequences for the people hated are less serious.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Actually, yes. I don't think it's a stretch to argue that it isn't on to hate someone just because of the colour of their skin/ethnic background, whatever or whoever is doing the hating.
quote:I don’t like the term excusable in this context. I would say understandable instead.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think one also say that it's more excusable in someone who has been and is generally disadvantaged by the reverse, and also more excusable if the consequences for the people hated are less serious.
quote:Not to mention an equal opportunities terrorist. If you're not in line with their narrow ideology, then race, religion, nationality, age or sex made no difference: you are a target.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
ISIS were very much an equal opportunities employer. They didn't care if you were black, white or brown, as long as you shared their murderous ideology.
(eta)
quote:Uncle Ben from "Spiderman", right? Just for trivia: over here (US), that's a brand of boxed rice.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I've quoted Uncle Ben's maxim (With great power comes great responsibility) before on this thread.
quote:Some police officers are black. Does that make it tricky to argue that the police are racist against black people?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
IS is many things, but racist isn't one of them. Given that some of them are white, it is tricky to argue that they're racist against white people anyway.
quote:As Doc said: Yes.
quote:No.
Racism is equally morally wrong regardless of who does it (and to whom). The difference is that racist treatment of minority ethnicities by whites is far more prevalent and thus a more serious problem in society.
quote:
Prejudice refers to a positive or negative evaluation of another person based on their perceived group membership. Racism on the other hand refers to social actions, practices or beliefs or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other. Furthermore, racism is socio-economic, with systemic structures which promote one race’s powers over another. Socio-economic being the operative word, I am certain you will agree that black people do not have the resources to impose such oppressive structures which enforce their superiority. White people on the other hand have, and had imposed them on blacks for over four centuries of slavery and colonialism. Black people can be prejudiced, but not racist.
quote:That should more accurately be: "Thought? Not."
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Some police officers are black. Does that make it tricky to argue that the police are racist against black people?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
IS is many things, but racist isn't one of them. Given that some of them are white, it is tricky to argue that they're racist against white people anyway.
Thought not.
quote:I vehemently disagree. Whilst power informs level of harm, racism doesn't need power.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
No, but if you read what I wrote, the point is that racism can only be in the direction from the strong majority to the weak minority.
It's nothing about being black per say, it is everything about power.
quote:Unsurprisingly, I don't agree. Reverse racism isn't a thing.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I vehemently disagree. Whilst power informs level of harm, racism doesn't need power.
Thinking an attribute is associated with race is racism. Even if you think the attribute is good. It is all depersonalising. Some of the effects are much worse, but it is all on the same spectrum.
quote:I agree. Reverse racism isn't a thing. It is all just racism.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Unsurprisingly, I don't agree. Reverse racism isn't a thing.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I vehemently disagree. Whilst power informs level of harm, racism doesn't need power.
Thinking an attribute is associated with race is racism. Even if you think the attribute is good. It is all depersonalising. Some of the effects are much worse, but it is all on the same spectrum.
quote:The intention to increase one's income is not of itself evil. Where abuse of monopoly power does take place, it is the act rather than the intent that is wrong.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
You think it's ok for someone to maximise their profit or their income. But not for them to do so when they have a monopoly on the market.
If it's wrong to treat antagonism directed at worse off or minority ethnic groups more seriously than antagonism directed at random members of the public, then it's wrong to treat maximising one's profit where one has a monopoly as more serious than maximising one's profit where there is no monopoly.
quote:If by "working towards" you denote intent - someone who is aiming at securing unemployment for a minority they dislike - then I'd say that's wrongful intent, acting from hatred.
If you refuse to use shops with staff from an ethnic minority you're working towards granting people not from that ethnic minority a monopoly on those jobs
quote:That may be true. It could be the case, for example, that many people who discriminate do so out of hatred. So what ? Many Xs are Y doesn't justify treating all Xs as Y. That would be prejudice...
a belief or act that is racist in one of those senses is frequently racist in more than one of those senses.
quote:Either sense A is inherently wrong or it isn't. It can't become morally dubious just because people who can't be bothered to use language precisely have a catch-all word for "race-related stuff we disapprove of"
Another comes if you start arguing that if sense A doesn't acquire any moral wrongness from sense B, then sense A must be innocuous.
quote:I do. Do you disagree ?
elsewhere you argue that an act need only be wrong in one way to be morally wrong.
quote:This starts out with OED definition 2 - belief in racial superiority / inferiority.
posted by mr cheesy:
Prejudice refers to a positive or negative evaluation of another person based on their perceived group membership. Racism on the other hand refers to social actions, practices or beliefs or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other. Furthermore, racism is socio-economic, with systemic structures which promote one race’s powers over another...
