@Shinto - Thanks for some more lazy posting and a bit of stirring. You seem fairly clever - why don't you make some longer, more cogent points rather than one-line baiting?
Because I don't think NS is worth conversing with. Sorry if that strikes you the wrong way old fellow.
Personally I think that our own experience tends to inform our views on politics, much the way religion does. That said, I think it is generally a more fitting thing to vote in a way that my own knowledge and experience tells me will benefit my society as a whole, even if it pinches me a little.
I don't think you're making any sort of clear philosophical point. For instance, you say that Locke takes account of self-interest in his proposal of a political system. In a sense, this is true, because, as it says in the quoted passage, in Locke's state of nature men tend to judge partially in their own favor. To overcome the injustices and inefficiencies created by this instinct, we need a civil government.
But what does 'taking account of self-interest' mean here? It means we need to construct a government to minimize self-interest's opportunities to cause harm. Does this mean that self-interest is good, or that people should vote in self-interest? No. No it doesn't.
As you point out, he also thought that self-interest led people to engage in a civil society rather than remain in the state of nature. Does that mean that self-interest is good, or that people should vote in self-interest? Nope. It just means that civil society is a good idea for everyone involved.
You are completely missing the point of Enlightenment thought. The problem is not whether self-interest is a good thing. It is whether it is inherent in human beings, whether it is a thing. Most (Locke included) accepted that it was, and therefore took this into account when arguing their political points.
I also disagree with your analysis - 'taking account of self-interest' could mean constructing a government to minimize self-interest's opportunities to cause harm (say, a tyrant). Equally, that structure which he suggests, can be presented as trying to attain a maximal balance between the competing self-interests of every individual in society. I think you are applying your opinion to his intent, what is actually written on self-interest is much more ambiguous; thus my assertion that he simply accepted self-interest as a factor, and (badly) tried to account for it in the system.
Furthermore, you're casually switching between two distinct and mutually exclusive tracts of argument.
1. Doesn't address either my point about the system being designed with an assumption of self-interest and breaking that gives unpredictable, not-always-intended results.
2. No, MrMister was arguing what we should do. I was arguing that 'should' is irrelevant. Poshinello, where this started, was actually talking about what does happen, not what should happen.
Your argument in 1. engages on the moral ground, but holds that people voting in self-interest works out best for everyone.
Again, no. You are making a lot of assumptions. I am making no claims about the moral ground, I am talking about the practical effect. You assume I say that people voting in self-interest works out best. I did not. What I am saying is "people do vote in self-interest, the political system accounts for this". Whether they should or not doesn't much interest me, because I agree with Enlightenment thought that they do, and this trumps should.
You are welcome to talk about 'should', moral imperatives and changing human nature; I am somewhat more skeptical of that possibility, and simply seek to account & prepare for it.
I outlines a response to that already, but I'll reiterate. First, it assumes that people are too incompetent to understand what policies would effectively promote the common good, which is a pretty bleak view of human competence, and one which I don't share. Secondly, it assumes that all the selfish votes will somehow come together into a benevolent cocktail, a proposition which strikes me as absurd. For instance, without the selfless actions of the free riders, and without the growing moral revulsion of the rest of society, would self-interest have ever ended Jim Crow in the South? Even if it would have ended it eventually, it's still a concrete case where self-interested voting was absolutely inferior to voting for the common good. Not only was it inferior, but I would have moral revulsion for anyone who voted to continue Jim Crow, and I hope everyone else here would to.
I don't see what evidence you have for the claim that some invisible hand will sort everything out, aside from the contention that early thinkers designed the system with a balance of powers--except, of course, for Hobbes, who believed in an absolute unity of power, preferably in a single person.
Which is rather negated by what I wrote above. For the record though, I'm not much convinced by pure 'invisible hand' theories either, because as any (decent) student of economics knows, real systems are a hell of a lot more complex than that.
Your example of 'voting them out' as a bad instance of voting the public good is unclear--it's not clear whether people there are really trying to vote for their own self-interest or for the public good, and it's also an instance of people being confused about what the public good is, rather than an instance of people knowing what it is and voting for it, and the result still somehow being bad due to how the system was designed.
That is rather the point. They are not really voting for either - they are voting simply for change. The assumption is that pretty much anything else is better than the status quo, but there is no particular preference or idea of what that other will actually look like, except as defined by being in opposition to the current norm. What is much more clear & uniform is the rhetoric that comes from those opposition parties that benefit - as I said, they always claim victory for their specific policies (which are often very vague, having only had to criticise govt. policies while in opposition) and then take free reign to essentially do as they wish.
Basically, the oppositional system stops working because it becomes purely about opposition - ie one set of policies, with two people talking about them (one pro, one anti). In contrast, you can look at the usual outcome of single-issue or near single-issue politics (eg US in recent years). Extreme stances drive everyone further to the poles, but produce two clear, different policies. They also tend to produce a roughly even vote - the ability to enact the controversial policy of whoever wins, however, is to be stymied by a dodgy mandate and strong opposition in other parts of government. Extreme self-interest on both sides produces deadlock.
As you point out earlier, this is problematic when minorities are involved, but as someone else said, this is actually quite rare. Not because minorities are rare, but because these single-issue debates are; most people at most times, are voting on a huge range of issues, and so there is significant compromise which dilutes the action of self-interest. In many minority cases (civil rights in US) you also find that the oppositional structure of government is being consistently and habitually undermined; if the system is broken, it isn't going to alleviate the problem.
Your argument in 2. on the other hand, is not a normative argument. It's a descriptive argument. I am making a normative argument. This has been pointed out, like, 1,000 times. Imagine the following conversation:
ME: People should give money to charity.
YOU: But I don't. Hah! I win!
It would be pretty clear that you misunderstood the entire point of my comment. That is, in essence, what you're doing in that second line of argument.
Not quite. Slight alteration to your exchange.
YOU: People should give money to charity.
ME: But the vast majority don't. Thus relying on private charity is unwise.
...and thus we have other, state-funded, international aid (also fairly inconsequential) systems to deal with poverty, charity etc.
As I said above, yes, mine is a descriptive argument. But it is also pretty consistently proved true, and has been for millenia (way before Locke, Plato accounts for it in discussing the demos). Arguing the moral case is all well and good (ho), but since that has been happening for just as long, I contend that it isn't making much impact. Thus my reasoned response is that we should deal with the reality we have, not the one we want.
Shinto's trying to get you to realize that Locke wasn't the only philsophical influence on the founding fathers in their forming of the constitution.
If you're going to stick to a strictly lockian interpretation, and pin everything else on "a few idealistic hopes," then there isn't really much point arguing about it.
Actually, I was using Locke as the example who is furthest away from agreeing with my point. I was focusing on him just because MrMister brought him & Hobbes up, and Locke is the tougher sell. If you read Hobbes, Smith, all the other key writers in Enlightenment thought, you find that they are even more convinced of the import of self-interest; I'm figuring MrMister knows this, and I don't have to reprint another 18th century text to prove it.
Not suggesting that the FF were only influenced by one bloke. Just saying that Enlightenment thought on the action self-interest was pretty similar, it was in how to deal with it that they differed.
@Sarastro - I wish you'd calm down some, as you're making this side of the discussion look a bit aggressive, and for someone who made a big paddy about his name a while back, you sure don't manage to get mine right.
Well, it irritates me when Shinto posts, well, essentially nothing, on the lazy assumption that because people are under the impression that he is smart, they will assume he is correct...and then accuses me of failing to justify my argument.
Sorry about the name - ^^ - tried harder this time.
Not Sarastro on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
ME: People should give money to charity.
YOU: But I don't. Hah! I win!
It would be pretty clear that you misunderstood the entire point of my comment. That is, in essence, what you're doing in that second line of argument.
Not quite. Slight alteration to your exchange.
YOU: People should give money to charity.
ME: But the vast majority don't. Thus relying on private charity is unwise.
...and thus we have other, state-funded, international aid (also fairly inconsequential) systems to deal with poverty, charity etc.
This is a huge ret-con. Never once have I said that we should design our political system under the assumption that everyone will vote selflessly--rather, I have said that people should vote selflessly.
Your point is a swing and a miss.
MrMister on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
@ Mr Mister. I get what you're saying, but something isn't quite right. Maybe the terminology isn't right. Self-interest? What I'm thinking of isn't bad. I'm a person, I have needs etc. I get to look after myself.
Looking out for number one does not a moral philosophy make. Why do you deserve anything merely by virtue of being yourself? If I'm starving and you have food, is it okay for you to refuse to feed me by virtue of the fact that you are you and I am me? What if it were the other way around? What I'm getting at here is that impartiality is the essence of morality.
