Thread: Is Moral Vanity A Left-Wing Disease? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024164
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
Is Lawson onto something here?
I am quite open to listen to, discuss, and assess arguments from a left-wing perspective, and am left-wing myself in some areas, such as the desirability of a national health system.
However I have found that those whose leftness constitutes their self-proclaimed tribal identity ( as opposed to a general label for a group of thought-out opinions)can be capable of a pharisaical certitude and self-righteousness which I have seldom seen equalled by the most fundamentalist of Christians.
[ 19. November 2012, 22:01: Message edited by: Ancient Mariner ]
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
I think this is true in one specific area. Left-wing economics tends to present itself as ethically good and working for the benefit of society. Liberal economics (in the European sense) tends to emphasise 'enlightened self-interest' - it doesn't need to be good or moral because people will find it in their own interests to benefit society anyway. I think the UK metanarrative tends to be that right-wing economics are evil and selfish and left-wing economics are naïve and impractical.
On social issues you see just as much self-righteousness from the right as the left. It's all lazy scroungers on benefits and immigrants taking our jobs and bleeding heart liberals giving council houses to asylum seekers and lazy pampered public sector workers going on strike to defend their golden eggs while the rest of us tighten our belts and blame the victim liberals who think thieves and murderers need counselling and liberals fostering an entitlement culture that was directly responsible for the riots in 2011 and political correctness gone mad that means everyone's too scared to tell it like it is.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
The most hateful of all such opponents are those, such as the late Keith Joseph, who make the ethical case for markets. This is why that genuinely good and kind man was subjected to boycotts, vile abuse and even physical attacks when he dared to suggest that socialism destroys moral responsibility and that those who make fortunes in competitive markets (through lower prices or better products) are serving the public good more than any trade union leader. If he were alive today, Joseph would definitely be at risk of being labelled a paedophile.
Well, I suppose the problem with the article is to be found there. That's as one-sided as the POV it criticises.
Neither socialism nor capitalism destroy moral responsibility. There is responsibility for oneself and responsibility for others. Socialism and capitalism as creeds may both be criticised for emphasising one, rather than the other. Just different ones.
Have you had a look at this thread recently? The real issue is whether criticism is legitimate. Most of us are only too keenly aware of the "one finger pointing at you, three pointing back at me".
If I criticise statements from the Right wing which assume they come from the moral high ground, assume a corner on Christian virtue (and there are a lot of those), I think I am pointing to a vanity. A vanity which, to judge by its rhetoric, demonstrates an indifference towards a traditional Christian understanding of responsibility for others.
Oh I am sure that vanity may be found on both the Left and the Right. It is a universal disease.
[ 19. November 2012, 09:14: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
The left is certainly prone to a sort of inflated self-righteousness.
However, I think it is OK to point out, for example, that some companies make big profits by sacking lots of their workers, by paying very low taxes, and by raising prices over and above costs.
However, I would not call this 'evil' really, as that word does not sit well in political discussions. In fact, many capitalists are probably perfectly reasonable people; I think it's the system which can be criticized, since it is oriented towards profits, not people. Or as Marx said rather eloquently, relations between people are replaced by relations between things.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
http://atlanticjaxx.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/dominic-lawson-of-course-hes-an-evil-wretch-hes-a-tory-sunday-times-18-11-12/
Is Lawson onto something here?
I am quite open to listen to, discuss, and assess arguments from a left-wing perspective, and am left-wing myself in some areas, such as the desirability of a national health system.
However I have found that those whose leftness constitutes their self-proclaimed tribal identity ( as opposed to a general label for a group of thought-out opinions)can be capable of a pharisaical certitude and self-righteousness which I have seldom seen equalled by the most fundamentalist of Christians.
No, Lawson is not onto something at all. If Moral Vanity were anything approaching an exclusively left wing disease then there wouldn't be e.g. the right wing crusade against abortion that doesn't do a damn thing to touch the causes of abortion. As Lawson is demonstrably talking out of his hat then the entire article is shown in stark relief to be a pure excercise in Moral Vanity ("Look at us on the right. We aren't intolerant, unlike those on the left.")
