Ancalagon
Computer Geek
Joined: Dec 26, 2007
Posts: 2388
|
 Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 7:16 pm Post subject: Re: If Liberals are so empathetic... |
 |
|
| Declension wrote: | | Here is another example. Suppose that I point out that many people are members of morally sound institutions, such as charities and non-Nazi churches, and that their membership in these institutions is morally beneficial. Does that mean that "membership" itself can be considered a moral building block? |
I wouldn't call membership (by itself) morally beneficial. I can't see how membership and loyalty could be compared like that, either.
I would call loyalty a generally good thing, but I can't see how anyone could call membership in general good or bad.
_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton |
|
| Back to top |
|
Peter_L
Blue Jay
Joined: Jan 06, 2012
Age: 28
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| edgewaters wrote: | | Peter_L wrote: | | Anything humans come up with is going to be imperfect. Existing "flawed" ideas or institutions are a result of long sets of compromises that while nobody is happy with, everybody can live with. Is accepting a compromise agreement pointless and wasteful? |
No, but that's not loyalty, thats pragmatism. Loyalty dictates that you would remain steadfast in a situation where few were happy with it, few could live with it, and the outcomes were poor. You can't argue for loyalty on a pragmatic basis - that's arguing for pragmatism.
|
No, that's fabricating a new definition of loyalty.
Loyalty
noun
1. the state or quality of being loyal; faithfulness to commitments or obligations.
2. faithful adherence to a sovereign, government, leader, cause, etc.
3. an example or instance of faithfulness, adherence, or the like: a man with fierce loyalties.
I am loyal to my country, and it's institutions. That does not require me to ignore the obvious and indisputable fact that many parts of our governance are the end result of a thousand odd years worth of compromise agreements. Since I live in a functioning democracy I am perfectly at liberty to point that out and express my opinions on our governance. I may also call for lawful alterations to those sections of our governance without being disloyal, since we have freedom of speech up to the point where you start discussing to overthrow those institutions by unlawful means. At that point it would be sedition.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Much of the time, I think your "better" alternatives are what you consider to be "better" based on eliminating every compromise every other group in society wanted in order to be able to live with the institution, which leaves you being the only group satisfied with the result. |
I find that the groups most likely to exhibit strong loyalty are idealists and generally aren't willing to compromise with any other groups anyway. |
Well, as I'm not liberal by any reasonable definition of the word you'd probably call me conservative and I, like many people I know exhibit very strong loyalty. Personally, i'm willing to compromise however that means to me that we end up negotiating on the issue to resolve concerns and end up where that compromise leaves us, which is probably somewhere close to halfway. I am not willing to engage in "compromise" as in we give the other party everything they want every time without addressing our concerns.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | If the idea was genuinely "better" in the definition of "produces a measurably more effective end result for less cost while being fair to all sections of society" then to be honest I don't think there would be any argument over it. |
Then you do not believe in loyalty, you believe in pragmatism. You're willing to make a switch to obtain something, if it is pragmatic to do so. |
As pointed out, I am loyal by the dictionary definition of the word, as well as it's common acceptance in (British) English. If this does not meet your personal definition of the word, then I would respectfully suggest that your definition is irrelevant to me.
I hold that I can be a good citizen, and do my duty to my Queen, my Country and my flag, while lawfully engaging in my countries political process without being disloyal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Declension
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2012
Posts: 1657
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 7:41 pm Post subject: Re: If Liberals are so empathetic... |
|
|
| Ancalagon wrote: | | I would call loyalty a generally good thing, but I can't see how anyone could call membership in general good or bad. |
To me, "loyalty" seems to be a very similar concept to "membership". It is a description of a relationship of attachment or allegiance between a person and an institution, or between two people. And the moral problems seem to be the same for both concepts. Just as it would be morally questionable to remain loyal to an institution or person if the institution or person is a force for moral evil, it would also be morally questionable to remain a member of an institution if the institution is a force for moral evil. In both cases, I think that we can always "pass the buck" to a real moral concept in order to explain why a certain loyalty or membership is morally good.
The only problem for this view seems to be that the opposite of "loyalty" might be "betrayal", and "betrayal" is morally wrong, all else being equal. But I don't think these are true opposites. "Betrayal" really means "the breaking of an agreed-upon arrangement", whether the arrangement is implied or literal. The reason it is wrong is that it involves you not keeping your word, which really boils down to an offense against fairness. But you could be loyal to something or someone without there being any arrangement involved. For example, I could choose to be loyal to a certain political party by always voting for them. But there would be no breaking of any arrangement if I decided to drop my loyalty and stop voting for them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dox47
Consigliere
Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Posts: 5197
Location: Seattle Area
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| heavenlyabyss wrote: | | Um, this sounds like a subtle attack. |
Subtle?
| heavenlyabyss wrote: | | I skimmed it because it just seemed silly to me, if you want the truth. |
And yet you still felt compelled to add another "I can't support this statement but I just know I'm right" comment...
