Do you think it could switch power to more left leaning governments worldwide?
Certainly there will be a tilt toward more activist government. That does not necessarily mean left leaning, per se. However, the populist mood that was sweeping the globe before the pandemic has not been lessened by it.Populism is not a schematic philosophy, but rather is an attitude toward public affairs characterized by a disdaining of elites, a distrust of complexity and and the elevation of the "common man" as defining of all virtue. It is not, however, consistent as regards policy.Thus, you get - to cite the most obvious example - Mr. Trump''s mishmash of public policies. Tax cuts on what Americans call the conservative side, even as you get protectionism and prison reform from what Americans have historically called the liberal side.Suffice to say, the collapse of a free trade consensus in the wake of this episode - particularly as regards China - has been breathtaking. Ditto, the speed with which the public has turned to the Federal government to address the pandemic. (See also the large number of Republicans who supported Mr. Trump's claim that he had the authority to end the lockdown.)For your convenience, I have here an answer I wrote to a similar question. This dealing with health care specifically but touching on the broader question - news.yahoo.com/...rs-supporters-air-153759766.htmlHope it helps.
Ooops, sorry, this is the piece that I wrote on this question: What are the odds that Covid-19 will force a change in the American healthcare system? ↗However, the article I inadvertently attached does suggest the similarities in populist appeal that Trump and Sanders, for all their superficial differences, share.This answer by me may also be of interest: For the ones that live in the U. S. do you think we can revive our economy? ↗
Thanks. Another question if that’s ok. What would be the economic costs of all of this? Governments around the globe are giving money out left, right and centre but where is all that money coming from?
That is a problem. As I mentioned, you have gushers of money coming out that have no productivity behind them and piled up on pre-existing debt. In countries with young populations and thus future taxpayers and workers, this may be manageable. In cases like the United States, where the population is aging and the workforce is shrinking relative to population, the chances of paying down the debt - even with future tax increases and spending cuts that would be politically difficult to impose - are minimal. This is potentially a very serious problem. Much depending on how fast the economy recovers. If it is fast enough, countries like the United States may be able to subsume the costs in future growth. If not, the nation could be seriously - and permanently - hobbled.This is what happens when, as in this case, fear does the work of reason and the application of policy is undertaken in the abstract absent any consideration of broader real world ramifications. It remains to be seen that what will happen, but the auguries are not promising. Suffice to say that in one month the nation has doubled the debt, effectively nationalizing 1/3 of the economy. It is to be hoped, as Bismarck once said, "That a special providence takes care of fools, drunks and the United States of America."
I guess leaders are just making this sacrifice to save lives.
No, there is a real need here. However, the problem is that when times were good, the society was insufficiently self-disciplined to control its spending and therefore was not prepared for the proverbial "rainy day."By the way, point the blame here where it belongs. At the public, which talks a ferocious game against government but has a negligible willingness to pay for it. That public has the following profile:1 in 6 who works, works for government - either Federal, state or local. 1 in 7 is a Social Security recipient - and that will get worse as the population ages. 1/3 of all families will receive some form of transfer payment. Only about half of all taxpayers pay ANY Federal income tax.The "leaders" are the symptoms. The public, which does not like to defer gratification - especially when it can foist the bill off on unpopular groups or the unborn - is the problem. The deficit being merely the numerical expression of the nation's cultural tendency to live beyond its means.
Interesting. But maybe they are choosing this to save lives?
The leadership has few viable alternatives. Again, the problem - as I have already said - is that the policy is unwise. The use of science, abstractly applied, absent any broader considerations. In this they have been shortsighted and risk averse to an extreme degree.
The public in that case seems to have chosen less deaths over a recession.
Except that a recession will entail its own casualties. Already suicides are up. Cases of domestic abuse and child abuse are up. Early cancer screenings and such are down - with fatalities that will undoubtedly follow. Crime will begin to rise.What has been - as I mentioned - neglected in all of this is that there are no solutions. This is difficulty to be managed. So you make trade-offs. You saved perhaps 100,000 coronavirus casualties and will get in return as many or more suicides. The either/or you postulate is a false one. A balancing of costs and risks would have been the wiser course. Instead, much of the country will, in its usual self-satisfied way, pat itself on the back for the lives it nominally saved and simply shrug at the costs of the cure it imposes to save those lives.
The lives saved from what you suggest is less clear. Maybe that’s why? In contrast, lives saved from the virus is presented in a nice graph. I’m also confused then as I’ve seen articles in which economists say that not having any restrictions or lifting restrictions too soon would be more detrimental to the economy.
To your last point, first, I have not seen economists stipulate that one way or the other. Dr. Fauci recently said as much, but he was straying outside his area of expertise. How to calculate economic effects is beyond the realm of medical science.As to the economists, as I say, I had not seen that, but I am not clear how they could make such a prediction unless they have some definitive econometric model of how the disease might impact the population. Certainly, it would reduce economic activity, and if the response is another shutdown then certainly the economic effects would repeat what we have already seen.What it is not possible to predict with any certainty is if the disease recurs and if the response is something more balanced, then logically the economic effects will be reduced. Even moreso if the disease repeats the pattern we have seen to date where it hurts the elderly and those with a pre-existing condition or compromise immune systems. In that event, the bulk of the workforce and consumers would react differently.As to your first point, there has already been a sharp increase in suicides and drug overdoses. Those a real deaths too. Those are real deaths and not "less clear" for that. The only variable being the weight the society chooses to give to deaths by the disease. In that sense the disease is simply the fashion of the hour - in real terms deaths from the cure for the disease are not less real than those from the disease itself.That is a moral decision, not a scientific one. Moreover, it is one of ambiguous morality.
www.google.co.uk/.../economists-coronavirus-economy-growth-versus-saving-lives-trump-false-choice-2020-3%3famp This article refers to the economists.
At the moment it seems like there’s more deaths from Coronavirus than from drug overdoses and suicides.
There’s also this article. www.google.co.uk/.../...de-risk-pandemic-lower.amp
Oh, I did not doubt you, I just meant that I had not seen the analysis. That said, it still does not account for the costs of the lockdown. Moreover, the lockdown manifestly does NOT assure that there will be no recurrence of the disease. So whatever savings you make in lives must be measured against the lives that will be lost to the poverty of a prolonged economic downturn.The problem also being that there is no way to define when a lockdown can be ended such that the illness will not return. Suffice to add that if you want to assure no recurrence of the disease, insist on the lockdown in perpetuity.Round and round it goes, this is what happens when economics strays into medicine and vice versa.
How many lives would be lost in the poverty of an economic downturn?
And what would cause the deaths?