...Black people can be prejudiced, but not racist.
quote:Wow, I wish I could see the massive bovine that produced a pile this large.
Originally posted by Russ:
Observe the way the r-word is redefined to get the politically-correct answer...
quote:Except that King believed in the moral superiority of the egalitarian system he advocated over the system of white supremacy enforced by people like Eugene "Bull" Connor. Doesn't that make King "racist" in your definition?
Originally posted by Russ:
Under that definition, black people who believe in their own racial inferiority or superiority (including moral superiority) are racist.
It then goes on to apply that definition to systems rather than people. Which seems fair enough - a system could be said to embody such a belief.
On that definition, Martin Luther King was a non-racist person living in a racist socio-political system.
quote:It saves time (and syllables) to simply say "racist" (or "sexist" or "homophobic") instead of "politically incorrect", and it usually comes down to the same thing. "Excuse me for being politically incorrect, but . . . " has become the new "I'm not a racist, but . . . ", a preamble that is almost invariably followed by a racist statement.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I think we need to reclaim the term "politically correct" so that when it is used in a derogative fashion, the user is exposed as being user is in favour of matters being "politically incorrect", ie, discriminatory and/or unfair.
quote:If a group of black men attack a random white man while yelling "kill the honky" then I would submit that that is just as much a racist offence as a group of white men attacking a random black man while yelling "kill the nigger".
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
No, but if you read what I wrote, the point is that racism can only be in the direction from the strong majority to the weak minority.
quote:It's one thing to say that white-on-minority racism is a considerably greater problem in society than any other kind, and thus that it's not all the same and there's a very good reason to focus on that one kind (as I did). It's quite another thing to outright deny that any other form of racism can possibly exist (as you did).
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And that's why this is so important. Saying something innocuous like that all racism is as bad as any other leaves the door open for those who want to assert their white privilege and claim that it's all the same and when are we going to start talking about black-on-white racism.
quote:I'll agree that it is just as racist, but not that it is the equivalent of the reverse.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If a group of black men attack a random white man while yelling "kill the honky" then I would submit that that is just as much a racist offence as a group of white men attacking a random black man while yelling "kill the nigger".
quote:I have already given you an explanation, you just don't like it.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If a group of black men attack a random white man while yelling "kill the honky" then I would submit that that is just as much a racist offence as a group of white men attacking a random black man while yelling "kill the nigger".
I eagerly await your explanation of why that's not the case.
quote:What I'm saying is different to what you are saying. Wow, thanks for that insight.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's one thing to say that white-on-minority racism is a considerably greater problem in society than any other kind, and thus that it's not all the same and there's a very good reason to focus on that one kind (as I did). It's quite another thing to outright deny that any other form of racism can possibly exist (as you did).
quote:This is not a unilateral position. Unless I missed a meeting...Still, no one gave me a copy of any meeting minutes in which this was decided.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I have had long conversations with minorities about racism and am persuaded that their strong belief that racism is undirectional holds water.
quote:And this highlights the effective difference in the direction of racism.
But the one thing that there isn't is a black KKK, because that's a white privilege protected by the law.
quote:Which black people think that white people share a trait?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
OK, so black people thinking all white people share a trait is simply prejudice? But most prejudices are based on something. That one would be based on race. If only there were a shorthand for prejudice based on race...
ETA:We are likely giving the social-regressives much pleasure with the internecine argument.
quote:Do you want names or are you implying all black people think the same way?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Which black people think that white people share a trait?
quote:Absolutely agreed that people in a large group have a variety of ideas. And that there isn't a single black narrative.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Do you want names or are you implying all black people think the same way?
There is not a universal black narrative. Save oppression, and even then, not all black people view it the same way.
quote:If whiteness totally overlaps the oppression, then it is hardly a leap to think that whiteness is the oppressor.