Regardless, lots of people (including ethicists) have trouble accepting that, so I'll accept that you only feel as compelled to be selfless in voting as you do in other arenas in life. My argument has mainly been predicated on the idea that voting is just like any other act you undertake--you have no free pass to be selfish just by virtue of being in a ballot box.
This is a huge ret-con. Never once have I said that we should design our political system under the assumption that everyone will vote selflessly--rather, I have said that people should vote selflessly.
Your point is a swing and a miss.
It's not a ret-con, it's been my point for the last 2 pages - and to be fair, never once did I say all the things you assumed I said.
In the original context, both of you are right then. Poshniallo in saying that people voting on self-interest, and you saying that you believe they shouldn't. But if we accept (2 pages later) that the majority do vote on self-interest, his basic position is more sound than yours in analysing the topic.
I'm pretty sure the irreconcilable difference between us is that you believe the moral imperative trumps the practical imperative. I disagree, because the practical imperative is going to happen anyway, so you might as well deal with reality. Don't think either of those opinions are going to change though.
Why do you deserve anything merely by virtue of being yourself?
Of course, you realise that sentiment can be used to justify both sides? It can both mean:
= I don't deserve this food any more than you.
= you don't deserve this food any more than me.
If I'm starving and you have food, is it okay for you to refuse to feed me by virtue of the fact that you are you and I am me?
First you have to demonstrate that me starving is morally bad. What you describe works quite well as an economic allocation of resources question, but it makes a basic assumption of morality (ie letting someone starve = bad) that doesn't explain why.
Looking out for number one does make a moral philosophy, just not one which you agree is 'moral'. Which tends to be the kicker of moral philosophies; few people do agree.
Not Sarastro on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
It's not a ret-con, it's been my point for the last 2 pages - and to be fair, never once did I say all the things you assumed I said.
It's been pretty hard to figure out what the hell you've been saying. I've stayed on point, with a pretty straightforward argument about how people should vote--which makes sense, since the argument was about the moral permissability of voting on race. You, on the other hand, have gone back and forth between a variety of incompatible arguments--that the founders designed a system that requires self-interested voting, that self interest includes promoting one's idea of the public good, that the public good is inherently subjective, and the supposedly pragmatic argument that regardless of what I say I won't change human practice (which is both false and a cheap cop-out from any normative argument).
In the original context, both of you are right then. Poshniallo in saying that people voting on self-interest, and you saying that you believe they shouldn't. But if we accept (2 pages later) that the majority do vote on self-interest, his basic position is more sound than yours in analysing the topic.
What, pray tell, is his analysis of the topic, such that it's so much more sound than mine?
I'm pretty sure the irreconcilable difference between us is that you believe the moral imperative trumps the practical imperative. I disagree, because the practical imperative is going to happen anyway, so you might as well deal with reality. Don't think either of those opinions are going to change though.
What the hell is a practical imperative and what does it have to do with anything? When have I contradicted one?
It's been pretty hard to figure out what the hell you've been saying. I've stayed on point, with a pretty straightforward argument about how people should vote--which makes sense, since the argument was about the moral permissability of voting on race. You, on the other hand, have gone back and forth between a variety of incompatible arguments--that the founders designed a system that requires self-interested voting, that self interest includes promoting one's idea of the public good, that the public good is inherently subjective, and the supposedly pragmatic argument that regardless of what I say I won't change human practice (which is both false and a cheap cop-out from any normative argument).
Er, I'm not entirely sure how any of those examples are incompatible? Also, to correct:
1. The FF designed a system that assumes (not requires) and accounts for self-interested voting.
2. self interest includes promoting one's idea of the public good - yes
3. That one's idea of the public good is inherently subjective - (ie not necessarily the thing itself, though I would argue on most grounds that it is)
...you generalise again about human practice, my specific point is:
4. That a majority of people do vote on self-interest.
Not false, not that we're going to prove it here without citing a shitload of polling data and then arguing about the reliability of polling / statistics, but you haven't challenged it so far, so hoping you accept it.
Where is the contradiction?
In the original context, both of you are right then. Poshniallo in saying that people voting on self-interest, and you saying that you believe they shouldn't. But if we accept (2 pages later) that the majority do vote on self-interest, his basic position is more sound than yours in analysing the topic.
What, pray tell, is his analysis of the topic, such that it's so much more sound than mine?
Ask him. I refered to his start position, not his argument.
I'm pretty sure the irreconcilable difference between us is that you believe the moral imperative trumps the practical imperative. I disagree, because the practical imperative is going to happen anyway, so you might as well deal with reality. Don't think either of those opinions are going to change though.
What the hell is a practical imperative and what does it have to do with anything? When have I contradicted one?
Moral imperative = people should do things X way
Practical imperative = people do things Y way
Since X and Y don't always match, my position is that we should act ourselves as if Y takes precedence. You argue we should act ourselves as if X takes precedence.
This is what I'm saying -- people do this in subtle ways all the time, but because it's a black person backing a black person, suddenly everyone hems and haws and looks down on it and gets upset and acts like this is somehow inappropriate. Maybe if everyone hemmed and hawed the same way when Christians supported bible-thumpers or when Mormons supported Romney or when people from the same locality supported people from the same locality etc. I'd give more credence to it, but it seems like a pretty natural, pretty harmless preference on Oprah's part.
The OP's argument is that it is a natural preference on Oprah's part based on self-interest, ie voting for 'your own' or whatever, and cites Christians etc doing the same thing.
The people arguing against said it is morally unpermissable because (presumably) it is hypocritical to say 'be colour-blind here, but not there', which is essentially the anti-affirmative action case. Also that there is a certain public hypocrisy that anyone saying they were voting for a white candidate because he was white would get pilloried.
It seems to me, however, that celery77 was saying: look, this does happen in practice (Christians etc), why should Oprah be held to a different standard?
Looks to me like precisely the same argument we're having.
How about we just agree that voting should be a mixture of self-interest and public good?
On the one hand, public good is... good. Acting in the interests of other people is a good thing. It's good to do good things.
On the other hand, voting is one of the few means by which average folks can let their opinions be known. If everyone just voted based on what they thought everyone else wanted on every issue, it would be harder to gauge what people actually wanted. All you know is that everyone thinks everyone else wants A, when it's possible they all really want B.
Partly, the "always voting for the public good" idea suffers from the mistake of assuming that every issue has a Right Answer and a Wrong Answer. I mean, if you're voting on whether to build more libraries or more parks, which is the obviously good right answer that everyone must vote for or else they'll be labeled a selfish shit-weasel? Given that there isn't one, maybe people should just decide which one they, personally, want and vote for that?
Certainly if we're talking, say, tax policy, it would be nice if everyone didn't just invariably support tax hikes for everyone else and tax cuts for their own demographic groups. And on some issues, voting selfishly is sort of difficult - the question of whether to bring home the troops from Iraq is an academic one for 99.9% of the nation. Whether we're in there or not doesn't much affect anyone directly unless they're actually a soldier or friend/relative thereof.
Ultimately, I think the two sides in this debate are being a little excessively dogmatic. "PUBLIC GOOD UBER ALLES!" and "FUCK YOUR FELLOW MAN, BE SELFISH!" are sort of simplistic caricatures of useful approaches towards voting.
Also, consider that in a representative democracy, on a large scale, nobody is ever really voting on policy. They're voting on policy creators. Since we seem to be arguing abstract idealism anyway, what would be awesome is if every voter voted for who they wanted based on strict self-interest. If one person wins in a landslide, that likely means that his platform is one that would benefit the majority of the people, and so enacting it would further the public good. If the winner just squeaks by, he has less of a mandate, and needs to figure out better how to act in the interests of the public.
Either way, the lack of direct democracy makes the whole "voting for the public good" question somewhat moot.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Er, I'm not entirely sure how any of those examples are incompatible? Also, to correct:
1. The FF designed a system that assumes (not requires) and accounts for self-interested voting.
2. self interest includes promoting one's idea of the public good - yes
3. That one's idea of the public good is inherently subjective - (ie not necessarily the thing itself, though I would argue on most grounds that it is)
Well the incompatibility of the arguments is that 1. holds that the system accounts for self-interested voting, with the implication that the public good thus isn't harmed by self-interested voting. Point 3, however, says that no objective public good is accessible to our knowledge: so how could we have any idea what the relation between self-interested voting and the public good in our system? If 3 is true, then there would be no way to possibly know whether our system actually effectively accounts for self-interested voting.
Rapid switching between arguments which rely on different fundamental notions is poor form.