How many deaths do we lose to suicide each year? 800,000 We know that suicides go up - indeed they already are - in a recession. So add to that total.How many Americans die in domestic violence each year? 2, 340. We know that domestic violence increases in recessions - so add to that total.How many Americans die of hunger on average each year? About 200, mostly children who are neglected. Add to the total.How many die from alcohol abuse? 88,000 Add to the total.How many die from drug abuse? 67,300 Add to the total,,It is not really possible to answer your question - and I could cite other stats - without knowing how long and how deep the recession would be. That said, as you can see from the stats above, the total well exceeds the 60,000 that we expect to be lost to coronavirus. This not even accounting for injuries, abuse, etc.The numbers I cite above are where we start. A recession will make them worse. Now tally the costs and benefits and see if it is worth the price.
Where did 60,000 come from? Aren’t the starting points irrelevant given that they happen with or without virus? If it’s not possible to quantify, how can one say it will be worse than deaths from the virus?
How do you tally the costs with no numbers for the deaths from economic downturn?
Why can’t an economist somewhere produce data which shows additional deaths from all of those things which would likely happen if lockdown is carried on for longer (maybe for a number of scenarios)? That would make cost benefit analysis easier.
Very briefly - 60,000 is the number currently projected by the CDC. It was notable because it is about the same as the regular flu. (The average for the regular flu each year in the United States is 61,000.)As to the second question, we know the numbers of deaths from suicides, etc. increase during a recession. So it is reasonable to assume that they will rise above the average. You may find tis rather lengthy study to be of value - www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5362282/In any case, you are left with weighing the costs and other long term effects against the costs of the pandemic. It cannot be a measure of the benefits of one action set against the liabilities of the other. That would be logically inconsistent and scientifically invalid.An economist could tell you the length of a recession - perhaps. However, they have no training in medical care and psychoanalysis. How to project then, for example, suicides, when you have no basis for assessing the intricacies of the human mind - outside of an analysis of man as homo econimus - is problematic.An economist might be able to extrapolate from existing numbers, but that would amount to little more than a projection from the baseline without taking account of the variability of human beings when under stress. However, as suicide rates do not increase uniformly in each recession, it would be a crude analysis of a more complex process, though it would certainly show an increase.
Interesting. So there is less certainty in the economics it seems. Of course the virus has many uncertainties too but it seems that it has more certainty in that slowing the spread saves lives?
Reading this, the argument seems to be lives vs livelihood and finding the middle ground. www.thestar.com.my/.../lives-versus-livelihoods-in-the-face-of-pandemic
There is a reason that they call economics "the science of single instances." It is not a science. Any particulars will alter the variables that go into calculating economic probabilities.Release a contagious virus and it will always behave according to the characteristics of its nature. Of course, learning what those characteristics are takes time and is not immediately obvious.By contrast, people may react to war with anger or fear - that then having economic effects that will not always be consistent. Maybe fear leads to panic buying. Maybe it leads to everyone staying at home. The economic impact of that then being contingent on where the economy started at.The variables are almost infinite and only very generally consistent. Anyhow, I will take a look at your link. Thanks.
Let me know what you think. I think it has a point in that arguments of the nature we’re seeing is unhelpful and in an ideal world, economists, politicians and virus scientists should come together to find a solution.
There’s problems on both sides of the argument. And ultimately, there’s no winners. That seems to be what people haven’t yet accepted. And people probably won’t accept it given that it’s more in your face at the moment that lifting measures will see spikes in infections and deaths.
It is making that argument. However, it is a banality. Yes, in an ideal world they all come together and agree and we live happily ever after. However, these are people trained to think in different ways and therefore they see the world through different prisms. They identify the same problem in different terms and therefore they propose solutions that are not necessarily compatible. That's life in an imperfect world of imperfect beings and it is not perfectible. In the best of times all work together and something approaching a workable if imperfect compromise is devised. In the worst, they talk past each other and there is controversy and to the extent that a compromise is worked out it is as much by accident as by design.Such is life in an imperfect world. Particularly in a loud and boisterous democracy with a media that amplifies arguments and makes disputes seem even bigger than they already are. Throw in a fearful public and a political system that is perhaps more responsive to the visicitudes of public opinion than is good for it, and you end up where we are.
I think Asia handled it better and earlier partly because they are much more collectivist cultures. Western individualism could be partly Whats failed us in this crisis.
Well, there may be some truth to that - though the price for Asian conformism is paid in other ways. Besides, again, you are left to judge what constitutes failure.Measured strictly in terms of harnessing the spread of the disease, SOME Asian states - though likely not China or North Korea - may have done better. However, that is not the sole measure of a good society nor a good life.It may be better at containing diseases - and even there, Sweden, for example, has not done badly - but that is hardly the measure of a well balanced and healthy society. Thus my suggestion, look at the case-by-case particularities and avoid where possible sweeping generalizations and overwrought conclusions.
That then becomes a wider argument of what constitutes a good society and good livelihoods regardless of a virus pandemic. I think there will be pros and cons for both individualist and collectivist societies. But I think it’s unfair to say one is more successful than the other overall. As i mentioned, I’m sure there are pros and cons to each and certain situations where one has a clear advantage over the other. And also this would be mixed with cultural norms etc. But both types of societies have built strong nations.
You won't get any argument out of me. Other than to say that you can go too far in your relativism. After all, the differences between the relatively more communal nature of Japan and the stridently imposed communalism of North Korea is a quantum leap.There is an objective standard of right and wrong, good and evil. What makes it interesting is to see how different societies adapt and apply that standard.
Japan is an interesting one - probably the most individualist out of the collectivist Asian countries. They’ve taken in many western values but at the same time, kept traditional Japanese values and fused the two in their own way.
But then again you could make similar arguments for China. China might be governed in a collectivist way but their businesses have been hugely successful and that has probably in part been down to strong individualism.
But then again that’s just my interpretation partly based on assumptions so I could be wrong.
Sure, if you don't mind exchanging business success for re-education camps, mass arrests and executions. That seems a little eccentric, at the very least.
Well yes. I think China are collectivist as a culture too, Chinese people seem to place high importance on family. So actually, the deeper you go into these things the more complicated it becomes. Japan, Taiwan, Singapore appear to be strong democratic nations. There’s probably others too.
South Korea is the other obvious one I missed.
You seem to be belaboring a point. It is matters of degree, then becoming a difference in kind when we reach China and North Korea.Even then, South Korea only really began becoming democratic in the Western sense in the late 1980s. Even though it was a democracy from 1945 on, the same party ruled Japan from 1955 until the 1990s. (The LDP.) Singapore is more democratic in form than substance. (See also Lee Kwan Yew.) The list goes on. The point being that there is an ideal and then there are the almost infinite variety of adaptations, emphasis, and cultural particularities that define how the ideal is discovered and expressed. However, after a certain point the line is crossed - and tyranny is the result.