Thinking white people, as a group, oppress black people is not racism; no. It is just observation. Thinking whiteness causes this, is. We are all capable of the same good and the same bad. The difference is we don't all have the same opportunity.
quote:All too true but isn’t it a virtue to argue rather than to accept some tired dogma which is a characteristic of the social-regressives.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I agree lilBuddha observation that "we are likely giving the social-regressives much pleasure with the internecine argument."
quote:I assume it's because you're bothered about linguistic precision that you treat 'maximising profit' and 'increasing one's income' as equivalent? On the attempt to distinguish intention and action see later.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:The intention to increase one's income is not of itself evil. Where abuse of monopoly power does take place, it is the act rather than the intent that is wrong.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If it's wrong to treat antagonism directed at worse off or minority ethnic groups more seriously than antagonism directed at random members of the public, then it's wrong to treat maximising one's profit where one has a monopoly as more serious than maximising one's profit where there is no monopoly.
quote:What makes the intent wrong if it's not an intention to perform immoral actions? The only way an intention could be wrong if it's not an intention to perform a morally wrong action is if it's an intention to bring about morally wrong consequences. So do you think consequences can be morally wrong?
quote:If by "working towards" you denote intent - someone who is aiming at securing unemployment for a minority they dislike - then I'd say that's wrongful intent, acting from hatred.
If you refuse to use shops with staff from an ethnic minority you're working towards granting people not from that ethnic minority a monopoly on those jobs
quote:The preference here is that people from a minority group are not employed in any business that you might otherwise want to frequent. That preference is morally wrong already. If people are unemployed as a result that's not an unintended consequence. That is what the preference is for.
But if you just mean that such unemployment is a predictable consequence if everyone shares your dislike, then that doesn't make acting on your preference wrong.
quote:I'm tempted just to quote this analogy without comment. It almost condemns itself.
If you don't like strawberry yogurt, there's no moral imperative to buy some anyway on the basis that if everyone shared your preference then the strawberry growers would be out of business.
quote:So? Using the same word to cover two linked phenomena is not treating them as identical in all respects. Saying that wanting to commit murder and actually committing murder are both morally wrong doesn't mean that you're treating all people who want to commit murder as actual murderers.
quote:That may be true. It could be the case, for example, that many people who discriminate do so out of hatred. So what ? Many Xs are Y doesn't justify treating all Xs as Y. That would be prejudice...
a belief or act that is racist in one of those senses is frequently racist in more than one of those senses.
quote:I'm not sure you're in a position to complain about people not bothering to use language precisely.
quote:Either sense A is inherently wrong or it isn't. It can't become morally dubious just because people who can't be bothered to use language precisely have a catch-all word for "race-related stuff we disapprove of"
Another comes if you start arguing that if sense A doesn't acquire any moral wrongness from sense B, then sense A must be innocuous.
quote:Neither are we the monolithic bloc that Russ portrayed progressives as.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:All too true but isn’t it a virtue to argue rather than to accept some tired dogma which is a characteristic of the social-regressives.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I agree lilBuddha observation that "we are likely giving the social-regressives much pleasure with the internecine argument."
quote:I walked out halfway through. Save yourself the effort. 1 star.
Originally posted by simontoad:
I really missed the boat on this thread. Can someone do me an executive summary?
quote:Executive summary (in skit form):
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:I walked out halfway through. Save yourself the effort. 1 star.
Originally posted by simontoad:
I really missed the boat on this thread. Can someone do me an executive summary?
quote:I have been at pains to state that majority racism is more pervasive and damaging to society. That's not even a moot point, it's a straight-up fact.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:I'll agree that it is just as racist, but not that it is the equivalent of the reverse.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If a group of black men attack a random white man while yelling "kill the honky" then I would submit that that is just as much a racist offence as a group of white men attacking a random black man while yelling "kill the nigger".
And it is problematic in that is an extreme argument used to justify ignoring the more pervasive effects of majority racism.
quote:I do not disagree. I’ve said multiple times on this thread that anyone can be racist.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But I draw the line at saying there is no such thing as minority racism, and/or that it is impossible for non-whites to be racist.
quote:We agree. It just bothers me (rather more than it should) that cheesy doesn't.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I do not disagree.
quote:Doh!!