4. That a majority of people do vote on self-interest.
Not false, not that we're going to prove it here without citing a shitload of polling data and then arguing about the reliability of polling / statistics, but you haven't challenged it so far, so hoping you accept it.
I would argue that few people vote exclusively on self-interest, unless you use the stupid psychological-egoism definition you're so attached to, in which case the whole statement is trivial.
Moral imperative = people should do things X way
Practical imperative = people do things Y way
Since X and Y don't always match, my position is that we should act ourselves as if Y takes precedence. You argue we should act ourselves as if X takes precedence.
People don't always act as they should; it is wise to take that into account. This is both blindingly obvious, and also something I've never argued against. When have I argued against that? All I've argued about is how people should do things. This is apparently a stumbling block for you.
Ultimately, I think the two sides in this debate are being a little excessively dogmatic. "PUBLIC GOOD UBER ALLES!" and "FUCK YOUR FELLOW MAN, BE SELFISH!" are sort of simplistic caricatures of useful approaches towards voting.
True, lucky then that hasn't been the argument at all. Neither of us have been arguing abstract idealism, we have been talking about what actually happens, as well as what should happen, just disagreeing on what that is.
So agreeing might be a bit much, but I'm happy to shut up about it.
And all I've argued is that when considering a course of action 'how people should do things' is pretty irrelevant compared to 'how people actually do things'. Namely, moral vs practical imperative. I don't disagree with your opinion, I just don't think it's a sound basis for decision-making, ie - who do I vote for?
Anyway, this isn't going anywhere, so I'm off.
Not Sarastro on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Partly, the "always voting for the public good" idea suffers from the mistake of assuming that every issue has a Right Answer and a Wrong Answer. I mean, if you're voting on whether to build more libraries or more parks, which is the obviously good right answer that everyone must vote for or else they'll be labeled a selfish shit-weasel? Given that there isn't one, maybe people should just decide which one they, personally, want and vote for that?
It's a big leap to go from "this question is hard to answer" to "this question has no answer." Furthermore, I never said that someone is a selfish shit-weasel for trying to vote on the public good but getting it wrong, and it's certainly not true. What I said was that someone is a selfish shit-weasel for not even attempting to vote on the public good, and rather only considering their personal interest (excluding interests like the desire for justice and fairness because they're moral requirements, in case that wasn't blindingly obvious).
Since we seem to be arguing abstract idealism anyway, what would be awesome is if every voter voted for who they wanted based on strict self-interest. If one person wins in a landslide, that likely means that his platform is one that would benefit the majority of the people, and so enacting it would further the public good. If the winner just squeaks by, he has less of a mandate, and needs to figure out better how to act in the interests of the public.
Unless it's 1845 and Alabama. In which case the majority gets together and fucks the shit out of the minority, because it's to their advantage and they have no moral qualms about it.
Either way, the lack of direct democracy makes the whole "voting for the public good" question somewhat moot.
Perhaps less pressing than it otherwise would be, but it's not impossible to predict what a candidate will do with any degree of certainty.
MrMister on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
And all I've argued is that when considering a course of action 'how people should do things' is pretty irrelevant compared to 'how people actually do things'. Namely, moral vs practical imperative. I don't disagree with your opinion, I just don't think it's a sound basis for decision-making, ie - who do I vote for?
Anyway, this isn't going anywhere, so I'm off.
I'm telling you how you should vote. That's pretty relevant to the course of action you decide on, i.e. who you vote for. What the fuck.
Partly, the "always voting for the public good" idea suffers from the mistake of assuming that every issue has a Right Answer and a Wrong Answer. I mean, if you're voting on whether to build more libraries or more parks, which is the obviously good right answer that everyone must vote for or else they'll be labeled a selfish shit-weasel? Given that there isn't one, maybe people should just decide which one they, personally, want and vote for that?
It's a big leap to go from "this question is hard to answer" to "this question has no answer." Furthermore, I never said that someone is a selfish shit-weasel for trying to vote on the public good but getting it wrong, and it's certainly not true. What I said was that someone is a selfish shit-weasel for not even attempting to vote on the public good, and rather only considering their personal interest (excluding interests like the desire for justice and fairness because they're moral requirements, in case that wasn't blindingly obvious).
Are you honestly saying that there never exists any question in politics for which it's basically a matter of person preferences? Basically, you're asserting that unless every nation in the world is exactly identical in every single possible way, that someone is objectively failing. If two nations have a different approach to something, then clearly one of them is objectively wrong.
That's... sort of silly.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Are you honestly saying that there never exists any question in politics for which it's basically a matter of person preferences? Basically, you're asserting that unless every nation in the world is exactly identical in every single possible way, that someone is objectively failing. If two nations have a different approach to something, then clearly one of them is objectively wrong.
That's... sort of silly.
No, I acknowledge that context is important for determining the correct answer. The best policy on immigration for Switzerland may be different from the best policy on immigration for the USA. But once you fix all the particular matters of fact about a country, there is a unique best answer to policy questions. It might be only very marginally better than the next best answer, but it seems improbable that there would ever be any exact ties.
Are you honestly saying that there never exists any question in politics for which it's basically a matter of person preferences? Basically, you're asserting that unless every nation in the world is exactly identical in every single possible way, that someone is objectively failing. If two nations have a different approach to something, then clearly one of them is objectively wrong.
That's... sort of silly.
No, I acknowledge that context is important for determining the correct answer. The best policy on immigration for Switzerland may be different from the best policy on immigration for the USA. But once you fix all the particular matters of fact about a country, there is a unique best answer to policy questions. It might be only very marginally better than the next best answer, but it seems improbable that there would ever be any exact ties.
It's not so much about exact ties as it is about people deciding the sort of culture they wish to live in. If one group of people really likes parks and one group really likes libraries, I think it's presumptuous beyond belief to tell one that their choice is stupid and subpar. Some people value different things in different quantities. I don't quite get how one can say that, basically, everyone who doesn't possess a certain ordered list of likes and dislikes (presumably yours) is objectively wrong.
Though really, none of this has anything to do with the thread topic.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Are you honestly saying that there never exists any question in politics for which it's basically a matter of person preferences? Basically, you're asserting that unless every nation in the world is exactly identical in every single possible way, that someone is objectively failing. If two nations have a different approach to something, then clearly one of them is objectively wrong.
That's... sort of silly.
No, I acknowledge that context is important for determining the correct answer. The best policy on immigration for Switzerland may be different from the best policy on immigration for the USA. But once you fix all the particular matters of fact about a country, there is a unique best answer to policy questions. It might be only very marginally better than the next best answer, but it seems improbable that there would ever be any exact ties.
It's not so much about exact ties as it is about people deciding the sort of culture they wish to live in. If one group of people really likes parks and one group really likes libraries, I think it's presumptuous beyond belief to tell one that their choice is stupid and subpar. Some people value different things in different quantities. I don't quite get how one can say that, basically, everyone who doesn't possess a certain ordered list of likes and dislikes (presumably yours) is objectively wrong.
Though really, none of this has anything to do with the thread topic.
Some people like Black or White presidents, not parks or libraries.
And we're back.
Shinto on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
No, I acknowledge that context is important for determining the correct answer.
It's not so much about exact ties as it is about people deciding the sort of culture they wish to live in. If one group of people really likes parks and one group really likes libraries, I think it's presumptuous beyond belief to tell one that their choice is stupid and subpar. Some people value different things in different quantities. I don't quite get how one can say that, basically, everyone who doesn't possess a certain ordered list of likes and dislikes (presumably yours) is objectively wrong.
That would be one of those contextual factors. I think people here see that I'm a moral realist and take that to mean that I hold any number of silly positions. No, I don't think that it's wrong for people in Japan to build kabuki theaters if they like them.
I'm going to interpret "contextual factors" in such a way as to make us essentially agree, even though I know we only kinda-sorta do, because agreeing with you is fun and will also help get us back on topic.
Obama? More like O-da-bomb-a, m i rite?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Are Whites More Likely to Support the Death Penalty When They Think Blacks Are Being Executed?
The answer, it seems, is yes. In a 2001 survey conducted by Mark Peffley and Jon Hurwitz, a random subset of whites was asked:
“Do you favor or oppose the death penalty for persons convicted of murder?â€
Somewhat favor: 29%
Strongly favor: 36%
Another random subset of whites was asked:
“Some people say that the death penalty is unfair because most of the people who are executed are African-Americans. Do you favor or oppose the death penalty for persons convicted of murder?â€
Somewhat favor: 25%
Strongly favor: 52%
That is a 12-point increase in overall support.