Direct enough?
_________________
Unconditional allegiance is the surest way to render one’s beliefs and agenda irrelevant
Any power that government has to do something you like will invariably be used for something you abhor
Murum aries attigit |
|
| Back to top |
|
edgewaters
hibernating
Joined: Aug 17, 2006
Age: 40
Posts: 2426
Location: Ontario
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 2:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Peter_L wrote: | No, that's fabricating a new definition of loyalty.
Loyalty
noun
1. the state or quality of being loyal; faithfulness to commitments or obligations.
2. faithful adherence to a sovereign, government, leader, cause, etc.
3. an example or instance of faithfulness, adherence, or the like: a man with fierce loyalties. |
No, it isn't different at all. Parse the definition. Faith is a belief held without proof - faithfulness would be the quality of believing without proof. Faithful adherence, would be to adhere to something without proof, ie to refuse to subject it to rational analysis.
Essentially its not much different from fanaticism except by degrees. It is a state of deliberate irrationality towards the object of adherence, in order to maintain support of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
heavenlyabyss
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 10, 2011
Posts: 530
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 4:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dox47 wrote: | | heavenlyabyss wrote: | | Um, this sounds like a subtle attack. |
Subtle?
| heavenlyabyss wrote: | | I skimmed it because it just seemed silly to me, if you want the truth. |
And yet you still felt compelled to add another "I can't support this statement but I just know I'm right" comment...
Direct enough? |
Hmm... I wasn't going to respond to this again, but you have baited me.
I don't give a damn about the subject, let me just frank. I don't care about politics. What I look for is the way people respond. And I find your response unsettling. So, let's just leave it at that. Sometimes, I make a point that has nothing to do with the original topic. I am done with this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dox47
Consigliere
Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Posts: 5197
Location: Seattle Area
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
This one isn't specifically about liberalism or conservatism but partisanship generally, and is a paraphrase that I think sums up the mentality quite nicely and concisely:
| Quote: | | In partisan politics, the end justifies the means, and people who disagree with your ideological beliefs are to be mercilessly mocked, strategically misrepresented, and treated as if their motives are evil. |
_________________
Unconditional allegiance is the surest way to render one’s beliefs and agenda irrelevant
Any power that government has to do something you like will invariably be used for something you abhor
Murum aries attigit |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dox47
Consigliere
Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Posts: 5197
Location: Seattle Area
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've got a good example of the blind spot that the article is talking about; people's attitudes towards the fight over PPACA (Obamacare, if you must), no so much about the act itself but about the attitudes of others towards it.
I'm unsurprisingly in the Randy Barnett crowd, believing that the individual mandate is novel and unconstitutional because it regulates inactivity, and that is not one of Congress's enumerated powers. This is constant with my view on what I see as an overly broad reading of the commerce clause generally, and puts me squarely in the libertarian camp. I oppose PPACA not because I have a problem with providing healthcare to citizens, but because I have a big problem with the way that this bill would further erode at what little restraint congressional power currently has. Come up with a way of helping people that doesn't further encroach on my right to be left alone, and I'll have no objection to signing on.
Where I'm going with this is that to many liberal commentators and even liberals I've interacted with, my position just does not exist as far as they're concerned, if you're against the mandate you're for people dying in the street and to HELL with the Constitution (I've literally seen that last point made word for word). That's a fundamental breakdown in empathy for me, not to mention being a prime piece of ends justifying the means thinking and a good example of the "it's the thought that counts" school of rationalizing sometimes seen on the left when flaws in their lawmaking are pointed out. "How are we going to pay for this?" "I don't know, but that doesn't matter because it helps X people!". Stereotype? Yep. Inaccurate? Well...
Also:
You, yeah you, furiously typing some variant of "The RIGHT WINGERS DO THAT TOO!!!", I'll save your fingers the exercise: The right wing also has it's peccadilloes, we spend plenty of other threads talking about them, and their myriad flaws don't excuse anything discussed here anyway. There.
_________________
Unconditional allegiance is the surest way to render one’s beliefs and agenda irrelevant
Any power that government has to do something you like will invariably be used for something you abhor
Murum aries attigit |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dox47
Consigliere
Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Posts: 5197
Location: Seattle Area
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 5:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| heavenlyabyss wrote: | | I don't give a damn about the subject, let me just frank. |
You keep saying that and yet you keep responding... Actions and words telling different stories here.
_________________
Unconditional allegiance is the surest way to render one’s beliefs and agenda irrelevant
Any power that government has to do something you like will invariably be used for something you abhor
Murum aries attigit |
|
| Back to top |
|
LKL
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 22, 2007
Age: 37
Posts: 5695
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| One interesting aspect to all of this is that, in the interviews I've heard with this author, I thought he came across as more harsh towards *the right* than towards the left. |
|
| Back to top |
|
heavenlyabyss
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 10, 2011
Posts: 530
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dox47 wrote: | | heavenlyabyss wrote: | | I don't give a damn about the subject, let me just frank. |
You keep saying that and yet you keep responding... Actions and words telling different stories here. |
Hmmm, why does a person always have to keep their word? You keep baiting over and over and over again. And I bet you will reply to this again. Why are you so interested in me? I made my point very clearly in my first post. We seem to disagree on this matter.