Barnabus62:Racism is a word tainted by its history.
quote:Pervasive as a result of the larger numbers of the majority population, yes.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[qb]majority racism is more pervasive and damaging to society.
quote:You're right about the origin.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
These radical changes of policy had ideological consequences requiring comrades to perform mental gymnastics in order to defend the “party line,” i.e. to know what was “politically correct”. To the democratic mind this was the negation of principled approaches to social and political questions because they had been subordinated to the short-term convenience of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union...
...The validity of any proposition was the function not of reason and empiricism but of partisan fiat and a denial of the democratic intellect.
To describe anti-racism as an example of political correctness is to suggest that such an attitude is essentially unprincipled, being no more than a top-of-the-head assertion by powerful arbiters of taste whose position could be changed on a whim were it convenient to them. In other words, anti-racism and racism are of equal expendable value.
quote:Does it really. Well I never. What an amazing insight.
Originally posted by Russ:
Maintaining the position that "racism is wrong whatever racism is" would seem to qualify.
quote:ISTM that so wide is the acceptance that racism is a bad thing amongst political elites, that the only parties which need to have a ‘party line’ on the question are those which are avowedly racist. Mainstream conservative parties on the centre-right, for example, eschew racism and are often multi-ethnic in membership. Consequently, attitudes to racism do not relate easily to a discussion on political correctness and its relationship to social progressivism.
Russ: But I'd suggest that current usage focuses on the element of toeing the party line, of reaching the conclusion that is agreeable to one's party - the politically like-minded -based on a desire for peer approval rather than principle and logic.
Maintaining the position that "racism is wrong whatever racism is" would seem to qualify.
quote:Yes and No.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:Executive summary (in skit form):
Originally posted by simontoad:
I really missed the boat on this thread. Can someone do me an executive summary?
Russ: Liberals baaaaddd...
Most everyone else: Open your eyes, dude!
quote:Er - how about black people not being able to find work or accommodation because of the attitudes of a white majority? Or is the idea that people shouldn't have to live in poverty because of the irrational prejudice of others merely a "political notion"? It's the fucking bleedin' obvious to me.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Pervasive as a result of the larger numbers of the majority population, yes.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[qb]majority racism is more pervasive and damaging to society.
Do you think "damage to society" has a reality outside of anyone's political ideas of the sort of society they want to see ? Can you define it in a way that doesn't assume that your political notions (whatever they may be) are correct ?
quote:People who are different should not be disadvantaged - and those who are historically disadvantaged should be given help. I think it is pretty clear.
Originally posted by Russ:
Yes - I do seem to be largely alone. And having started out to understand this mindset, the general response has been "it's just obviously right and good - open your eyes". Rather than any clear statement of doctrine.
quote:Eh?! You're telling me that I don't feel a moral duty to ensure that people who are different are not disadvantaged and that I don't believe it is a moral duty to help those who have experienced historic disadvantage.
And this reinforces my suspicion that there isn't any core belief. That it's about "reverse prejudice" mistakenly conceived as a moral duty.
quote:Those who find light tend to be those who are looking for it in the first place.
But one of the by-ways of the conversation may yet cast some light...
quote:You are saying accepting an historically misunderstood and poorly treated group who cannot help being who they are is political correctness, not merely common decency?
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Might I suggest that a more fruitful area to discuss is the struggle between different strands of feminism for control of right-thinking on the issue, and especially its orientation towards trans-gendered individuals. The vilification of Germaine Greer and attempts to deny her a platform is a particular example of political correctness because it seeks to impose a ‘party’ line against the expression of her position by those seeking power to dictate the agenda. What is a social progressive wishing to be a supporter of feminism supposed to think to remain in the vanguard?
quote:OK, you want me to respond regarding monopolies.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There isn't a special act of abusing monopoly power. It's just the predictable consequence of income increasing actions if other people aren't in a position to do the same as you...
...you have not addressed the application of the point, namely that boycotting businesses that employ members of ethnic groups sets up monopolies. And is therefore wrong on those grounds
quote:With all due respect, lilBuddha, I find it difficult to see how you could possibly come to that conclusion on the basis of my remarks. Where in what I have said have I shown the slightest disrespect to trans-gendered individuals?