Part of it could just be a knee-jerk overreaction to political correctness. The thought might go "So some people want me to oppose the death penalty just because it happens to blacks a lot? Screw those guys!"
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
Are Whites More Likely to Support the Death Penalty When They Think Blacks Are Being Executed?
The answer, it seems, is yes. In a 2001 survey conducted by Mark Peffley and Jon Hurwitz, a random subset of whites was asked:
“Do you favor or oppose the death penalty for persons convicted of murder?â€
Somewhat favor: 29%
Strongly favor: 36%
Another random subset of whites was asked:
“Some people say that the death penalty is unfair because most of the people who are executed are African-Americans. Do you favor or oppose the death penalty for persons convicted of murder?â€
Somewhat favor: 25%
Strongly favor: 52%
That is a 12-point increase in overall support.
Part of it could just be a knee-jerk overreaction to political correctness. The thought might go "So some people want me to oppose the death penalty just because it happens to blacks a lot? Screw those guys!"
Yeah, the questions are different in a lot of ways. It'd be better if the structure of the question were the same, but with different demographics.
Are you honestly saying that there never exists any question in politics for which it's basically a matter of person preferences? Basically, you're asserting that unless every nation in the world is exactly identical in every single possible way, that someone is objectively failing. If two nations have a different approach to something, then clearly one of them is objectively wrong.
That's... sort of silly.
No, I acknowledge that context is important for determining the correct answer. The best policy on immigration for Switzerland may be different from the best policy on immigration for the USA. But once you fix all the particular matters of fact about a country, there is a unique best answer to policy questions. It might be only very marginally better than the next best answer, but it seems improbable that there would ever be any exact ties.
This is effectively what Sarastro is arguing against.
You hold the opinion that there is an objective public good, therefore there is always a 'right' way to vote.
The problem with this is that, how do you know that people aren't already voting for the public good?
Differing philosophies and values lead people to think that both Democrats and Republicans will do the most good for the most people. Since that is the case arguing that people should vote for the public good is a moot point. They already believe they are.
The other problem is that often people do not disagree on certain goals (decreasing poverty, growing the economy, whatever), but have different ideas on how to achieve said goals. I contend that there is more than one way to skin a cat. There is not a best answer. How would you evaluate that? Cost, efficiency, speed?
I think I see the problem here though. Combine that with your opinion of an objective public good, and you don't really want a democracy. You want a Youocracy.
Not Sarastro on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I think I see the problem here though. Combine that with your opinion of an objective public good, and you don't really want a democracy. You want a Youocracy.
Look, if you shift the goalposts any further you might have to cross state lines. I'm just going to be satisfied that I've rebutted your substantive points, because you've gone from disputing my claim about the ethics of voting to calling me a would-be tyrant.
Differing philosophies and values lead people to think that both Democrats and Republicans will do the most good for the most people. Since that is the case arguing that people should vote for the public good is a moot point. They already believe they are.
How to determine the public good is an entirely different can of worms: my argument was about the acceptable reasons to vote. Because it's good for me is an unacceptable reason, whereas because it's in the public good is an acceptable reason. Hence, both Democrats and Republicans would be using acceptable reasoning forms in your example, although one of them would in fact be confused about the facts of the matter regarding the public good. The hypothetical voter who votes for a candidate solely because that candidate is of their race, however, would not be using an acceptable form of reasoning.
I don't know where to go from here with this argument. I basically agree with El Jeffe, except I think Mrsquared's position is completely different. I don't want to get the thread off-topic, but i think this part is the real topic. Maybe a split? The Ethics of Voting?
Instead of addressing Sarastro, how about The Chief's point about parks and libraries? There may or may not be true good and one truly good way to live (which you still haven't demonstrated Mr). Regardless, I don't think finding it is the goal of democracy.
I think these are our problems:
1) What is the purpose of having a democratic state, over all the other options (even the as-yet-untried ones)?
2) Is there always a best action to take? Certainly there is sometimes, which mrmr has been referring to, but always?
3) What is the difference between justified self-interest and unjustified? If I stab you and take all your stuff, we're clear that's bad - but if I give you all my stuff and stab myself since I'm just a drain on the state now, that's clearly not good either. How much self-interest is completely morally acceptable?
I think these are the key issues. So whaddya think about these, thoughtful-types?
Look, if you shift the goalposts any further you might have to cross state lines. I'm just going to be satisfied that I've rebutted your substantive points, because you've gone from disputing my claim about the ethics of voting to calling me a would-be tyrant.
Therefore since I don't know the objective public good, I must vote how someone else tells me - in this case MrMister, but it could be anyone (olol tyrant), or more likely multiple people.
I dont give a damn whether you think I'm making unreasonable accusations, his logic means that we must all vote one way, and it seems pretty clear - since nobody else here is claiming they know what an objective good is - that way is whatever he considers right. This is simply a bullshit argument for moral manipulation of voting, essentially no different to the Republican Christian strategy.
The only other alternative is that MrMister doesn't know what objective good is, in which case his entire argument is utterly pointless, as it is not practicable - "you should vote on the objective public good, but we don't know what that is". Whether it is practicable or not is relevant to his argument (whether he wants to talk purely about the moral sphere or not) because we are talking about a practical act - casting a ballot.
Your method for voting is either undemocratic or impossible, neither of which particularly appeals.
I don't know where to go from here with this argument. I basically agree with El Jeffe, except I think Mrsquared's position is completely different. I don't want to get the thread off-topic, but i think this part is the real topic. Maybe a split? The Ethics of Voting?
Instead of addressing Sarastro, how about The Chief's point about parks and libraries? There may or may not be true good and one truly good way to live (which you still haven't demonstrated Mr). Regardless, I don't think finding it is the goal of democracy.
I think these are our problems:
1) What is the purpose of having a democratic state, over all the other options (even the as-yet-untried ones)?
2) Is there always a best action to take? Certainly there is sometimes, which mrmr has been referring to, but always?
3) What is the difference between justified self-interest and unjustified? If I stab you and take all your stuff, we're clear that's bad - but if I give you all my stuff and stab myself since I'm just a drain on the state now, that's clearly not good either. How much self-interest is completely morally acceptable?
I think these are the key issues. So whaddya think about these, thoughtful-types?
1) Given the olol commies argument a spin here, they say the reason that Communism doesnt work is because you need a benevolent dictator, and that even if you find one, eventually they will die and you will need another etc.
The bonus to democracy is that the government is ALWAYS accountable to the public. Mind its accountable to the WHOLE public too, that means that no matter how much Bush pisses you off, as long as the majority of the public backs him up, or the majority of the public doesnt enact/pass laws that makes what he does illigal. Then everything is TECHNICALLY working as it should.
2) There is no way to know what is the best action to take. Unless you have a way to perfectly predict all future outcomes of each choice perfectly. Especially with some issues where there are many multifaceted ways of trying to solve them. IE: Abortion and STDs: Promote abstinence, sexual education, criminalize clinics, free contraceptives, etc etc.
3) Justification is in the eye of the beholder or however that goes. Some people feel justice is served when criminals are put to death. Other people feel there can never be justification for taking another persons life. Others are more in the middle where a death sentence could be deserved but only if there is irrefutable evidence etc etc.
Anyways, I wouldnt mind seeing the thread title changed, since the OP is a faulty premise of "Why is everyone pussy footing around the fact that Oprah is backing Obama because he's black?", unless she states implicitly that it was a factor in her decision, it is racist to try to infer it.
Look, if you shift the goalposts any further you might have to cross state lines. I'm just going to be satisfied that I've rebutted your substantive points, because you've gone from disputing my claim about the ethics of voting to calling me a would-be tyrant.
Therefore since I don't know the objective public good, I must vote how someone else tells me - in this case MrMister, but it could be anyone (olol tyrant), or more likely multiple people.
I dont give a damn whether you think I'm making unreasonable accusations, his logic means that we must all vote one way, and it seems pretty clear - since nobody else here is claiming they know what an objective good is - that way is whatever he considers right. This is simply a bullshit argument for moral manipulation of voting, essentially no different to the Republican Christian strategy.
The only other alternative is that MrMister doesn't know what objective good is, in which case his entire argument is utterly pointless, as it is not practicable - "you should vote on the objective public good, but we don't know what that is". Whether it is practicable or not is relevant to his argument (whether he wants to talk purely about the moral sphere or not) because we are talking about a practical act - casting a ballot.
Your method for voting is either undemocratic or impossible, neither of which particularly appeals.