Further I question that it is a virtue to tolerate every moral failing (as Lawson seems to imply). Sure you can take things too far (as the notorious "Libertarian Republican" did after the last election) - but certain attitudes and behaviours hurt people and social sanctions need to be taken against them.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I'm also getting the whiff of an anti-BBC diatribe building up. Look at them, all left-wingers, break the whole thing up, and privatize it! I don't think that Lawson actually shares this view himself, but the various troubles at the Beeb have given ammunition to those on the right who would love to dismember it.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm also getting the whiff of an anti-BBC diatribe building up. Look at them, all left-wingers, break the whole thing up, and privatize it! I don't think that Lawson actually shares this view himself, but the various troubles at the Beeb have given ammunition to those on the right who would love to dismember it.
I hope not. I think it is people's love for the BBC which caused such shock at recent events. I imagine the drive to preserve it will be strong.
I, for one, would ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
- I detest commercial channels and never watch them.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I would have thought Romney's infamous remarks about how 47% of the population just wanted handouts had a healthy whiff of moral vanity about them.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
I got as far as the ludicrous straw man hitler comparison and gave up. A group gets judged by it's past actions. This is normal. It's perfectly normal for people who lived through the previous long streach of Tory rule to harbour resentment at the damage done to our society just as it's normal for people to feel resentment at the broken promises of the more recent stretch of Labour rule. Here's a tip for Torys. If you want people to stop resenting you do something positive. Hint, making life difficult for the most vunrable in society will have the opposit effect
Matthew 7:16 and all that.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
While I don't deny that a level of arrogance sometimes exists with some people on the Left (myself included), I also can't escape the feeling that the phrase 'The Moral Vanity of The Left' is often a shorthand for "I don't like your point of view, but I can't make a good argument against it, so let's try a disguised ad hominem."
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Disguised?
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Moral vanity is ubiquitous: from the politicians who "keep the rules" (but do bugger all else), to the yob who slaughters his granny and asserts, "I ain't done nuffink wrong."
In British politics it's particularly ingrained and particularly smelly. In my experience, it manifests as contempt in left-wingers, as smugness in right-wingers, and as a whiny martyr complex in everyone else.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
That's very good, Adeodatus. (Checks moral armpits - hmmmn)
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
What Adeodatus said. Also, we had a thread a while ago that fell on its arse because it assumed the "the left" was homogenous? Anything but in my experience. Leftist political parties outdo the Baptists and Brethren combined for splits and disputations, over points of doctrine and practice that are invisible to anyone on the outside. It is these minute differences that render leftist parties unelectable at times and, let's face it, if you aren't going to get into power, you can be as vain as you like. Hello? Is that Mr Clegg?
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
ISTM that moral vanity is, indeed, a left-wing disease -- and immoral vanity is a right-wing disease...
--Tom Clune
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
What Adeodatus said. Also, we had a thread a while ago that fell on its arse because it assumed the "the left" was homogenous? Anything but in my experience. Leftist political parties outdo the Baptists and Brethren combined for splits and disputations, over points of doctrine and practice that are invisible to anyone on the outside. It is these minute differences that render leftist parties unelectable at times and, let's face it, if you aren't going to get into power, you can be as vain as you like. Hello? Is that Mr Clegg?
Left-wing groups are prone to that 'narcissism of small differences', which probably, as you say, stems from their impotence. As you also say, reminiscent of some religious groups.
I suppose the extreme right have the same narcissism, but the Tory-type right wing just have a ruthless lust for power, which enables them to cover up differences for the duration.
Isn't it morally vain to point out moral vanity in others?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Moral vanity is not a left wing disease. It's a human one.
Having said that, though, I agree with Dominic Lawson's article. I think many on the left do exhibit this quite badly, and that one reason for this is that many left wing assumptions have the unfortunate side effect of inhibiting some areas of humility and self questioning.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Q: Is Moral Vanity A Left-Wing Disease?
A: No.