I have no point. I’m simply speaking what comes into my head. Although on your responses to the examples, that doesn’t make any of them or other nations around the world more right or wrong than another. All of those examples are today, developed countries with high HDIs.
This is my point. Your's is the fallacy of relativism. That nothing is right or wrong but only thinking makes it so. The logical conclusion of your argument being that it is perfectly fine to throw Jews into ovens - or Uighurs into slave labor "re-education" camps - so long as you think it is fine. One thing is as good as another if you think it is.Civilization has been down that road many times. It opened the gates of hell, misery and suffering.
Well I agree. But a decision maker can’t think like that. A decision maker needs to have an idea of what they think is right or wrong. Otherwise how will they make any decisions.
Yes they can and ought. The decision maker who does not feel bound by the parameters of right and wrong, good and evil, is the most dangerous kind. When any means is legitimate end, then any means will be employed.Want to kill off the coronoavirus? Kill off anyone who tests positive for it. Problem solved - if morally dubious.
Exactly. That’s my point.
I’ve been following a few countries with keen interest. And there now seems to be a split in countries slowly reopening the economy (Denmark for example) and those continuing the lockdown to prevent a relapse, saying lives must be saved first (the UK for example). It will be interesting to see the effects from both, although Denmark and UK aren’t really comparable in terms of demographics.
Agreed, any comparative analysis will have to be conditional and taking account of the differences as well as the similarities. The problem at the moment is that we have a culture that is seeking, and believes that it is entitled to, 100% security.It is, to say no more, apt to be disappointed in that expectation.
I guess that’s the culture society has built partly as a result of its own success. Probably very different in the days of the Black Death.
Although it could be argued that some people are willing to accept the grave economic consequences and consequences to theirs and people’s livelihoods to get rid of the virus.
You could argue that, but as so much of this has been driven by fear - even now polls show that people are worried about being infected, this notwithstanding that the threat has been identified to specific demographics - that is probably giving the public more credit than is due. Though, no doubt, they would pat themselves on the back in agreement with that assessment.
Yes I can’t argue with that - fear is to an extent what has driven policy. But on the other hand, I don’t think it’s just a flu either. It’s clearly a global pandemic not seen since 1917.
They can probably pat themselves on the back of they really have no objections to the consequences and are willing to accept it.
In reality though, I reckon when this is all over, most will blame the government for the consequences.
Thought you might find this of interest. It seems Japan is avoiding lockdown for exactly the reasons we’ve been discussing and this is backed by their medical expert. www.ft.com/.../9bac4ad5-22e3-4bcd-b07b-8a248fe44465
Yes, I was aware of this. Thanks. By the way, in a similar vein, listen to the statistics and research cited by Tucker Carlson in this monologue. I must confess that I am not a great fan of Mr. Carlson and you may take the political portion of his analysis with a grain of salt. (Some of it I agree, other points not.) However, the stats and research very much makes the point.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuuA0azQRGQ
Thanks. I’m not sure if I agree with all his points but I do agree that a more comprehensive assessment could be done especially now that many places in the world have been in lockdown for a while. I think I agree with the scientific view that breaking the chains of transmission and distancing cuts the rate of spread but what I’m skeptical about is whether total lockdown for what seems to be as long as possible everywhere is really necessary. A crude comparison but the way I see it, it’s no different to saying we should ban all flights due to the number of deaths which have occurred due to airline accidents. Instead, the airline industry has safety protocols which don’t absolutely guarantee zero risk but which reduces that risk to an acceptable level which most people would be willing to take for the benefit of enjoying a holiday or taking a work trip. Surely there’s a way of looking at having less restrictions (not without any restrictions - maybe lighter distancing measures) in areas less affected. Some places might need a total lockdown but even then surely once the number of active cases gets lower, there are ways to look at reducing it with other preventative measures. Maybe the better question to ask is what is an acceptable risk and how do we get to that level?
Maybe that is the question which Governments are struggling with at the moment. In comparison, safety protocols in the airlines industry have evolved over time so I wouldn’t expect risk mitigation in this case to happen over night either.
I wouldn’t completely dismiss the arguments of the other side either though. I think lockdowns can be beneficial if it’s time limited and confined to the worst hit areas. The question is where’s the balance.
Could not have said it better myself. In fact, I thought it is what I had been saying. There are no perfect assurances of perfect safety, there is an irreducible amount of risk in life and there are trade-offs to be made rooted in probabilities and competing values and interests. The object of policy then, when prudently based and implemented, is to balance all of this.Up to now, that has NOT been what most states are doing. Rather, policymakers, being inexpert in the area of virology, have been responding to public opinion. Public opinion is being driven by fear and the illusory pursuit of absolute safety. So the policymakers turn to science. Science, which deals is viruses but not in sociology, culture and politics, is asked how to stop a virus. Science answers the question in the narrow concrete sense, not taking account the other extraneous but important variables. Then policymakers, trying to appease a frighted public opinion, impose the most draconian policy possible. This only changing as the fear subsides and the costs of the lockdown begin a shift in public opinion. The balance is not easily found, but it is, by definition, not to be found in the extremes.
Perhaps the question is whether people have accepted it as a risk to live with or whether people still believe it can be eradicated. In fact a better question to ask the scientific community might be - Is it possible to eradicate this disease? Or at least what’s the likelihood of that and the time frames were looking at. I think as a new risk, the normal human response is to try and get rid of it. Again a crude example, the first instinct of a human would be to try and put the fire out if one starts. And it works for a fire. Even in the U. K, their medical advisor has now said that it’s something we should accept that we’ll have to live with for a long time or something along those lines which suggests this isn’t a fire which can just be put out.
You are beating a dead horse. Science could have been asked the question. It was not because the implicit assumption of Western civilization is that every problem has a solution. They need not just be managed but can be solved if you just, figuratively speaking, press the right buttons and pull the right levers.Besides, science has its own hubris. It got carried away, too. See also Dr. Fauci advocating the creation of travel documents certifying that people are virus free and also for the abolition of the handshake. That might be rooted in sound scientific principle, but it is lousy public policy, the implications of which could have all sorts of unintended consequences.Bottom line, as I say, you are beating a dead horse. This is something that will be worked out over time and as circumstances permit. We got to where we are because of the implicit assumptions - some thought through, others not - on which society operates. It being well to add that there is no perfection to be had in this mortal veil of sorrows.Shoulda, woulda, could've... we are where we are. My argument is that policymakers should be more insulated from public opinion so as to give them greater scope for making sound policy without fear of being penalized for the costs that will inevitably come with even the most sensible policy.
Public opinion and perception is important for politicians trying to secure a win in the next election though.