I see nothing in particular to disagree with in Mr^2 assertions. Democracy is very much based on the idea that the objective public good can only be determined by the public. That it may be difficult to ascertain does not mean it isn't there, and if it were clear to everyone (or if everyone cared about it) then yes - there would in fact be only one logical way for people to vote.
I don't think Mr^2 has ever claimed to know precisely what it is since that would be arrogance though presumably the way in which he votes would indicate he is attempting to vote for the best public outcome.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited December 2007
Electricity pretty much got it. But I'd like to take a little extra time for this quote:
This is simply a bullshit argument for moral manipulation of voting, essentially no different to the Republican Christian strategy.
Would you say that Martin Luther King Jr. engaged in bullshit manipulation of people's votes? After all, he was presumptuous enough to think that his moral concerns determined how they should vote on certain issues. Really, I just don't see why presenting moral concerns about voting would be either bullshit or manipulation: rather, it would be legitimate argumentation. I think Republican Christians are wrong on the factual level about what's good for society, but not that the idea of engaging on a moral ground is somehow broken--after all, that was the ground of the abolitionists, the suffragettes, and the free riders.
I see nothing in particular to disagree with in Mr^2 assertions. Democracy is very much based on the idea that the objective public good can only be determined by the public. That it may be difficult to ascertain does not mean it isn't there, and if it were clear to everyone (or if everyone cared about it) then yes - there would in fact be only one logical way for people to vote.
That statement is all sorts of wrong.
1. Democracy is based on the idea that rule by a majority is preferable to rule by a minority.
2. Conversely, democracy accepts that there will always be a minority opposed to the majority.
Those two things are precisely why there is rarely, if ever, an 'objective public good'. You simply have a majority opinion, or a majority good. For every park, library or dam you try to use as an example of an objective public good, I will show you a whacked out environmentalist, fundamentalist or libertarian who would rather they weren't built.
Who do you mean when you say 'the public'? Individual members of the public, or the massed totals from the polling booth? Very different things in relation to your statement. If individual members of the public each determine the public good, what happens when they disagree? How is that objective, since there is always a minority? If the public vote determines the public good, it is only 'objective' in that the majority of people have voted for it.
Finally, universal suffrage demands that votes be based on opinion, because it is the only universal currency. Knowledge, merit, experience, are not universal traits, nice though it would be. Sure, some people might use knowledge etc to inform their opinion. But how many experts in an academic field have you met who have fundamentally differing opinions on their subject? Knowledge & experience does not guarantee objectivity. More to the point, the majority are unlikely to vote on anything but their opinion. When votes determine the public good by a majority, and the votes are based on opinion, how is any result 'objective'?
There may well be an objective public good, but democracy is, and always will be, fundamentally subjective.
Would you say that Martin Luther King Jr. engaged in bullshit manipulation of people's votes? After all, he was presumptuous enough to think that his moral concerns determined how they should vote on certain issues. Really, I just don't see why presenting moral concerns about voting would be either bullshit or manipulation: rather, it would be legitimate argumentation. I think Republican Christians are wrong on the factual level about what's good for society, but not that the idea of engaging on a moral ground is somehow broken--after all, that was the ground of the abolitionists, the suffragettes, and the free riders.
I don't think Mr^2 has ever claimed to know precisely what it is since that would be arrogance though presumably the way in which he votes would indicate he is attempting to vote for the best public outcome.
...which is precisely my problem. If he doesn't know what this objective public good is, then what is the point in saying it is a moral imperative [people should vote for what is right] that people to vote for it? Either it isn't possible, or history suggests they are going to vote along fairly dodgy personal moral grounds: see, stem cells, Intelligent Design, civil partnerships, civil rights, suffrage, abolition, witch-hunts...
Some of those you mention. But you are omitting the fact that most of those were minority movements against a 'moral majority' who disagreed with them. You are also omitting the centuries beforehand where people justified those same oppressions on moral grounds. Dressing up opinion (voting) in morality just makes it more trenchant, more oppositional, and more partisan; you are no longer disagreeing with my opinion, but my beliefs. People die and kill for beliefs.
This is the kicker. Yes, when MLK put on his preacher's hat and started fighting the good fight, I think he was wrong. Not because he was fighting injustice, but because he made it a moral battle. If you see injustice, change it by talking about justice, not about what is 'right'. People do not agree on what is right & wrong. There is no objective Book you can go to to demonstrate 'right', because everyone disagrees on which fucking Book is the 'right' one. Equality is a demonstrable principle. Balance, equilibrium, these are demonstrable principles. We have a legal system written down that everyone agrees on, or has the opportunity to try and change if they do not.
I would also point out that your idea that morality should seriously inform voting is not a given - it is a peculiarily American concept, and not remotely shared in the UK or Europe. And this:
but not that the idea of engaging on a moral ground is somehow broken--after all, that was the ground of the abolitionists, the suffragettes, and the free riders.
...is nostalgia for the past clouding your eyes in the present. You're saying that to win the war, we just need bigger guns than the other lot (like we used to have). I'm saying we need to stop fighting on their terms.
I have a problem with anyone saying that we should always vote on moral grounds, because not every issue is a moral issue.
I see nothing in particular to disagree with in Mr^2 assertions. Democracy is very much based on the idea that the objective public good can only be determined by the public. That it may be difficult to ascertain does not mean it isn't there, and if it were clear to everyone (or if everyone cared about it) then yes - there would in fact be only one logical way for people to vote.
That statement is all sorts of wrong.
1. Democracy is based on the idea that rule by a majority is preferable to rule by a minority.
2. Conversely, democracy accepts that there will always be a minority opposed to the majority.
Those two things are precisely why there is rarely, if ever, an 'objective public good'. You simply have a majority opinion, or a majority good. For every park, library or dam you try to use as an example of an objective public good, I will show you a whacked out environmentalist, fundamentalist or libertarian who would rather they weren't built.
You sell your point out by calling them "whacked out". They are obviously not acting rationally, by your own assertion.
The existence of a minority does not indicate that there is not an objective public good, it represents dissension on what the objective public good is - because it is predictably hard to determine, or alternatively self-centered interests.
One would note that most points of political contention don't center on not achieving overall goals, they focus on different opinions of how to get there - both of Australia's political parties claimed to want sustained low interest rates for the public, but have different ideas on how that is best achieved.
You sell your point out by calling them "whacked out". They are obviously not acting rationally, by your own assertion.
The existence of a minority does not indicate that there is not an objective public good, it represents dissension on what the objective public good is - because it is predictably hard to determine, or alternatively self-centered interests.
One would note that most points of political contention don't center on not achieving overall goals, they focus on different opinions of how to get there - both of Australia's political parties claimed to want sustained low interest rates for the public, but have different ideas on how that is best achieved.
Yes, that is exactly what my argument said. Voting is based on opinion. The fact that they aren't acting rationally is an opinion. But democratic systems don't expect people to vote rationally, because nobody who created them (or even nowadays) imagines that every voter will have the information, knowledge or experience to vote rationally on every issue.
The 'difference of opinion on how to get there' is precisely what prevents complete 'rule by majority', or in some cases, domination by a minority (it's also what I meant by the difference between the statements Durandal and I wrote above). Political contention is not a side-effect, it is the machine of democractic government; it makes partisan majority government harder, blocks extreme measures, makes the majority of legislation more centrist. And ideas can be radical both in intent & policy; for example, Ron Paul makes roughly the same economic claims of intent as everyone else (prosperity & freedom for Americans etc) but his different ideas on how to get there are radical.
More recent democracies have been set up with precisely this moderating influence in mind - if you look at the postwar democracies in Europe, most of them are multi-party, coalition style systems, which necessitate less partisanship & more centrism than a two-party system. The point isn't really to give voters more choice - the point is the effect the existence of each party has on the others. Some have argued it creates less choice by moving all parties closer to the centre, making them much alike; but that also means that more people are happy with the government & policies they get after ballot day.
So when you are talking about attaining 'objective public goods' by voting on your moral conscience, I argue that in effect you are creating more partisanship, which is antithecal to how you said democratic systems are meant to attain the (subjective) public good.
More to the point, so far, nobody has been able to describe how to identify in practice, when casting your vote, this 'objective public good'. Until someone can do that, this entire argument is fairly pointless theory.
I think Oprah is backing Obama because he's the only current Dem candidate who isn't a total, complete putz.
Hillary? This "feminist icon" would of been unheard of if she hadn't married Bill; she can't stand on her own merits, to include her abuse of the office of First Lady; using it as a shield while she tried to make herself some sort of Queen; holding power without being elected, appointed, or accountable.
The more people see of this shrill, unsmiling Machiavelli in a skirt, the less they like.