I'm not interested in debate. I am only concerned with the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
edgewaters
hibernating
Joined: Aug 17, 2006
Age: 40
Posts: 2426
Location: Ontario
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dox47 wrote: | I've got a good example of the blind spot that the article is talking about; people's attitudes towards the fight over PPACA (Obamacare, if you must), no so much about the act itself but about the attitudes of others towards it.
I'm unsurprisingly in the Randy Barnett crowd, believing that the individual mandate is novel and unconstitutional because it regulates inactivity, and that is not one of Congress's enumerated powers. This is constant with my view on what I see as an overly broad reading of the commerce clause generally, and puts me squarely in the libertarian camp. I oppose PPACA not because I have a problem with providing healthcare to citizens, but because I have a big problem with the way that this bill would further erode at what little restraint congressional power currently has. Come up with a way of helping people that doesn't further encroach on my right to be left alone, and I'll have no objection to signing on.
Where I'm going with this is that to many liberal commentators and even liberals I've interacted with, my position just does not exist as far as they're concerned, if you're against the mandate you're for people dying in the street and to HELL with the Constitution (I've literally seen that last point made word for word). That's a fundamental breakdown in empathy for me, not to mention being a prime piece of ends justifying the means thinking and a good example of the "it's the thought that counts" school of rationalizing sometimes seen on the left when flaws in their lawmaking are pointed out. "How are we going to pay for this?" "I don't know, but that doesn't matter because it helps X people!". Stereotype? Yep. Inaccurate? Well...
Also:
You, yeah you, furiously typing some variant of "The RIGHT WINGERS DO THAT TOO!!!", I'll save your fingers the exercise: The right wing also has it's peccadilloes, we spend plenty of other threads talking about them, and their myriad flaws don't excuse anything discussed here anyway. There. |
Damn, you are good ... theres that vague part about eroding at restraint that pops right out, looks juicy but I smell a trap.
I think I would skip over that and go for "even liberals Ive interacted with", knock that out (anecdote), then "many liberal commentators" - how many? Dismiss the specific examples you no doubt have as more anecdote ... maybe toss in a charge of assumption for that last bit (meh, itd keep you busy) ... still its a fairly peripheral line of attack ... but maybe Id find out more about the vague part ... anyway, I can tell it would be a good, tough fight. This one is a veteran position isnt it? You have had this fight before, I think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dox47
Consigliere
Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Posts: 5197
Location: Seattle Area
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| heavenlyabyss wrote: | | I'm not interested in debate. I am only concerned with the truth. |
Do you just arrive at an uncontested truth unilaterally? The only point I'm making here is that if you have an opinion and wish it to be taken seriously, support it rather than declaring that you "just know it's right" and moving on. I'm also saying that a truly disinterested party would simply have stopped reporting so you're not being honest with me, and likely with yourself for that matter. Some part of you cares about the topic, or you'd never have posted in this thread in the first place, let alone the subsequent posts.
_________________
Unconditional allegiance is the surest way to render one’s beliefs and agenda irrelevant
Any power that government has to do something you like will invariably be used for something you abhor
Murum aries attigit |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dox47
Consigliere
Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Posts: 5197
Location: Seattle Area
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LKL wrote: | | One interesting aspect to all of this is that, in the interviews I've heard with this author, I thought he came across as more harsh towards *the right* than towards the left. |
Haidt? I've never been sure if that's an artifact of his mostly speaking to left-ish audiences, but I've found what papers of his I've read on ideology to be quite fair. That's part of the reason I was excited to post this particular excerpt for discussion; a non-partisan researcher reaching a conclusion that some on the left are going to find uncomfortable. Attack the science or do some self-exploration?
_________________
Unconditional allegiance is the surest way to render one’s beliefs and agenda irrelevant
Any power that government has to do something you like will invariably be used for something you abhor
Murum aries attigit |
|
| Back to top |
|
LKL
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 22, 2007
Age: 37
Posts: 5695
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dox47 wrote: | | LKL wrote: | | One interesting aspect to all of this is that, in the interviews I've heard with this author, I thought he came across as more harsh towards *the right* than towards the left. |
Haidt? I've never been sure if that's an artifact of his mostly speaking to left-ish audiences, but I've found what papers of his I've read on ideology to be quite fair. That's part of the reason I was excited to post this particular excerpt for discussion; a non-partisan researcher reaching a conclusion that some on the left are going to find uncomfortable. Attack the science or do some self-exploration? |
Haidt, yes. I do think he's fair, but perhaps my bias makes me perceive liberal problems as not-as-bad as conservative ones. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