Yes, but it is not the ultimate definition of right and wrong. Rather, that comes from sound analysis and prudent deliberation. That is why we do not have a pure democracy, but rather a system that draws its legitimacy from popular elections, but with a separation pf powers and checks and balances.As Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, debate, especially in Congress, is supposed to "refine and enlarge the public views and give direction to the willfulness of the people." Its purpose to harness the passions of the hour and restrain them with reason, deliberation and compromise.If the public wants something long enough and with protracted consistency, then it gets it. However, as much as is possible, the system is designed to slow decision making and tamp down emotional responses.The problem, in this context, being that fear has overwhelmed restraint. The problem being that the public is inclined to think in terms of absolutes and that every problem has a solution. Then that government has the expertise and the means to find and implement that solution. Moreover, the media, new technologies and a faith in government that had not been part of its original design and the exigencies of the moment have overwhelmed the checks and balances. So there is an unhealthy responsiveness to public opinion unmitigated by any considerations of reason and prudence, beyond an abstract reliance on science to provide quick answers. All this with too little consideration of the long term effects.This has not happened overnight. The predominance of public passions over deliberation has its origins even in the electoral reforms of the early 20th century and in progressive belief that progress is inevitable and that we have the expertise and competence to summon such progress. We do not - as all history shows. However, the culture is where it is and so we are left to make the best of the imperfect world as we find it.
Yes in the American system. The British system is different however and Id say is more open to influence from the public.
Actually not. The British party system, the three line whip, party de-selection and the House of Lords all act as restraints on public opinion. The restraints are more informal to be sure, but much of what the American system established in formal structures, the British system captured in informal political systems and cultural habits of deference.You get to the same place, but by different means.
The House of Lords is made up of members of the public though.
Who are not elected. Who therefore are accountable to no electorate and are therefore free to exercise their judgment on controversial issues without fear of losing their position. Moreover, it is a chamber of those with both a stake in the established order - the hereditary peers and bishops - and people who have built a reputation of expertise in public policy and law - the life peers.It has been, to be sure, democratized - particularly with the most recent reforms and changes in its composition. (I thought those reforms unwise - especially the quasi-elected hereditary element.) However, it remains essentially an elitist body that restrains the effect of an otherwise unobstructed public opinion.
True but many decisions don’t have to go through the House of Lords. For example, now that lockdown has already been implemented, they won’t have any control over when its lifted. That would have to be something which the opposition in the House of Commons would have to raise and they depend on the electorate to one day get into power.
So? In the American system the lockdowns are under the jurisdiction of the state and local government. The President and Congress can recommend, but they could not impose or end one if they wanted to.Each system expresses and restrains public opinion and shapes public policy and law according to its own specific legal, historical and cultural contexts. It so happens that the British system gives more authority to the central administrative authority. The American to lower levels - indeed below the Congress.That does not change the basic principles at work. Merely the means by which they are expressed, formulated and implemented. In fact, overall, I tend to think that the British system is more effective - for a variety of reasons - at restraining public opinion than is the American system. This notwithstanding that much of the American system has its antecedents in the British system.
That system seems to be failing in both countries at the moment. The British government have said that lockdown won’t be lifted until 5 key requirements are met. They are 1. NHS must be able to cope and provide sufficient care2. Evidence showing a sustained and consistent fall in daily death rates3. Reliable data showing the rate of infection is decreasing to manageable levels.4. Confidence enough tests and PPE are at hand to use5. Confidence any adjustments won’t trigger a second peak. That means the lockdown could go on for years
In particular, point 5 makes the potential for the British lockdown to last for a long time even higher.
Not likely. In any event, you keep demanding absolutes where things are apt to be more relative.Odds are that the lockdowns will subside via a combination of increasing public indifference, legal challenges and declining fear - combined with the increasing the suspicion that the cure is worse than disease. Indeed, already there have been protests in 38 (of the 50) American states demanding that the lockdowns be reduced or eliminated.Bottom line, this is not the clean simple either/or you keep postulating. Time and circumstance and some mix of policy, law, science and culture will ultimately decide when these are lifted. Put simply, the decision of whether or not the lockdowns have "worked" is apt to be subjective and cultural as pure science and numbers.
Yes that’s another way of looking at it. But in the spirit of relativism, that is neither right or wrong.
Nope. There is an absolute right and wrong. Just because we do not always know what it is does not mean that it does not exist. That is the whole point of democracy and deliberation. We debate what is right and what not. We use facts to inform opinions, debate the opinions and then reach a settlement that most closely approximates - as closely as possible - the right conclusion as best we can discern it in an imperfect world.
In the world of policy making. That doesn’t mean it’s right or wrong in political decision making.
As we discussed before, every country has a different strategy. And they are neither right or wrong.
No, it most definitely does. The decision to throw Jews into ovens must be judged wrong. There is an objective standard of right and wrong against which we measure political decisions - even if only in retrospect.We are not perfect and therefore may not judge correctly. However, we take it as a given that there is an objective standard of right and wrong. We then educate ourselves and debate as we seek the truth of that standard.
As to your latter point. Yup. We discern and express right and wrong through the prism of specific historic experiences and cultural interpretations. This gives nuance and specific character to any judgment of right and wrong, and is why we cannot necessarily impose a one size fits all answer.Yet the point remains, whatever the specifics, the central insight is that a world of imperfect beings, over time and experience and across different cultural interpretations, are seeking a definitive answer of right and wrong. Of necessity, being imperfect creatures, we will not always agree or get the right answer. However, that does not alter the fact that there is a fundamental right and wrong to be discovered and implemented insofar as imperfect beings can.
I think right and wrong is subjective to individuals. For example, whether Britain leaving the European Union is right or wrong is a matter of personal opinion, which each person can determine based on a cost benefit analysis. Everyone is different (different upbringings, life experiences etc) which would influence their opinion. And when it was put to a public vote, the results showed a split. A definitive right or wrong answer can’t be possible in such a case.
So then, if Hitler decided that throwing Jews into ovens was okay, well then that cannot be held against him. He had power and therefore the authority to do what he did.Ditto, slavery, both ancient and modern is perfectly fine because mere opinion makes it so. Bottom line, your thinking opens the gates of hell and there is a long history to demonstrate its fundamental flaw. That there may be disagreements as to what constitutes right and wrong, but that does not mean that there is no such thing nor that right and wrong are not knowable and discernible.
In that case there will be more people who think that is wrong than right so the opinions of those who think it is wrong should prevail. It doesn’t always for multiple reasons. Going back to my Britain leaving the EU example, everyone has a different opinion on what is right or wrong. I don’t think there is an absolute definitive right or wrong for everything.
The very fact that there’s disagreements of what’s right and wrong means there’s differences in opinion of what Is right or wrong. Therefore it’s an opinion.