Edwards? Ambulance-chasing, trial lawyer.
Kucinich? Loon.
Richardson? Can't speak clearly to save his life.
Biden? Represents half of...delaware.
Dodd? Who?
Gravel? Wha?
At least Obama can speak cohernatly and, reguardless of one's personal feelings about the war, has been clearly and consistantly against it in stark contract to Hillary's Kerry-esque "voted for it before I voted against it" vote, devoid of principle, long on calculation.
Plus, even as the National Review pointed out, he represents a welcome break from the Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton style of civil rights leadership; less vested interest in the anger and bitterness of the past, more about moving on and getting along.
Much better and more unifying than the current "get whitey" mentality of Jackson and Sharpton, see also: Duke Lacross Team.
Posts
Because I don't think NS is worth conversing with. Sorry if that strikes you the wrong way old fellow.
Personally I think that our own experience tends to inform our views on politics, much the way religion does. That said, I think it is generally a more fitting thing to vote in a way that my own knowledge and experience tells me will benefit my society as a whole, even if it pinches me a little.
You are completely missing the point of Enlightenment thought. The problem is not whether self-interest is a good thing. It is whether it is inherent in human beings, whether it is a thing. Most (Locke included) accepted that it was, and therefore took this into account when arguing their political points.
I also disagree with your analysis - 'taking account of self-interest' could mean constructing a government to minimize self-interest's opportunities to cause harm (say, a tyrant). Equally, that structure which he suggests, can be presented as trying to attain a maximal balance between the competing self-interests of every individual in society. I think you are applying your opinion to his intent, what is actually written on self-interest is much more ambiguous; thus my assertion that he simply accepted self-interest as a factor, and (badly) tried to account for it in the system.
Again, no. You are making a lot of assumptions. I am making no claims about the moral ground, I am talking about the practical effect. You assume I say that people voting in self-interest works out best. I did not. What I am saying is "people do vote in self-interest, the political system accounts for this". Whether they should or not doesn't much interest me, because I agree with Enlightenment thought that they do, and this trumps should.
You are welcome to talk about 'should', moral imperatives and changing human nature; I am somewhat more skeptical of that possibility, and simply seek to account & prepare for it.
Which is rather negated by what I wrote above. For the record though, I'm not much convinced by pure 'invisible hand' theories either, because as any (decent) student of economics knows, real systems are a hell of a lot more complex than that.
That is rather the point. They are not really voting for either - they are voting simply for change. The assumption is that pretty much anything else is better than the status quo, but there is no particular preference or idea of what that other will actually look like, except as defined by being in opposition to the current norm. What is much more clear & uniform is the rhetoric that comes from those opposition parties that benefit - as I said, they always claim victory for their specific policies (which are often very vague, having only had to criticise govt. policies while in opposition) and then take free reign to essentially do as they wish.
Basically, the oppositional system stops working because it becomes purely about opposition - ie one set of policies, with two people talking about them (one pro, one anti). In contrast, you can look at the usual outcome of single-issue or near single-issue politics (eg US in recent years). Extreme stances drive everyone further to the poles, but produce two clear, different policies. They also tend to produce a roughly even vote - the ability to enact the controversial policy of whoever wins, however, is to be stymied by a dodgy mandate and strong opposition in other parts of government. Extreme self-interest on both sides produces deadlock.
As you point out earlier, this is problematic when minorities are involved, but as someone else said, this is actually quite rare. Not because minorities are rare, but because these single-issue debates are; most people at most times, are voting on a huge range of issues, and so there is significant compromise which dilutes the action of self-interest. In many minority cases (civil rights in US) you also find that the oppositional structure of government is being consistently and habitually undermined; if the system is broken, it isn't going to alleviate the problem.
Not quite. Slight alteration to your exchange.
YOU: People should give money to charity.
ME: But the vast majority don't. Thus relying on private charity is unwise.
...and thus we have other, state-funded, international aid (also fairly inconsequential) systems to deal with poverty, charity etc.
As I said above, yes, mine is a descriptive argument. But it is also pretty consistently proved true, and has been for millenia (way before Locke, Plato accounts for it in discussing the demos). Arguing the moral case is all well and good (ho), but since that has been happening for just as long, I contend that it isn't making much impact. Thus my reasoned response is that we should deal with the reality we have, not the one we want.
Actually, I was using Locke as the example who is furthest away from agreeing with my point. I was focusing on him just because MrMister brought him & Hobbes up, and Locke is the tougher sell. If you read Hobbes, Smith, all the other key writers in Enlightenment thought, you find that they are even more convinced of the import of self-interest; I'm figuring MrMister knows this, and I don't have to reprint another 18th century text to prove it.
Not suggesting that the FF were only influenced by one bloke. Just saying that Enlightenment thought on the action self-interest was pretty similar, it was in how to deal with it that they differed.
Well, it irritates me when Shinto posts, well, essentially nothing, on the lazy assumption that because people are under the impression that he is smart, they will assume he is correct...and then accuses me of failing to justify my argument.
Sorry about the name - ^^ - tried harder this time.
This is a huge ret-con. Never once have I said that we should design our political system under the assumption that everyone will vote selflessly--rather, I have said that people should vote selflessly.
Your point is a swing and a miss.
Looking out for number one does not a moral philosophy make. Why do you deserve anything merely by virtue of being yourself? If I'm starving and you have food, is it okay for you to refuse to feed me by virtue of the fact that you are you and I am me? What if it were the other way around? What I'm getting at here is that impartiality is the essence of morality.
Regardless, lots of people (including ethicists) have trouble accepting that, so I'll accept that you only feel as compelled to be selfless in voting as you do in other arenas in life. My argument has mainly been predicated on the idea that voting is just like any other act you undertake--you have no free pass to be selfish just by virtue of being in a ballot box.
It's not a ret-con, it's been my point for the last 2 pages - and to be fair, never once did I say all the things you assumed I said.
In the original context, both of you are right then. Poshniallo in saying that people voting on self-interest, and you saying that you believe they shouldn't. But if we accept (2 pages later) that the majority do vote on self-interest, his basic position is more sound than yours in analysing the topic.
I'm pretty sure the irreconcilable difference between us is that you believe the moral imperative trumps the practical imperative. I disagree, because the practical imperative is going to happen anyway, so you might as well deal with reality. Don't think either of those opinions are going to change though.
Of course, you realise that sentiment can be used to justify both sides? It can both mean:
= I don't deserve this food any more than you.
= you don't deserve this food any more than me.
First you have to demonstrate that me starving is morally bad. What you describe works quite well as an economic allocation of resources question, but it makes a basic assumption of morality (ie letting someone starve = bad) that doesn't explain why.
Looking out for number one does make a moral philosophy, just not one which you agree is 'moral'. Which tends to be the kicker of moral philosophies; few people do agree.
It's been pretty hard to figure out what the hell you've been saying. I've stayed on point, with a pretty straightforward argument about how people should vote--which makes sense, since the argument was about the moral permissability of voting on race. You, on the other hand, have gone back and forth between a variety of incompatible arguments--that the founders designed a system that requires self-interested voting, that self interest includes promoting one's idea of the public good, that the public good is inherently subjective, and the supposedly pragmatic argument that regardless of what I say I won't change human practice (which is both false and a cheap cop-out from any normative argument).
What, pray tell, is his analysis of the topic, such that it's so much more sound than mine?
What the hell is a practical imperative and what does it have to do with anything? When have I contradicted one?
Er, I'm not entirely sure how any of those examples are incompatible? Also, to correct:
1. The FF designed a system that assumes (not requires) and accounts for self-interested voting.
2. self interest includes promoting one's idea of the public good - yes
3. That one's idea of the public good is inherently subjective - (ie not necessarily the thing itself, though I would argue on most grounds that it is)
...you generalise again about human practice, my specific point is:
4. That a majority of people do vote on self-interest.
Not false, not that we're going to prove it here without citing a shitload of polling data and then arguing about the reliability of polling / statistics, but you haven't challenged it so far, so hoping you accept it.
Where is the contradiction?
Ask him. I refered to his start position, not his argument.
Moral imperative = people should do things X way
Practical imperative = people do things Y way
Since X and Y don't always match, my position is that we should act ourselves as if Y takes precedence. You argue we should act ourselves as if X takes precedence.
The OP's argument is that it is a natural preference on Oprah's part based on self-interest, ie voting for 'your own' or whatever, and cites Christians etc doing the same thing.
The people arguing against said it is morally unpermissable because (presumably) it is hypocritical to say 'be colour-blind here, but not there', which is essentially the anti-affirmative action case. Also that there is a certain public hypocrisy that anyone saying they were voting for a white candidate because he was white would get pilloried.