Next?
[ 19. November 2012, 17:24: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Moral vanity is not a left wing disease. It's a human one.
Having said that, though, I agree with Dominic Lawson's article. I think many on the left do exhibit this quite badly, and that one reason for this is that many left wing assumptions have the unfortunate side effect of inhibiting some areas of humility and self questioning.
Had Dominic Lawson looked at the raspberries instead of the strawberries he would have found rotten fruit there too. He also enters Godwin's Law territory stating "Can it really be “standard” that grown-up men and women, rather than just undergraduates working off adolescent rage, believe there is no moral distinction between, say, John Major and Adolf Hitler?" No, Dominic, it isn't. Stupid man.
If you want to hear cogent arguments against "the left", you'll get better from pub bores just before stop-tap.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think this is true in one specific area. Left-wing economics tends to present itself as ethically good and working for the benefit of society. Liberal economics (in the European sense) tends to emphasise 'enlightened self-interest' - it doesn't need to be good or moral because people will find it in their own interests to benefit society anyway. I think the UK metanarrative tends to be that right-wing economics are evil and selfish and left-wing economics are naïve
True as far as it goes, but I think the article is saying something slightly stronger. That a depressingly large proportion of left-leaning people (not necessarily extremists, just those who are ordinarily left-of-centre) believe that the mainstay of Toryism, the whole underlying spirit of right-of-centre belief, is to do with making the poor poorer.
And looking at some of the posts you see here on the Ship, it seems to me that he has a point.
He's not saying anything about moral vanity being exclusive to left-wingers, which would of course be untrue.
If you came across someone who believed that trade unionism was about serving Satan, you wouldn't take him seriously. Because of course the trade union movement has a history and a value system neither of which feature the Prince of Lies.
So if those who believe that the world would be a much better place if the power of trade unions were greatly reduced can at least treat their opponents as well-meaning-but-misguided rather than as minions of the Evil One, why is it so difficult for those on the left to return the courtesy ?
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Yeah, I don't think the article makes the case for the moral vanity of the left as opposed to the moral vanity of the right. However, based on reading posts on the Ship, I'm inclined to agree with him about how the Left in the UK perceives Tories. Did that attitude contribute to the unfounded attack on Lord McAlpine? While you can't prove it one way or the other, I'd be surprised if it didn't.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
It could be worse ...
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
So, us on the left have moral vanity as well as being instinctively anti-semitic?
Good job I don't come here to learn about politics.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
However I have found that those whose leftness constitutes their self-proclaimed tribal identity ( as opposed to a general label for a group of thought-out opinions)can be capable of a pharisaical certitude and self-righteousness which I have seldom seen equalled by the most fundamentalist of Christians.
Then you need to get out more, or take the blinders off.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
So tribalism leads naturally to moral vanity? Hm...
What mousethief said about this being a leftist problem. Methinks everybody finds it easier to see the "moral vanity" of those who disagree, and harder to see it among their ideological tribe-mates or co-ideologues.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
you need to get out more
Don't know about you, but I have known fundamentalists (as opposed to evangelicals) and left-wing ideologues (as opposed to people with left-wing views on certain issues) all my adult life, and been pissed off by both.
One possible reason for the difference between the two is that the former retain a residual awareness of their fallen state, while the latter inhabit a supralapsarian mind-state in which the possibility of their being mistaken does not exist.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Nobody who thinks there are "worthy" and "unworthy" poor retains any sense of their own fallen state, whatever the fuck they may say when their lips are flapping.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
So, us on the left have moral vanity as well as being instinctively anti-semitic?
Good job I don't come here to learn about politics.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Thank you, Rosa Winkel. You beat me to the punch. Any bets as to when the Apostle will appear?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Heck, anyone can be vain! Or have a vain moment. Including Dominic Lawson. And me.
The really dodgy issue for people of faith (and without) is self-righteousness.