Yes, but some opinions are well reasoned and backed by evidence. Others not so much. The wrong opinions are not thereby rendered correct - even if a majority supports them.In the case of the EU issue, you are confusing means and ends. The question in Brexit was what is the most efficacious approach to securing a standard of living balanced with domestic freedom and historic national interests. That is a hard question to answer and it does not come as a surprise that there will be disagreement about it. However, presumably over the long run the British people will get some sense of whether the choice that they made was the correct one consistent with their values and objectives.Suffice to round out by repeating that an opinion is not rendered less an opinion by virtue of the fact that it is disputed. Nor does that render are verdict on whether or not it is a correct opinion. There is an objective reality against which it will be measured in the fullness of time.
And that measure will be subjective because as we discussed before what “worked” will be different for everyone. Therefore there is no right or wrong.
The assessment might be subjective, but only to the degree to which we cannot know the facts completely nor determine their significance, and therefore must weigh the pros and cons, costs and benefits. However, at this point you have reached reductio ad absurdum. The calculus of what works being instrumental to its object and the object is the starting point for any assessment. If your answer to what should be done about coronavirus is increased marshmallow production that is "relative" but it is not relevant. The facts of the case anchor the assessment and thus restrain its relativity,
Well then if that’s the case why do policies on anything vary so widely around the world? And didn’t we discuss before that you can’t say that one is more right than another because what’s “successful” is entirely subjective?
Well, my point - admittedly not well made above (sorry, I was in a rush) - is that subjectivity is not divorced from a concrete reality. At this point you are proclaiming a banality the relevance of which is not especially useful. Yes, the fact of human imperfection and imperfect knowledge will lead to different assessments of a course of action to address a problem. That is, at some level, irreducibly subjective.However, the value of such subjectivity is constrained by concrete irreducible facts. Those subjective assessments are not rendered more valuable or equally true than those assessments made on a more solid evidentiary basis. Subjective they may be, but their validity is rooted in an irreducible but not always known objective truth.
So then going back to our previous discussion about what a successful society is, are you now saying that there is a definitive right answer on what is a successful society? And are you now also saying that there is a definitive answer on whether lockdown has worked?
Is this also your opinion? Will every policy professional tell me the exact same thing you’ve just told me?
On the first point, of course, there is a successful society and others not. None will be perfect but each strives for perfection. That said, the USSR was manifestly not successful, the USA is. History is pretty clear on that score and we can cite thousands of other examples throughout history.Again, not perfect, but striving toward perfection as best imperfect beings can determine perfect. ("In order to form a more perfect union..." to borrow the phrase from the American Constitution.)Ditto, at some point, more likely at some distance in time, we will be able to determine whether or not the total lockdown worked. An assessment will be made both in terms of its narrow objective - to slow the spread of the disease - and in terms of the larger aims of the society and nation. From this will be extrapolated an overall assessment. This, of course, could take years or even centuries. It used to be that for centuries "bleeding" an ill patient with leeches was deemed appropriate medical care. Suffice to say that time and experience have changed that position.As to experts, time will tell. At the moment, no. Dr. Fauci is giving medical advice and is applying it in non-medical contexts. He is trained as a scientist and is not likely aware of his own biases. That said, perhaps in the fullness of time, if shown compelling data or asked the right questions to get beyond the narrow biological parameters, he may come to a different conclusion.As it is, about the most that can be offered is that he will give a different assessment because he has not been asked the question in a broader and more all encompassing way. Part of reality after all not being the whole of it.
Also you previously said “ The point being that there is an ideal and then there are the almost infinite variety of adaptations, emphasis, and cultural particularities that define how the ideal is discovered and expressed.”. Isn’t this basically saying there’s more than 1 right answer? Isn’t what’s right or wrong also defined as a society or nation. Otherwise why are some things illegal in one country and not in another?
Nope. Because some adaptations and variations will more closely approximate the ideal than others.Want to protect the rights of women? Wrap them in burkahs as many Muslim culture's do. Alternatively give them equal legal standing. Each is an adaptation to the problem of protecting women in a male dominated society. Both work, in their way, but one is more close to the ideal than the other. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, but one more closely approximates the idea and in due course, as out knowledge improves, we may discern which is closer. Though given human imperfection, we will likely never fully know nor fully agree.That lack of agreement - and our inability to fully discern it - does not change the fact that there is an ultimately correct answer.
So on your first point are you saying that in your opinion, the USA is the objective definition of a successful society.
So who determines them what is right and what is successful?
It more closely comes to the ideal. The ideal cannot be attained by imperfect beings. However, by most measures, not least that it endures and thereby gains some momentum for respect, it is closer to the ideal. Think in terms of Aristotle's first questions of politics - How ought we to live? What kind of a people do we wish to be? Then ask yourself which society better answers that question. By the way, where you rather live.That question, by the way, is debated and discussed all the time. In churches, in schools, in town halls, in the media, in books, in national parliaments, in culture, etc. As Disraeli said, "Finality is not in the vocabulary of politics."The debate never ends and the answer is revised constantly. No one ultimately decides it, except perhaps over the course of centuries. Of this we can be sure. The civilizations that have not endured were further away from the ideal than those that - over the long stretch of time - endure.
So if no one decides, how can there be a right answer to what’s ideal? Wouldn’t every country country think their country is closest to the ideal? And what makes Aristotle’s philosophical values and questions more right than for example Confucius?
Aristotle's question forces you to explore the deeper issues. The point was the questions, not who said them.Yes, each country will undoubtedly think it is closest to the ideal - and time and circumstance will help to show whether or not they are right. The Marxists thought that they were summoning History - with a capital "H." Turns out they were very wrong. Again, just because there is disagreement does not mean that there is no ultimately correct answer. Although again, man being imperfect he is not apt to ever know it fully in theory let alone attain it in practice.
Is there more than 1 way to get to the objectively successful society? And if there is an objectively successful society and everyone strives for this objectively successful society, why is there so much variation in societies around the world?
Are you also implying that there is an objectively successful life for each individual person since there is an objectively successful society? And if so, are you suggesting that if you ask a lot of people, what a successful life is to them, you’ll get the same answer?
Because there is no agreement on what the ideal looks like because it is not given to imperfect beings to know it perfectly. Thus why history has been so bloody and colorful. When the disagreements on the ideal become pronounced, it produces rather sharp disagreements.As to successful people, there too there is an ideal embodied in the notion of virtue. Again, the same caveats and rules apply. We applaud the father that sacrifices for his children and disdain the one that neglects them. In that dichotomy we get a glimpse of conduct that indicates and points to the ideal.May I, sir, suggest that you take some courses in political philosophy. It would be far more effective and easier then my trying to explain such things in 2,000 character increments.
Well it is interesting hearing your opinion. I am sure other people would have different opinions on this and give me entirely different answers to these questions. In terms of successful life, that is surely something that is personal to each person. And not an objective single truth. The bloodied histories - as you have said, I agree they are disagreements over what is right. I also agree everyone strives for an ideal and what they think is an ideal. But could it not be argued that this ideal is different for everyone in the first place and so there Is no objective ideal? The dictionary definition of ideal (noun) is “a person or thing regarded as perfect”. Surely this is different for everyone. If you were to ask people to describe what their ideal partner would be like, wouldn’t everyone give a different answer?