It seems to me, however, that celery77 was saying: look, this does happen in practice (Christians etc), why should Oprah be held to a different standard?
Looks to me like precisely the same argument we're having.
On the one hand, public good is... good. Acting in the interests of other people is a good thing. It's good to do good things.
On the other hand, voting is one of the few means by which average folks can let their opinions be known. If everyone just voted based on what they thought everyone else wanted on every issue, it would be harder to gauge what people actually wanted. All you know is that everyone thinks everyone else wants A, when it's possible they all really want B.
Partly, the "always voting for the public good" idea suffers from the mistake of assuming that every issue has a Right Answer and a Wrong Answer. I mean, if you're voting on whether to build more libraries or more parks, which is the obviously good right answer that everyone must vote for or else they'll be labeled a selfish shit-weasel? Given that there isn't one, maybe people should just decide which one they, personally, want and vote for that?
Certainly if we're talking, say, tax policy, it would be nice if everyone didn't just invariably support tax hikes for everyone else and tax cuts for their own demographic groups. And on some issues, voting selfishly is sort of difficult - the question of whether to bring home the troops from Iraq is an academic one for 99.9% of the nation. Whether we're in there or not doesn't much affect anyone directly unless they're actually a soldier or friend/relative thereof.
Ultimately, I think the two sides in this debate are being a little excessively dogmatic. "PUBLIC GOOD UBER ALLES!" and "FUCK YOUR FELLOW MAN, BE SELFISH!" are sort of simplistic caricatures of useful approaches towards voting.
Also, consider that in a representative democracy, on a large scale, nobody is ever really voting on policy. They're voting on policy creators. Since we seem to be arguing abstract idealism anyway, what would be awesome is if every voter voted for who they wanted based on strict self-interest. If one person wins in a landslide, that likely means that his platform is one that would benefit the majority of the people, and so enacting it would further the public good. If the winner just squeaks by, he has less of a mandate, and needs to figure out better how to act in the interests of the public.
Either way, the lack of direct democracy makes the whole "voting for the public good" question somewhat moot.
Well the incompatibility of the arguments is that 1. holds that the system accounts for self-interested voting, with the implication that the public good thus isn't harmed by self-interested voting. Point 3, however, says that no objective public good is accessible to our knowledge: so how could we have any idea what the relation between self-interested voting and the public good in our system? If 3 is true, then there would be no way to possibly know whether our system actually effectively accounts for self-interested voting.
Rapid switching between arguments which rely on different fundamental notions is poor form.
I would argue that few people vote exclusively on self-interest, unless you use the stupid psychological-egoism definition you're so attached to, in which case the whole statement is trivial.
People don't always act as they should; it is wise to take that into account. This is both blindingly obvious, and also something I've never argued against. When have I argued against that? All I've argued about is how people should do things. This is apparently a stumbling block for you.
True, lucky then that hasn't been the argument at all. Neither of us have been arguing abstract idealism, we have been talking about what actually happens, as well as what should happen, just disagreeing on what that is.
So agreeing might be a bit much, but I'm happy to shut up about it.
And all I've argued is that when considering a course of action 'how people should do things' is pretty irrelevant compared to 'how people actually do things'. Namely, moral vs practical imperative. I don't disagree with your opinion, I just don't think it's a sound basis for decision-making, ie - who do I vote for?
Anyway, this isn't going anywhere, so I'm off.
It's a big leap to go from "this question is hard to answer" to "this question has no answer." Furthermore, I never said that someone is a selfish shit-weasel for trying to vote on the public good but getting it wrong, and it's certainly not true. What I said was that someone is a selfish shit-weasel for not even attempting to vote on the public good, and rather only considering their personal interest (excluding interests like the desire for justice and fairness because they're moral requirements, in case that wasn't blindingly obvious).
Unless it's 1845 and Alabama. In which case the majority gets together and fucks the shit out of the minority, because it's to their advantage and they have no moral qualms about it.
Perhaps less pressing than it otherwise would be, but it's not impossible to predict what a candidate will do with any degree of certainty.
I'm telling you how you should vote. That's pretty relevant to the course of action you decide on, i.e. who you vote for. What the fuck.
Are you honestly saying that there never exists any question in politics for which it's basically a matter of person preferences? Basically, you're asserting that unless every nation in the world is exactly identical in every single possible way, that someone is objectively failing. If two nations have a different approach to something, then clearly one of them is objectively wrong.
That's... sort of silly.
No, I acknowledge that context is important for determining the correct answer. The best policy on immigration for Switzerland may be different from the best policy on immigration for the USA. But once you fix all the particular matters of fact about a country, there is a unique best answer to policy questions. It might be only very marginally better than the next best answer, but it seems improbable that there would ever be any exact ties.
It's not so much about exact ties as it is about people deciding the sort of culture they wish to live in. If one group of people really likes parks and one group really likes libraries, I think it's presumptuous beyond belief to tell one that their choice is stupid and subpar. Some people value different things in different quantities. I don't quite get how one can say that, basically, everyone who doesn't possess a certain ordered list of likes and dislikes (presumably yours) is objectively wrong.
Though really, none of this has anything to do with the thread topic.
Some people like Black or White presidents, not parks or libraries.
And we're back.
That would be one of those contextual factors. I think people here see that I'm a moral realist and take that to mean that I hold any number of silly positions. No, I don't think that it's wrong for people in Japan to build kabuki theaters if they like them.
Obama? More like O-da-bomb-a, m i rite?
Part of it could just be a knee-jerk overreaction to political correctness. The thought might go "So some people want me to oppose the death penalty just because it happens to blacks a lot? Screw those guys!"
Yeah, the questions are different in a lot of ways. It'd be better if the structure of the question were the same, but with different demographics.
This is effectively what Sarastro is arguing against.
You hold the opinion that there is an objective public good, therefore there is always a 'right' way to vote.
The problem with this is that, how do you know that people aren't already voting for the public good?
Differing philosophies and values lead people to think that both Democrats and Republicans will do the most good for the most people. Since that is the case arguing that people should vote for the public good is a moot point. They already believe they are.
The other problem is that often people do not disagree on certain goals (decreasing poverty, growing the economy, whatever), but have different ideas on how to achieve said goals. I contend that there is more than one way to skin a cat. There is not a best answer. How would you evaluate that? Cost, efficiency, speed?
Ok...I've read that book. Doesn't end well.
I think I see the problem here though. Combine that with your opinion of an objective public good, and you don't really want a democracy. You want a Youocracy.
Look, if you shift the goalposts any further you might have to cross state lines. I'm just going to be satisfied that I've rebutted your substantive points, because you've gone from disputing my claim about the ethics of voting to calling me a would-be tyrant.
How to determine the public good is an entirely different can of worms: my argument was about the acceptable reasons to vote. Because it's good for me is an unacceptable reason, whereas because it's in the public good is an acceptable reason. Hence, both Democrats and Republicans would be using acceptable reasoning forms in your example, although one of them would in fact be confused about the facts of the matter regarding the public good. The hypothetical voter who votes for a candidate solely because that candidate is of their race, however, would not be using an acceptable form of reasoning.
Instead of addressing Sarastro, how about The Chief's point about parks and libraries? There may or may not be true good and one truly good way to live (which you still haven't demonstrated Mr). Regardless, I don't think finding it is the goal of democracy.
I think these are our problems:
1) What is the purpose of having a democratic state, over all the other options (even the as-yet-untried ones)?
2) Is there always a best action to take? Certainly there is sometimes, which mrmr has been referring to, but always?
3) What is the difference between justified self-interest and unjustified? If I stab you and take all your stuff, we're clear that's bad - but if I give you all my stuff and stab myself since I'm just a drain on the state now, that's clearly not good either. How much self-interest is completely morally acceptable?
I think these are the key issues. So whaddya think about these, thoughtful-types?
I'm sorry, you don't see that this position inevitably means that we must all vote one way?
MrMister has said:
1. There is an objective public good.
2. We should always vote for the objective public good.
3. The objective public good can be known.
Therefore since I don't know the objective public good, I must vote how someone else tells me - in this case MrMister, but it could be anyone (olol tyrant), or more likely multiple people.
I dont give a damn whether you think I'm making unreasonable accusations, his logic means that we must all vote one way, and it seems pretty clear - since nobody else here is claiming they know what an objective good is - that way is whatever he considers right. This is simply a bullshit argument for moral manipulation of voting, essentially no different to the Republican Christian strategy.