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Might I suggest that a more fruitful area to discuss is the struggle between different strands of feminism for control of right-thinking on the issue, and especially its orientation towards trans-gendered individuals. The vilification of Germaine Greer and attempts to deny her a platform is a particular example of political correctness because it seeks to impose a ‘party’ line against the expression of her position by those seeking power to dictate the agenda. What is a social progressive wishing to be a supporter of feminism supposed to think to remain in the vanguard?
lilBuddha: You are saying accepting an historically misunderstood and poorly treated group who cannot help being who they are is political correctness, not merely common decency?
quote:I wouldn't dream of saying you're lying.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You're telling me that I don't feel a moral duty to ensure that people who are different are not disadvantaged and that I don't believe it is a moral duty to help those who have experienced historic disadvantage.
This is news to me.
Please tell me more about this mistaken reverse prejudice that I'm supposed to be actually doing it for - because you appear to be very close to suggesting that what I say I believe is all lies and I'm just doing it for some kind of advantage and/or to fit into a group of like-minded people.
quote:Actually, no, I don't know that setting up a monopoly is not wrong, and I think it is a category error to call government a monopoly.
Originally posted by Russ:
First, you know that the act of setting up a monopoly is not wrong. (You might approve of a government nationalising an industry, thereby creating a monopoly...) But creating a monopoly for the purpose of abusing monopoly power is an example of wrong intention.....
quote:It is your choice of words that has me question your meaning.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
quote:With all due respect, lilBuddha, I find it difficult to see how you could possibly come to that conclusion on the basis of my remarks. Where in what I have said have I shown the slightest disrespect to trans-gendered individuals?
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Might I suggest that a more fruitful area to discuss is the struggle between different strands of feminism for control of right-thinking on the issue, and especially its orientation towards trans-gendered individuals. The vilification of Germaine Greer and attempts to deny her a platform is a particular example of political correctness because it seeks to impose a ‘party’ line against the expression of her position by those seeking power to dictate the agenda. What is a social progressive wishing to be a supporter of feminism supposed to think to remain in the vanguard?
lilBuddha: You are saying accepting an historically misunderstood and poorly treated group who cannot help being who they are is political correctness, not merely common decency?
quote:I see. So basically you are telling me that racism is just a feeling and that thinking it is bad is just another idea and that I really shouldn't worry my (intellectually deficient) mind about it.
Originally posted by Russ:
I wouldn't dream of saying you're lying.
I'm suggesting that you feel sympathy for those who differ from the majority (or are members of groups which have suffered historic disadvantage) in ways to which you attach political significance.
And that there's nothing wrong with feeling that.
But that, rather than you personally acting on your sympathies and allowing others to act on theirs, you (mistakenly in my view) think that there is a moral duty on everybody to favourably pre-judge people who have those particular differences or are affected by those particular historic disadvantages.
quote:We've done why it's a category error to expect a clear statement of 'social-progressive doctrine' (*). Do you take in anything that doesn't confirm your opinion?
Originally posted by Russ:
And having started out to understand this mindset, the general response has been "it's just obviously right and good - open your eyes". Rather than any clear statement of doctrine.
quote:So what you're saying is that an innocent intention can become wrong purely because the agent co-operates with somebody else to bring it about. That something can be innocent to do each individually but yet wrong to do together.
Originally posted by Russ:
Second, consider as an example an industry where two companies between them have a near-100% market share. If they collude to both raise prices by the same amount, for the purpose of increasing their profits, that's abuse of monopoly power. But if they both independently raise prices by the same amount (e.g. in response to a rise in the price of raw materials) then it isn't. The intent is the same - to increase profit. The consequences are the same. But one is this particular wrong and the other isn't.
quote:It's still bollocks if you think it makes a moral difference.
It's the difference between acting together and acting individually. Considered together, they have a monopoly. They act as a monopoly only if they act together.
quote:So: as long as they pretend to each other that's not what they're doing it's fine, but as soon as one of them spills the beans they're all morally guilty.
So, by analogy, if all the majority-ethnicity people in a town get together and collectively decide to boycott a minority-ethnicity business, then yes that's an abuse of monopoly power.
If one majority-ethnic person individually indulges his or her irrational dislike by declining to patronise the same minority-ethnicity business, then that is not an abuse of monopoly power. Even if everyone else is doing the same. Because there's no collusion. They're not acting together and it is only together that they have monopoly power.
quote:No. I'm telling you that the word "racism" means different things to different people, and if you could just summon up the intellectual honesty to pick one meaning and stick to it, you might even find that I agree with you that it's bad. Depending on which meaning you choose...