Well, again, if your ideal is throwing Jews into ovens, then it is all relative. The ideal conducing to virtue and the virtuous life.Really, you just end up chasing your tail and are in an intellectual hall of mirrors. You point to disagreement on the ideal as meaning that there is no ideal or that it is at least relative. So again, if there is no ideal or if it is relative, then you lack any standing to define or enforce any such standard. Throwing Jews into ovens becomes nothing more than another option in an infinite list of options. This, suffice to say, leading to the conflation of choice with virtue, means and ends, and savagery with civilization.
Well I doubt many people have that as an ideal now but a few people in history maybe thought it is a way of getting to the ideal society. I also disagree with what you conduced from that. People have moral values and these have been formed as individuals and as a society over time, learning lessons on the way. And more people also agree as a result that it is wrong. But wrong is still not an absolute term because if it was every single person 100% would agree that what you’ve just said is wrong and I doubt that would be the case in reality. And the fact that this disagreement occurs, in my opinion means that there is no objective “ideal”, “successful”, “right” or “wrong”. However, society learning its lessons along the way may have defined what it believes is “right” “wrong” “successful” etc and these would be well established in many cases.
That’s my opinion anyway.
The hole in your doughnut is that you have society learning and growing and adapting, but to no purpose. They are just random molecules with no particular aim.The problem of course is that people do not wage wars and vote and do all the other things that they do if such things are random and do not matter. If it is all relative and happenstance, then people will act accordingly.It is not likely that you will get a war over whether chocolate or vanilla. You WILL get a war over what constitutes the proper ordering of society with respect to virtue and the attainment of the ideal. Moral values are not random but are developed as society discerns what points them to a virtuous life - that which is good and successful. This may not always be apparent, but it is the underlying reality.
And yes it is another option amongst the list of infinite options but it’s one which we as a society on the whole has decided is wrong in order to achieve what we think is an ideal society (ideal still being different for everyone). I’m sure there are people out there who believe that it’s the right option to get to what they believe is an ideal society. And whilst you or I may judge that as wrong, others may not. So then how do you define what that objective wrong is. As human beings, we’d tend to have similar moral values on such extreme issues though. If you take a less extreme example, there could be 50% thinking something is right and 50% thinking it’s not. Again there’s no one definition of ideal here. Let’s take language, what’s the ideal language? Everyone has a different language and I’m sure there’ll be many arguments over why one language is better than another as you’ve suggested. But this argument in itself to me proves that there is no one right answer to what is an ideal language.
The purpose is striving towards what they believe to be an ideal society.
But ask anyone what that ideal society looks like and you’ll get a variety of answers. Each nation is striving towards what they believe is an ideal, taking into account what they’ve learnt. But that ideal will be different for every nation.
“ Moral values are not random but are developed as society discerns what points them to a virtuous life”. Yes I agree. But that virtuous life will be different for everyone because if you ask multiple people, you’ll get different answers.
Sir, you are just repeating yourself. We have already discussed that different people will give you different answers. That does not change the fact that some answers are better than others and some approach the ideal more closely than others.Also, in terms of language, you are confusing means and ends. Language is a tool by which we work to convey understanding and meaning. It is important, but can be judged against its purpose. The "ughs" of a caveman are not as apt to be as good as English. The latter having a wider vocabulary and capacity to convey meaning and nuance.As to your first paragraph, I am sorry but you have totally lost me. Your opening sentence starts with a pronoun for which there is no antecedent.Also, you have for the third time interrupted me as I am typing. So here I am going to stop. Please, collect your thoughts, post them all, and then allow me to respond. I cannot, particularly as this has gone down the page, keep stopping and starting.Again, in any case, I highly recommend that you do some reading in political philosophy - I suggest Aristotle, Aquinas, Cicero and Burke to start.
Also even if a society has died out in the past, who’s to say that society wasn’t successful. That’s just a persons opinion.
“That does not change the fact that some answers are better than others and some approach the ideal more closely than others.” Different people will have different views on which answers are better and which ones more closely resemble what they define as ideal. Take for example clothes shopping, different people will think different clothes look better on someone. That’s because people have different tastes and so have different thoughts on what they believe is ideal.
“ It is important, but can be judged against its purpose. ” that’s your opinion of what criteria can be used to determine what is an ideal language. The criteria would differ for different people. Hence, in my opinion, that means people’s definition of ideal would be different. Since the criteria is made up of the constituents of one believes is the ideal.
Again, so what? You are just repeating yourself. Yes, there will be differences, but that does not mean that all differences are equally good. Some - your clothes example - may be trivial. Even there, though, you may choose to wear swim trunks and no shirt in a church because you think it the best fashion, but thinking that will not make it so.
That’s because the church community has decided over time that it’s inappropriate to wear such attire in church. The clothes example may be trivial but it’s an example of how there’s more than one idea because people have different views on it.
Whether all the differences are equally good, which is better etc are also matters of opinion.
But as I say that’s just my opinion. It’s interesting listening to different peoples opinions which of course everyone is entitled to.
Yes, but you have no standard. So they are right and you are right and you therefore have no objective standard to make a judgment. Chaos to follow.You are falling into the fallacy of relativism. Nothing is right or wrong but only opinion, which is itself relative, makes it so. To repeat, it has opened the gate of hell throughout history. Suffice to say that it is the preferred approach in Western civilization because less demanding and easier to understand. Pointing one's life and society to virtue requires discipline and hard thinking. Relativism is easy because, in the end, nothing matters except to the degree that we decide that it does.Easy come, easy go.
Having a personal standard in my opinion, is not the same thing as an objective ideal. You said it yourself, the “preferred approach”. Your way of thinking is just another approach.
Having an objective ideal in my opinion, would make no difference to everyone having a different answer in your first point. Because everyone would just have what they think is the ideal, their personal standards and what’s become accepted as a societal norm.
On what is your personal standard based. Is it random and pointless or is it based on experience and a set of standards.Again, you are just repeating yourself. As I said before in so many words, not all preferences are created equal.
It’s based on experience and a set of standards of the society I live in and have been educated in. That doesn’t mean there’s a single objective ideal.
I’m sure peoples definitions of ideals are in part influenced by their own upbringing and education within the society they live in.
Sure it does. You are not going to a mosque. You are not offering human sacrifices to the gods. You are not stealing. You are operating within the parameters of certain set standards. You are confusing the fact that there is a certain breadth and latitude in that standard for a multiplicity of standards. It is not.