The only other alternative is that MrMister doesn't know what objective good is, in which case his entire argument is utterly pointless, as it is not practicable - "you should vote on the objective public good, but we don't know what that is". Whether it is practicable or not is relevant to his argument (whether he wants to talk purely about the moral sphere or not) because we are talking about a practical act - casting a ballot.
Your method for voting is either undemocratic or impossible, neither of which particularly appeals.
1) Given the olol commies argument a spin here, they say the reason that Communism doesnt work is because you need a benevolent dictator, and that even if you find one, eventually they will die and you will need another etc.
The bonus to democracy is that the government is ALWAYS accountable to the public. Mind its accountable to the WHOLE public too, that means that no matter how much Bush pisses you off, as long as the majority of the public backs him up, or the majority of the public doesnt enact/pass laws that makes what he does illigal. Then everything is TECHNICALLY working as it should.
2) There is no way to know what is the best action to take. Unless you have a way to perfectly predict all future outcomes of each choice perfectly. Especially with some issues where there are many multifaceted ways of trying to solve them. IE: Abortion and STDs: Promote abstinence, sexual education, criminalize clinics, free contraceptives, etc etc.
3) Justification is in the eye of the beholder or however that goes. Some people feel justice is served when criminals are put to death. Other people feel there can never be justification for taking another persons life. Others are more in the middle where a death sentence could be deserved but only if there is irrefutable evidence etc etc.
Anyways, I wouldnt mind seeing the thread title changed, since the OP is a faulty premise of "Why is everyone pussy footing around the fact that Oprah is backing Obama because he's black?", unless she states implicitly that it was a factor in her decision, it is racist to try to infer it.
MWO: Adamski
I see nothing in particular to disagree with in Mr^2 assertions. Democracy is very much based on the idea that the objective public good can only be determined by the public. That it may be difficult to ascertain does not mean it isn't there, and if it were clear to everyone (or if everyone cared about it) then yes - there would in fact be only one logical way for people to vote.
I don't think Mr^2 has ever claimed to know precisely what it is since that would be arrogance though presumably the way in which he votes would indicate he is attempting to vote for the best public outcome.
Would you say that Martin Luther King Jr. engaged in bullshit manipulation of people's votes? After all, he was presumptuous enough to think that his moral concerns determined how they should vote on certain issues. Really, I just don't see why presenting moral concerns about voting would be either bullshit or manipulation: rather, it would be legitimate argumentation. I think Republican Christians are wrong on the factual level about what's good for society, but not that the idea of engaging on a moral ground is somehow broken--after all, that was the ground of the abolitionists, the suffragettes, and the free riders.
That statement is all sorts of wrong.
1. Democracy is based on the idea that rule by a majority is preferable to rule by a minority.
2. Conversely, democracy accepts that there will always be a minority opposed to the majority.
Those two things are precisely why there is rarely, if ever, an 'objective public good'. You simply have a majority opinion, or a majority good. For every park, library or dam you try to use as an example of an objective public good, I will show you a whacked out environmentalist, fundamentalist or libertarian who would rather they weren't built.
Who do you mean when you say 'the public'? Individual members of the public, or the massed totals from the polling booth? Very different things in relation to your statement. If individual members of the public each determine the public good, what happens when they disagree? How is that objective, since there is always a minority? If the public vote determines the public good, it is only 'objective' in that the majority of people have voted for it.
Finally, universal suffrage demands that votes be based on opinion, because it is the only universal currency. Knowledge, merit, experience, are not universal traits, nice though it would be. Sure, some people might use knowledge etc to inform their opinion. But how many experts in an academic field have you met who have fundamentally differing opinions on their subject? Knowledge & experience does not guarantee objectivity. More to the point, the majority are unlikely to vote on anything but their opinion. When votes determine the public good by a majority, and the votes are based on opinion, how is any result 'objective'?
There may well be an objective public good, but democracy is, and always will be, fundamentally subjective.
...which is precisely my problem. If he doesn't know what this objective public good is, then what is the point in saying it is a moral imperative [people should vote for what is right] that people to vote for it? Either it isn't possible, or history suggests they are going to vote along fairly dodgy personal moral grounds: see, stem cells, Intelligent Design, civil partnerships, civil rights, suffrage, abolition, witch-hunts...
Some of those you mention. But you are omitting the fact that most of those were minority movements against a 'moral majority' who disagreed with them. You are also omitting the centuries beforehand where people justified those same oppressions on moral grounds. Dressing up opinion (voting) in morality just makes it more trenchant, more oppositional, and more partisan; you are no longer disagreeing with my opinion, but my beliefs. People die and kill for beliefs.
This is the kicker. Yes, when MLK put on his preacher's hat and started fighting the good fight, I think he was wrong. Not because he was fighting injustice, but because he made it a moral battle. If you see injustice, change it by talking about justice, not about what is 'right'. People do not agree on what is right & wrong. There is no objective Book you can go to to demonstrate 'right', because everyone disagrees on which fucking Book is the 'right' one. Equality is a demonstrable principle. Balance, equilibrium, these are demonstrable principles. We have a legal system written down that everyone agrees on, or has the opportunity to try and change if they do not.
I would also point out that your idea that morality should seriously inform voting is not a given - it is a peculiarily American concept, and not remotely shared in the UK or Europe. And this:
...is nostalgia for the past clouding your eyes in the present. You're saying that to win the war, we just need bigger guns than the other lot (like we used to have). I'm saying we need to stop fighting on their terms.
I have a problem with anyone saying that we should always vote on moral grounds, because not every issue is a moral issue.
Especially our more representative form.
Big difference between what I wrote and 'based on majority rule'.
The existence of a minority does not indicate that there is not an objective public good, it represents dissension on what the objective public good is - because it is predictably hard to determine, or alternatively self-centered interests.
One would note that most points of political contention don't center on not achieving overall goals, they focus on different opinions of how to get there - both of Australia's political parties claimed to want sustained low interest rates for the public, but have different ideas on how that is best achieved.
Yes, that is exactly what my argument said. Voting is based on opinion. The fact that they aren't acting rationally is an opinion. But democratic systems don't expect people to vote rationally, because nobody who created them (or even nowadays) imagines that every voter will have the information, knowledge or experience to vote rationally on every issue.
The 'difference of opinion on how to get there' is precisely what prevents complete 'rule by majority', or in some cases, domination by a minority (it's also what I meant by the difference between the statements Durandal and I wrote above). Political contention is not a side-effect, it is the machine of democractic government; it makes partisan majority government harder, blocks extreme measures, makes the majority of legislation more centrist. And ideas can be radical both in intent & policy; for example, Ron Paul makes roughly the same economic claims of intent as everyone else (prosperity & freedom for Americans etc) but his different ideas on how to get there are radical.
More recent democracies have been set up with precisely this moderating influence in mind - if you look at the postwar democracies in Europe, most of them are multi-party, coalition style systems, which necessitate less partisanship & more centrism than a two-party system. The point isn't really to give voters more choice - the point is the effect the existence of each party has on the others. Some have argued it creates less choice by moving all parties closer to the centre, making them much alike; but that also means that more people are happy with the government & policies they get after ballot day.
So when you are talking about attaining 'objective public goods' by voting on your moral conscience, I argue that in effect you are creating more partisanship, which is antithecal to how you said democratic systems are meant to attain the (subjective) public good.
More to the point, so far, nobody has been able to describe how to identify in practice, when casting your vote, this 'objective public good'. Until someone can do that, this entire argument is fairly pointless theory.
Hillary? This "feminist icon" would of been unheard of if she hadn't married Bill; she can't stand on her own merits, to include her abuse of the office of First Lady; using it as a shield while she tried to make herself some sort of Queen; holding power without being elected, appointed, or accountable.
The more people see of this shrill, unsmiling Machiavelli in a skirt, the less they like.
Edwards? Ambulance-chasing, trial lawyer.
Kucinich? Loon.
Richardson? Can't speak clearly to save his life.
Biden? Represents half of...delaware.
Dodd? Who?
Gravel? Wha?
At least Obama can speak cohernatly and, reguardless of one's personal feelings about the war, has been clearly and consistantly against it in stark contract to Hillary's Kerry-esque "voted for it before I voted against it" vote, devoid of principle, long on calculation.
Plus, even as the National Review pointed out, he represents a welcome break from the Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton style of civil rights leadership; less vested interest in the anger and bitterness of the past, more about moving on and getting along.
Much better and more unifying than the current "get whitey" mentality of Jackson and Sharpton, see also: Duke Lacross Team.
Margaret Thatcher
To be fair on the lady, it's a lot worse when she does smile.