Does the self-righteousness of folks on the political and religious right bring out indignation in me? It sure does. Does that tempt me towards a kind of personal holier-than-nowness? Sometimes it does just that. A sort of pharisaic "God, I thank thee that I do not think and behave like those assholes". And of course as soon as I think like that, I just did join them in their personal holier-than-nowness.
Is that just me or does anyone else recognise the temptation of that?
[ 20. November 2012, 06:28: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[QB] Heck, anyone can be vain!
Sums it up for me.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Q: Is Moral Vanity A Left-Wing Disease?
A: No.
Next?
Next:
In that case, why is it that it is most often (in Britain, where we both are) the left who characterise their political opponents as evil, rather than simply wrong?
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
@Martin
Because, in Britain, some members of the right choose to portray groups, other than their political opponents, as evil, be they single mums, immigrants, the bureaucrats of Brussels, you name it, and reserve their indignation for those who they know can't fight back.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Lawson's comments on Sir Keith Joseph at the end show how stupid the whole article is
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Q: Is Moral Vanity A Left-Wing Disease?
A: No.
Next?
Next:
In that case, why is it that it is most often (in Britain, where we both are) the left who characterise their political opponents as evil, rather than simply wrong?
Because they are? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
To say that the left do it more than the right I think shows selective sight. Are there people on the left who show breathtaking moral vanity? Absolutely. (Most often on the issue of abortion in my experience) Are there people not on the left who show similar moral vanity. Indeed yes.
The title of the thread is much like the one about the Left being inherently anti-semetic...And my thoughts are much the same too: Questions to which the answer is "No, don't be silly."
AFZ
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
The title of the thread is much like the one about the Left being inherently anti-semetic...
AFZ
Rosa Winkel beat you to the punch, too, upthread:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
So, us on the left have moral vanity as well as being instinctively anti-semitic?
Good job I don't come here to learn about politics.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nobody who thinks there are "worthy" and "unworthy" poor retains any sense of their own fallen state, whatever the fuck they may say when their lips are flapping.
If they are not saying (or writing) it, how do you know they think it?
Are you psychic?
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nobody who thinks there are "worthy" and "unworthy" poor retains any sense of their own fallen state, whatever the fuck they may say when their lips are flapping.
If they are not saying (or writing) it, how do you know they think it?
Are you psychic?
God knows I've heard lots of people complaining that people haven't earned their food stamps, which is basically a statement of worth if you think about it.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
Moral Vanity is a disease of all groups, except of course the Peoples Front of Judea.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
God knows I've heard lots of people complaining that people haven't earned their food stamps, which is basically a statement of worth if you think about it.
Nobody would dispute that people say such things.
The salient point, in context, is whether they are all, or predominantly, fundamentalist Christians.
Or, to turn it around, what evidence is there that fundamentalist Christians are any more likely than others to distinguish between the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor?
[ 21. November 2012, 05:39: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Q: Is Moral Vanity A Left-Wing Disease?
A: No.
Next?
Next:
In that case, why is it that it is most often (in Britain, where we both are) the left who characterise their political opponents as evil, rather than simply wrong?
Have you read The Daily Mail recently?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nobody who thinks there are "worthy" and "unworthy" poor retains any sense of their own fallen state, whatever the fuck they may say when their lips are flapping.
If they are not saying (or writing) it, how do you know they think it?
Are you psychic?
WTF? Where did I say they weren't saying or writing it?
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Moral Vanity is a disease of all groups, except of course the Peoples Front of Judea.
The People's Front of Judea?
Splitters!
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Palimpsest: Moral Vanity is a disease of all groups, except of course the Peoples Front of Judea.
We from the Judean People's Front are much more morally vain than you. So there!
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Whereas we of the United Judean Popular Front outdo you all not just in our humility but in the unity of both our members.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
God knows I've heard lots of people complaining that people haven't earned their food stamps, which is basically a statement of worth if you think about it.
Nobody would dispute that people say such things.
The salient point, in context, is whether they are all, or predominantly, fundamentalist Christians.
Or, to turn it around, what evidence is there that fundamentalist Christians are any more likely than others to distinguish between the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor?