Yes but that’s just the standards which have been established by the society I live in over time thriving towards what this society believes to be an ideal. But go to another country, that society would have a different set of standards and they’d be aiming for what they believe is the ideal. But the “ideal” would differ in those 2 societies based on their beliefs and histories amongst other factors. But again the one ideal and different ideals is just 2 different approaches.
However, that standard is not arbitrary. It is based on centuries of experience and societies exploring what is the virtuous life. Indeed, think ancient Jerusalem, ancient Athens, ancient Rome.You are the un-self-aware inheritor of thousands of years and culture and experience that have shaped the society you live in and thereby shaped your worldview. It is not accidental and it is not random and it is based on a series of complex moral judgments and suppositions.
I agree it’s not accidental or random. I agree that It is based on centuries of experience and societies exploring what is the virtuous life. But every society has gone through that differently and hence have different standards. That doesn’t mean there’s one objective criteria for success.
There are not - and I did not say there was. What I DID say is that some are better than others and some approach truth and virtue more closely.Hence, my example, ten iterations ago, of the way Islam treats women and the West treats women. If you are indifferent about such matters, then either works. If, on the other hand, you have some conception of excellence and virtue, than one method is better than the other.
On the first paragraph, we are in agreement. On the second paragraph, that’s if you believe western values are better than the values of that society. Of course, I would agree with your view on the matter because I have a western upbringing. But ask a person from that background and they may have a different view based on what they believe is right. That in itself could be something which sparks arguments and conflict.
All civilizations have their origins in the search for notions of virtue and moral standards. I cited Western ones to point out those you are most likely to have been shaped by.Again, the question is not "Are there different approaches?" Rather it is which approaches most conduce to human virtue and human happiness.
Human virtue and human happiness would be defined differently by everyone. And hence which society is closer to it would be different to everyone. That’s a matter of opinion.
Although it would be strongly influence by the society they were bright up in im sure.
Sir, we are just going in circles. I do not mean to offend but it is like trying to explain the color blue to a blind man. Suffice to say I strongly recommend that you take coursework in moral and political philosophy. That would be far more efficacious than me trying to, in effect, orient you to it in 2,000 character increments.Yes, of course, people will define virtue and happiness differently. The Nazis defined it as throwing Jews into ovens. Just because it was so defined differently did not make the definition correct.
In your opinion based on your societal upbringing. What’s correct would be different to everyone.
Sorry, your sentence was unclear. I could not make out what you are attempting to say.
I am saying that what’s correct is different to everyone based on their societal upbringing. For example, using the colour yellow to mark danger. Whether that’s correct or not is a matter of opinion even if it is accepted as such in many societies. There may be societies which don’t use the colour yellow. Your last example is an extreme one and one in which the vast majority of people based on their societal upbringing and the education they’ve had would say it’s wrong. It’s also partly because most human beings would instinctively and emotionally see killing as wrong. It’s counter productive to the survival of a species.
Yes, you keep repeating that. To repeat, for the 10,000th time. I do not dispute that there are differences. Only that some cultures approach the ideal of human virtue and happiness - the two being related - more closely than others.The difference between us is that I have a consistent intellectual basis on which to make the distinction between the Emancipation Proclamation and the death camps. To you, one is as good as another. Because you have no objective standard to judge against, you have no standards at all. Merely fashions and differences of arbitrary opinion.
Actually I have standards based on my upbringing within my society. And I do based on that, judge one as better than the other. But others may judge differently because for whatever reason what they see as right is different.
Yes, and Nazis had a different standard and by virtue of your own argument, your views are no better nor worse than the Nazis. You are just different from the Nazis, and their views are as valid as your own. By your reasoning, if such it can be called.
I personally believe they were wrong actually. That’s based on my societal upbringing. Someone who knew nothing about what the nazis did and/or hasn’t been taught the same values that you and I have been taught may judge differently.
So what? Your personal views are all well and good. That hardly provides justification for preventing the Nazis from throwing Jews into ovens, or Islamists from blowing up the World Trade Center or the Chinese confining the Uighurs into re-education camps or the Killing Fields of Cambodia.Those are all as legitimate as your own views. It is all random and a matter of preference and viewpoint. There is nothing that gives them any less legitimacy than your own.
I did not say they are legitimate views. But that’s still my opinion which you share. Both based on our societal experiences and upbringings. We were taught that these things are wrong. To give another example, a child is taught what’s right and what’s wrong. They don’t figure it out from day 1 without being taught.
The child is different from the animal because alone among all creatures on the planet it alone has the ability to transcend his instincts and learn right from wrong. Raise a baby wolf to be the best wolf it can be - it will still be a wolf. Raise a human baby to be the best human it can be and it may cure cancer or write sonnets.That is the difference. Humans alone, of their nature, may transcend their evolutionary instincts and become more than the sum of their parts. Thus why you are, again, drawing false equivalencies and morally dubious positions.However, nature must be nurtured. The baby becomes the boy becomes the man becomes the gentleman.Again, the fact that you were raised to think the Nazis were wrong is not sufficient. Raise the baby to believe the Nazis were right and he will agree that the Nazis are right. The way you were raised differently says only that you were raised differently. It does not suggest that you OUGHT be raised one way or the other.Again, your moral relativism says that it is nice if you were a Jew born in the UK, you can live your life. If you were a Jew who happened to be born in Nazi Germany then off to the camps. The only thing that divides you is not a moral standard but random chance - and that for you is good enough.
If that’s your assessment, then that’s your assessment.
Yes, that is the essence of your relativistic argument. To you, to raise a baby to be a Nazi is just as legitimate a choice as to raise him a classical liberal.You have no basis on which to prefer one to the other. It is all just random chance and choice.
As I said, that’s your assessment even if I disagree with it.
Disagree all you like. It is funny how you recoil at the logic of your own argument. You have reduced man - including yourself - to little more than a wind-up toy. You have no moral choice and no moral obligations. You simply conform to the standards with which you were raised.Indeed, by your logic, the Nuremberg war crimes trials were a farce. What they did was right because they though it was right and that is legitimate. No objective standard to which the war criminals were morally obliged to recur to exists. Therefore they were not really guilty of any crimes because crime is in the eye of the beholder with no transcendent moral validity and therefore the Allies had no standing to impose their standards on others.
These 2 articles may help to understand my view better. arcdigital.media/moral-relativism-is-more-reasonable-than-you-think-3c85b40c3cb9blogs.scientificamerican.com/.../Admittedly, I don’t always convey my points well. This was a very interesting debate however, and I must say you are a good debater. I thank you for the knowledge and wisdom I have gained from this.