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So basically you are telling me that racism is just a feeling and that thinking it is bad is just another idea
quote:Your words, not mine. If the words you put into my mouth upset you, not much I can do about it.
and that I really shouldn't worry my (intellectually deficient) mind about it.
quote:Which half do you deny ? That there's a moral issue with a profit-seeking monopoly ? Or that people are acting monopolistically when they all collude but not when they act independently ?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So what you're saying is that an innocent intention can become wrong purely because the agent co-operates with somebody else to bring it about. That something can be innocent to do each individually but yet wrong to do together.
Come off it.
quote:Your blatant C4 breach is noted and flagged to admins.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Fuck you.
quote:If you could just summon up the intellectual honesty to admit that dictionaries have three different definitions...
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm telling you that the word "racism" means different things to different people, and if you could just summon up the intellectual honesty to pick one meaning and stick to it
quote:mr cheesy,
Originally posted by Eutychus:
hosting/quote:Your blatant C4 breach is noted and flagged to admins.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Fuck you.
/hosting
quote:Once again, we see that under all the bluster you clearly have no problem whatsoever with individuals having - and indulging - an "irrational dislike" of other races.
Originally posted by Russ:
If one majority-ethnic person individually indulges his or her irrational dislike by declining to patronise the same minority-ethnicity business, then that is not an abuse of monopoly power. Even if everyone else is doing the same. Because there's no collusion. They're not acting together and it is only together that they have monopoly power.
quote:"May"??? Even with the qualifications of it being done from hatred, with the intent to make the other person suffer - even then, racism only "may" be wrong?
(It may of course still be wrong by wrong intention if it is done from hatred, with the intent of causing the other to suffer).
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:We should't be surprised at anything Russ comes out with. He is acting as an apologist for racism pure and simple and should stop trying to deceive himself that he is doing anything else.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Once again, we see that under all the bluster you clearly have no problem whatsoever with individuals having - and indulging - an "irrational dislike" of other races.
Originally posted by Russ:
If one majority-ethnic person individually indulges his or her irrational dislike by declining to patronise the same minority-ethnicity business, then that is not an abuse of monopoly power. Even if everyone else is doing the same. Because there's no collusion. They're not acting together and it is only together that they have monopoly power.
quote:"May"??? Even with the qualifications of it being done from hatred, with the intent to make the other person suffer - even then, racism only "may" be wrong?
(It may of course still be wrong by wrong intention if it is done from hatred, with the intent of causing the other to suffer).
Wow.
quote:This comes over as, 'monopolies are wrong; we don't know why.'
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Which half do you deny ? That there's a moral issue with a profit-seeking monopoly ? Or that people are acting monopolistically when they all collude but not when they act independently ?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So what you're saying is that an innocent intention can become wrong purely because the agent co-operates with somebody else to bring it about. That something can be innocent to do each individually but yet wrong to do together.
Come off it.
What's your alternative ? The notion that there's a "just price" for every good or service ?
quote:I've said it's not a wrong of bad intention. The wrong is in the means not the end. The wrongful means being colluding - deploying the monopoly power of people acting together.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I am denying that an innocent intention can become wrong solely because the agent co-operates with somebody else to bring it about.
What's wrong with the abuse of monopoly power is that it's an abuse of power: one party to a transaction has a greater ability to set the terms of the transaction.
quote:I think the wrongness of monopolies is related to coercion. And it's because I see a wrong in coercion that I tend to favour people's right to choose freely, so long as what they choose falls short of wronging others.
I don't think that's consistent with the rest of your position. But then I don't think any explanation of the wrongness of monopolies is consistent with your position.
quote:I can, and occasionally do, but that's an economic proposition.
For example, you can't say that competition benefits the economy...
quote:As I thought I'd said to Marvin, my objection to people claiming that something "damages society" is a perception that they fail to distinguish a damaged society from one that functions successfully in a manner that they're politically opposed to. Given a little more rigour of definition, I might conceivably conclude that the concept has merit.
...or society and therefore monopolies harm society because you don't think 'it harms society' is an objective reason.
quote:So we move from idolising victimhood to idolising co-operation. Who'd have thought it ? Seems obvious to me that co-operation for the purpose of coercing others can be wrong...