Actually, if these people are merely conservative, then it disproves your claim that such attitude is merely the territory of liberals.
Also. don't see why the goalpost has to be "most them are fundamentalists." Given that the majority in this country is non-fundamentalist, setting the goalpost thus is unreasonable. I do know some fundamentalists who rant quite vociferously about those lazy worthless welfare queens, so there are some.
But again, last I checked, the point was that moral vanity is a liberal failing, and this is the point I am tilting heavily against.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nobody who thinks there are "worthy" and "unworthy" poor retains any sense of their own fallen state, whatever the fuck they may say when their lips are flapping.
If they are not saying (or writing) it, how do you know they think it?
Are you psychic?
WTF? Where did I say they weren't saying or writing it?
It was not clear from your post whether the “flapping lips”, about which you waxed so cynical, referred to fundamentalists claiming to being fallen and fallible, or fundamentalists claiming to not distinguish between the “deserving” and “undeserving” poor.
Not being psychic myself, and unable to read your mind, I assumed the former when you meant the latter.
Ok, then what’s your evidence?
I have no doubt that some fundamentalists make that distinction, but then I also know that some Orthodoxen are anti-Semitic, and I see no justification for making generalizations about either tradition on the basis of their disreputable minorities.
It might be argued that Dawson is making a similarly unjustified generalization about doctrinaire leftists, a possibility which I am quite ready to admit, despite my visceral hunch that there is something in what he says.
There is a huge and serious difference however, between opining that some leftists are a bit up themselves, and an accusation that fundamentalists, as a group, ‘mock the poor’ (Pr.17:5).
[ 22. November 2012, 03:27: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
True as far as it goes, but I think the article is saying something slightly stronger. That a depressingly large proportion of left-leaning people (not necessarily extremists, just those who are ordinarily left-of-centre) believe that the mainstay of Toryism, the whole underlying spirit of right-of-centre belief, is to do with making the poor poorer.
If the shoe fits...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
KC, you have backed off your earlier claim. You first claimed that the right-wing fundies retain a knowledge of their fallenness; now you admit some don't. My work here is done.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
KC, you have backed off your earlier claim. You first claimed that the right-wing fundies retain a knowledge of their fallenness; now you admit some don't.
Try reading this out loud to yourself, and listen to how desperate it sounds.
You are grasping at straws.
Did you read what I wrote about generalising from minor and inevitable exceptions - for any group?
quote:
My work here is done.
Au contraire, it hasn't even begun.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
KC, you have backed off your earlier claim. You first claimed that the right-wing fundies retain a knowledge of their fallenness; now you admit some don't.
Try reading this out loud to yourself, and listen to how desperate it sounds.
You are grasping at straws.
Did you read what I wrote about generalising from minor and inevitable exceptions - for any group?
I wasn't generalizing. And calling something "desperate" is not a logical refutation. It's play-acting like a grown-up conversationalist.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
Well, MT, what did you expect? KC & S-the-A work the same modus operandi on the same side of the street:
1. Make an unsupportable and inflammatory statement containing an unstated assumption about "the left wing;"
2. When challenged, back off & claim you weren't really stating that, exactly, but some milquetoast version of it;
3. When the challenger seems to have left the thread for a bit, return to the original fallacious claim in hopes that Challenger is no longer paying attention.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I wasn't generalizing.
Generalising is precisely what you are doing.
You are jumping from the obvious fact that some fundamentalists will have an inadequate view of the poor to suggesting that this is characteristic of them as a group.
This is reminiscent of a child’s coming across a picture of Kilimanjaro’s summit and announcing triumphantly and accusingly, “Look at that snow! You told me that Africa was a hot continent! You must be wrong and a liar”.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
This is reminiscent of a child’s coming across a picture of Kilimanjaro’s summit and announcing triumphantly and accusingly, “Look at that snow! You told me that Africa was a hot continent! You must be wrong and a liar”. [/QB]
This is a good description of the article you originally posted (do most leftists think that Tories are as bad as Hitler" and your passive agressive endorsement of it ( well maybe it's false but in my gut I think it has a lot of truth...)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
It's getting too Hellish for Purgatory. Either take your differences there or drop them. But cool it here.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
You are jumping from the obvious fact that some fundamentalists will have an inadequate view of the poor to suggesting that this is characteristic of them as a group.