The problem with the first piece - leaving aside that the author starts with an ad hominem, i. e., the critics of relativism are hypocrites - is that it redefines moral relativism by its own lights. It makes a sweeping generalization when in fact, moral relativism properly understood is the idea that there is no ultimate truth.This sentence - "Put a bit more straightforwardly, a relativism isn’t a view that there’s no moral truth." - is exactly wrong. The author provides his own definition of relativism and then skewers the straw man. Not exactly rigorous moral philosophy. The second article is less surprising. Science operates on a "value free" premise. It must presume that all possibilities are open and cannot allow preferences to stand in the way of its material assessment. (We won't even bother with the "relativism is popular" argument. Popularity is not necessarily good. The Nazis were popular. Not good.)A perfect example is Dr. Fauci's recent argument that the handshake should be abolished. If you want to stop the spread of all sorts of diseases, that will get you there. The problem is that you have a society where the sense of connectedness to one's fellows is already highly attenuated. Where what binds you to your fellows has thinned.The handshake is a small thing, but it is rooted in elementary evolution. It provides and reinforces an ethos of trust and connectedness between human beings. Abolish it and you may end a lot of diseases, but the unintended effect will be to reinforce the separateness of humans with each other. Suffice to say, once that sense of separateness is further reinforced, social cohesion will break down. CONT.
Where we do not feel a sense of connectedness to our fellows, we are apt to treat them as extraneous and unimportant - without any feeling of empathy. Bad things follow. (This by the way, why the Marxists - scientific socialists - sought to make citizens spy on one another. If they were not humans, but were merely instruments of the class war, then society could be refashioned at will.)This was my point that science is straying beyond its ambit. If asked an A+B=C question, it will provide an A+B=C solution. Find for solving the immediate problem, but losing sight of a host of important variables and externalities.Bottom line, these articles are not persuasive. They create their own definitions of moral relativism and then demolish them. They need to read more Socrates and Sartre, less pop psychology and scientism tarted up as philosophy.
Ok. But the idea of relativism is just as old as objectivism. One comes from Confucius and the other from Aristotle. They are different ways of thinking. I’m sure there are pros and cons to each and one could argue them for eternity and not get anywhere.
Well, the problem is which most conduces to a happy life and human virtue. One demands of us that we seek moral excellence. The other shrugs in indifference. The first is not without its flaws and errors. The latter says that there are no flaws and errors, only random choices.The difference being that one pushes you to examine your conscience. The latter allows you to wallow in filth, and call it purity.
Well that’s one opinion. As I said, I’m sure one can argue the pros and cons of each for an eternity and I’m sure everyone will have a different view on the statements you made in your previous post. All I can say is that I accept and respect your difference in opinion.
Tell that to the people in camps and the bodies buried near the gas chambers. Ideas have consequences and you confuse the imperfect with the downright awful.
I could just as equally bring up what I think are the flaws of objectivism and conflicts which I believe have occurred as a result of it but I won’t. As I said I accept and respect your difference in opinion.
Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand and is actually in the relativistic tradition. The strong define morality for the weak. You do not appear to understand the term you are using here.Suffice to say that Objectivism is most strenuously objected to by those in the classical philosophical tradition - of all strands. Again, to them it is a theoretical abomination. To you just another lifestyle choice.
Actually Confucian ideology is based on relativism. But of course an objective person would argue that one is more right this the other hence the disagreement occurs.
Objectivism I mean.
At this point I am not sure what you are talking about. As to Confucianism, so it may be - and not for nothing has totalitarianism taken hold in the heartland of Confucianism. The predicates for where we are have been laid in where we have been. As to Objectivism, properly defined and understood, I agree. To repeat, you seem to be misusing the word. The philosophy of Objectivism - it is a proper noun - was devised and outlined by Ayn Rand. Based on your last two postings I cannot tell if you understand that - in which case your last posting was a statement of the obvious - or if you are misusing the term. (Which, to repeat, is why I strongly recommend a course in moral or political philosophy.) Here for your convenience an article describing Objectivism as properly used and not in the conflation of the term with popular usage that I sense is your error.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism
I understand actually. And your answer in itself is an objectivist one. One based on the perceived fact that Western principles and ideals are superior and more right than Asian ones. Some may refer to that as arrogance. That in itself can lead to conflict as it grows the need to not respect the other ideology (relativism) and impose and force objectivism onto others.
But as I said I respect that your opinion is different. And apologise if I have offended you in anyway.
No, sorry, it is not. I am in the classical conservative tradition. I trace the pedigree of my ideas from Aristotle and Aquinas through Edmund Burke and Benjamin Disraeli, Alexander Hamilton and Lincoln.Suffice to say, Ayn Rand had little good to say about those folks.Here again, you make my point. You really need to be better read in moral and political philosophy. You are misusing terms and pronouncing on the pedigree of ideas that you do not appear to fully understand.That is why I really think, if this interests you, that you would be well advised to do some homework. Because, at this point, you are falling back on poplar usage and only a very thin and general understanding of the ideas that you are referring to. That will not work for a serious discussion of any depth.
That is your opinion which again I respect and accept.
That's nice. I think they call it passive-aggressive.Bottom line, I have worked in politics for almost 30 years - including as a staffer for several Members of the House of Representatives - and I have a degree in political philosophy and communications. It is a fascinating subject and it is a great pity that people do not understand it more deeply and with less dilettantism.It has been a pleasure discussing this with you and it is to be regretted that you will not explore it more deeply so that we could get into the subject more fully. However, as it is, it appears that - particularly as you just repeat yourself using different words - we have reached the limits of the discussion.All the best and I truly encourage you to take the time and more deeply read into a topic that seems to interest you. Even if you will not take the time to understand it better.
One could argue that your last statement is passive aggressive. But as I say I respect your experiences and your opinions. I’m sure you are a great politics professional, I don’t doubt that for a second. But you’re right in that we are both now repeating ourselves and the limit of discussion seems to have been reached. And yes it Is a great shame we could not have had a deeper discussion due to both of our limits. I shall read into it, it is truly interesting and I wish to broaden my knowledge. What one understands of theirs or someone’s knowledge is ones personal opinion. Thank you for the debate.
How is it passive aggressive? You do not appear to be willing to explore the subject more deeply. You do not appear to be familiar with some basic concepts and terminology in moral and political philosophy.That caps where we can go. That is not passive-aggressive. My last line is simply a summation of the facts as they stand. You do not have the vocabulary or grasp of concepts to take the conversation beyond rhetorical circles. Just the way it is. As I say, I encourage you to look into these issues more deeply. It is really fascinating as well as enabling you to get a deeper understanding of politics then you will get from watching the evening news and social media or reading the newspaper.
And I respect and accept your opinion As different to my own. Thank you for helping me explore the topic.
Not at all. It really has been a pleasure.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
You could pay people $1000 a day to harvest food. Recognise that really hard work producing something is worth more than shipping it around. Not to say that logistics aren't important, but literally lifting produce all day from ankle height is harder work.
Be the first girl to share an opinion and earn 1 more Xper point!