But whatever explanation you try to come up with, claiming that it's because co-operation can be intrinsically morally wrong is grasping at straws.
quote:I note once again that you do not appear to consider discriminating against someone on the basis of their skin colour as wronging them.
Originally posted by Russ:
I tend to favour people's right to choose freely, so long as what they choose falls short of wronging others.
quote:A "damaged society" is one where people hate each other for looking different. Where an individual's pursuit of life, liberty and happiness is made considerably harder if the melanin content of their skin is too high. Where someone's chances of being killed or jailed by the authorities is dependent not just on what they've done, but on what they look like.
As I thought I'd said to Marvin, my objection to people claiming that something "damages society" is a perception that they fail to distinguish a damaged society from one that functions successfully in a manner that they're politically opposed to. Given a little more rigour of definition, I might conceivably conclude that the concept has merit.
quote:I would probably agree with that - although I'm not sure that calling it 'coercion' is using language precisely. It's not coercion in the sense of threatening someone with consequences that violate their rights if they don't do what you tell them. The monopolist is merely taking advantage of the other person's lack of other options. But I'd certainly agree that the other party isn't free and that's bad.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I think the wrongness of monopolies is related to coercion. And it's because I see a wrong in coercion that I tend to favour people's right to choose freely, so long as what they choose falls short of wronging others.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
But then I don't think any explanation of the wrongness of monopolies is consistent with your position.
quote:What do you think is gained by harping on the straw man of 'idolising victimhood'? How do you imagine it's constructive?
quote:So we move from idolising victimhood to idolising co-operation. Who'd have thought it ? Seems obvious to me that co-operation for the purpose of coercing others can be wrong...
But whatever explanation you try to come up with, claiming that it's because co-operation can be intrinsically morally wrong is grasping at straws.
quote:The wrong I see is not "merely taking advantage". Collusion to create a monopoly generates the other person's lack of options and thus bears moral responsibility for that lack of options.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I would probably agree with that - although I'm not sure that calling it 'coercion' is using language precisely. It's not coercion in the sense of threatening someone with consequences that violate their rights if they don't do what you tell them. The monopolist is merely taking advantage of the other person's lack of other options. But I'd certainly agree that the other party isn't free and that's bad.
quote:If monopoly power is abused it doesn't matter how it arose. For example, if corporation one had access to a lot of credit and was able to price its competitors out of business before raising prices again that's a monopoly. If the corporation owns the only land on which one can find unobtanium deposits that's a monopoly.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:The wrong I see is not "merely taking advantage". Collusion to create a monopoly generates the other person's lack of options and thus bears moral responsibility for that lack of options.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I would probably agree with that - although I'm not sure that calling it 'coercion' is using language precisely. It's not coercion in the sense of threatening someone with consequences that violate their rights if they don't do what you tell them. The monopolist is merely taking advantage of the other person's lack of other options. But I'd certainly agree that the other party isn't free and that's bad.
quote:In a competitive market the widget makers' short term interests are in the short term in competition with each other. So if they can all put up their prices independently that suggests that they're being forced by some outside factor.
If 100 independent widget-makers independently decide to put up their prices, then the man who wants a widget may indeed have no option but to pay more.
But none of the 100 individuals had the power to bring that about. It's not a deliberate act on the part of any of them.
quote:You seem to believe that all sets of people have "collective power" that they can wield without collaborating.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
They're unable to abuse their collective power as long as the market's competitive - explicit agreement among themselves is probably the only way it can happen that the market isn't competitive...
Where the agents' interests are not in competition, abuse of power is much more likely to happen even without explicit co-operation.
In the case of the population who are boycotting employers of certain ethnic groups, their interests are not in conflict, and in any case they are actively removing the ethnic minority groups' options and the employers' options.
quote:This discussion reminds me of the kind of conversation that I would have with a group of schoolchildren after their first introduction to quantum physics. They get totally distracted by asking questions like "couldn't all the atoms in this ball spontaneously tunnel through the wall", and ignore the fact that you'd need to wait around for a very large number of universe lifetimes indeed before that might happen anywhere.
Originally posted by Russ:
So that if everyone independently decided on a whim not to shop at Tesco this month, and as a result Tesco goes bankrupt, employees lose their jobs, pensioners whose pension funds hold Tesco shares lose money, then everyone would be individually to blame for the suffering caused thereby ?