Nope. Never said that.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
if the shoe fits...
Your empiricism is admirable. But the whole point is that the shoe doesn't fit. Anyone who makes the slightest effort to understand right-of-centre economic thought will discover that it's about growing the economy - by encouraging small business and minimising bureaucracy - so that everyone will benefit (in absolute terms). Such principles are not evil.
Which is not to say that across all political parties and social classes there isn't a tendency to vote with one's wallet for whichever party will send a greater share of the national wealth in one's own direction. That's human nature - amoral, but not exactly evil.
Thinking that there's no more to political economy than that is cynical.
But "moral vanity" sounds like a reasonable description of the act of Pretending to oneself that such is the entirety of one's opponents' motivation, whilst of course one's own side are motivated by higher ideals.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Which is not to say that across all political parties and social classes there isn't a tendency to vote with one's wallet for whichever party will send a greater share of the national wealth in one's own direction. That's human nature - amoral, but not exactly evil.
I disagree. Accepting great harm to others merely to fatten your own wallet seems evil and pretty horrifically so. Or perhaps not evil but sick: it's the very definition of sociopathy.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Which is not to say that across all political parties and social classes there isn't a tendency to vote with one's wallet for whichever party will send a greater share of the national wealth in one's own direction. That's human nature - amoral, but not exactly evil.
I disagree. Accepting great harm to others merely to fatten your own wallet seems evil and pretty horrifically so. Or perhaps not evil but sick: it's the very definition of sociopathy.
I guess it depends on your definition of "great harm". But it seems to me that Russ is bang on the money about the motivation for political positions being to shovel as many of the resources your way as possible. Isn't that what redistribution is all about?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Which is not to say that across all political parties and social classes there isn't a tendency to vote with one's wallet for whichever party will send a greater share of the national wealth in one's own direction. That's human nature - amoral, but not exactly evil.
I disagree. Accepting great harm to others merely to fatten your own wallet seems evil and pretty horrifically so. Or perhaps not evil but sick: it's the very definition of sociopathy.
I guess it depends on your definition of "great harm". But it seems to me that Russ is bang on the money about the motivation for political positions being to shovel as many of the resources your way as possible. Isn't that what redistribution is all about?
Not really. I'm a net contributor; lower taxes and so on would benefit me, but I don't adopt the position of advocating them. However, I am conscious that things could change and I could land in the shit, so there could be argued to be an element of self interest if you really want.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
If I look at the demographics of who vote Left in the Netherlands, a significant proportion of them seem to be well-earning intellectuals who would lose money if the policies of the Left were implemented.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
If I look at the demographics of who vote Left in the Netherlands, a significant proportion of them seem to be well-earning intellectuals who would lose money if the policies of the Left were implemented.
Yes, but, erm - ah yes, they're champagne socialists with no connection with the real world. Ignorant do-gooders and politically correct idiots to a man.
Have to remember which criticism is valid at any given time. I can't remember whether this group is also the habitually anti-semitic one or not.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
if the shoe fits...
Your empiricism is admirable. But the whole point is that the shoe doesn't fit. Anyone who makes the slightest effort to understand right-of-centre economic thought will discover that it's about growing the economy - by encouraging small business and minimising bureaucracy - so that everyone will benefit (in absolute terms). Such principles are not evil.
Which is not to say that across all political parties and social classes there isn't a tendency to vote with one's wallet for whichever party will send a greater share of the national wealth in one's own direction. That's human nature - amoral, but not exactly evil.
Thinking that there's no more to political economy than that is cynical.
But "moral vanity" sounds like a reasonable description of the act of Pretending to oneself that such is the entirety of one's opponents' motivation, whilst of course one's own side are motivated by higher ideals.
Best wishes,
Russ
Horseshit.
Modern free-market* global capitalism# acts in the interest of corporations and market makers. SMEs and new businesses suffer. They might not be evil, but they should stop pretending to be anything other than self-interested.
As for minimising bureaucracy, those parts of the public sector that serve corporate interests (military procurement for one hefty example) are encouraged while those which might act in the interest of individual and smaller businesses are denigrated and discouraged.
*Which isn't free at all, as those who possess wealth have a colossal advantage.
#I'm not even sure it can be termed capitalism, as that implies risk-taking and between them corporations and market-makers manage risk in such a way that when the shit does hit the fan, the government bails them out and the people end up poorer for it - which takes us back to the title of the thread! That's the ultimate in risk mitigation - get someone else to pick up the tab!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, private profit, but socialized risk.
My memory of Marxist analysis, which is admittedly somewhat rusty, is that you would not describe capitalism or individual capitalists as evil. I think the point would be that capitalism is a system which grew up outside the will-power of human beings, so that in a sense, it controls us, we don't control it. this leads on to various other ideas, for example, alienation and fetishism, but again we are not wilfully alienated or fetishistic. That is the problem, that we are in a sense all turned into commodities without realizing it. Relations between people are converted into relations between things.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Which is not to say that across all political parties and social classes there isn't a tendency to vote with one's wallet for whichever party will send a greater share of the national wealth in one's own direction. That's human nature - amoral, but not exactly evil.
I disagree. Accepting great harm to others merely to fatten your own wallet seems evil and pretty horrifically so. Or perhaps not evil but sick: it's the very definition of sociopathy.
I guess it depends on your definition of "great harm". But it seems to me that Russ is bang on the money about the motivation for political positions being to shovel as many of the resources your way as possible. Isn't that what redistribution is all about?
The difference is redistribution to people who can prove a valid need versus redistribution to people who really don't need any help feeding themselves and their families. Denying people access to food or basic medical care on the basis of income creates harm, IMO.
For some people that's an important little nuance.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
And a small thing. I might not currently be on a food stamp income, but I'm keenly aware that if certain things go wrong in the wrong order, I could be. And if you want to call me selfish, I want to live in a world where a few random disasters are less likely to land you on the street. And I'll pay tax money for that.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Accepting great harm to others merely to fatten your own wallet seems evil and pretty horrifically so. Or perhaps not evil but sick: it's the very definition of sociopathy.
Intending or initiating great harm to others does seem evil. But that isn't how most people work. When some group of public sector workers goes on strike they don't intend great harm to anyone; what they intend is a redistribution of a small amount from each of a large number of taxpayers. Similarly, if some group of taxpayers or ratepayers organises themselves politically to lobby for reduced contributions, they don't intend great harm to anyone, just a modest redistribution back to those who earned the money in the first place.
I'm not saying that this is all there is to politics - that would be cynical. I'm saying that those who see morality at work in the former but not the latter have a somewhat blinkered approach.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Accepting great harm to others merely to fatten your own wallet seems evil and pretty horrifically so. Or perhaps not evil but sick: it's the very definition of sociopathy.
Intending or initiating great harm to others does seem evil. But that isn't how most people work. When some group of public sector workers goes on strike they don't intend great harm to anyone; what they intend is a redistribution of a small amount from each of a large number of taxpayers. Similarly, if some group of taxpayers or ratepayers organises themselves politically to lobby for reduced contributions, they don't intend great harm to anyone, just a modest redistribution back to those who earned the money in the first place.
I'm not saying that this is all there is to politics - that would be cynical. I'm saying that those who see morality at work in the former but not the latter have a somewhat blinkered approach.
Best wishes,
Russ
[my italics]
And vice versa of course, but it's worth noting that many of those campaigning for lower taxes do so for corporations, which often pay far lower taxes on their profits than people do, whether they are employed in the public or private sector.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
Who are all these right-of-centre people who you say argue for lower taxes for big corporations ? I've not met many...
Your average right-leaning thinker is far more concerned with small business and the freedom of the individual.
Best wishes,
Russ
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0