"Liberals got out of the habit of arguing for their beliefs"
July 25, 2016 10:58 AM Subscribe
"But it goes way beyond that. Some researchers claim that liberals aren't motivated by feeling of moral disgust, but I disagree. Liberals think incidents like these are disgusting. Racism is viscerally wrong, it's unacceptable, and it needs to stop."
Four years ago Mark Rosenfelder (metafilter's own) wrote The Practical Case For Liberalism (previously). He follows it up now with The Moral Case For Liberalism.
As far as I can make out, the only difference between the statement, "racism is disgusting" and the statement, "miscegenation is disgusting," is that I happen to agree with the former and hold the later in contempt. And that's a thoroughly unconvincing and vacuous reason to believe in anything.
Voting one's morals, rather than one's ethics, is terrifying advice, even if I happen to agree with the outcomes in this particular instance.
posted by eotvos at 12:04 PM on July 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Voting one's morals, rather than one's ethics, is terrifying advice, even if I happen to agree with the outcomes in this particular instance.
posted by eotvos at 12:04 PM on July 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Voting one's morals, rather than one's ethics, is terrifying advice
What, to you, is the difference? I think it's wrong to steal. Is that what you call morals? Or ethics?
posted by thelonius at 12:15 PM on July 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
What, to you, is the difference? I think it's wrong to steal. Is that what you call morals? Or ethics?
posted by thelonius at 12:15 PM on July 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
1. That's a distortion of the research on moral disgust, for starters. It is inappropriate to suggest that the researchers didn't modulate for domain differences. If anything, if you feel moral disgust towards racism, that makes you conservative in how you deal with it; this would be consistent with the research and force each of us to be more self-reflective.
2. One serious weakness of this article is conflating is and ought. It references Social Democracy, which the US is not, and makes an appeal for it. That's okay, even though I think the appeal would not pass academic norms of constructing an argument. The bigger problem is, the bulk of the essay is just arguing for the status quo. It is a logically wrong operation to use something that isn't the case (variant of social democracy) to argue for not changing or questioning or challenging actually existing "liberalism".
3. I'll put it differently and I hope this shakes the complacency of "liberal" privilege. European social democrats do not identify as pro-capitalist liberals (See: Yanis Varoufakis). Their politics are founded on seriously understanding what Marx was actually about. On understanding that capitalism is problematic; not that it's the villain and certainly not the ignorant canards, repeatedly reproduced in this text, about implementations of Marxian political economy or Communism. So here's the absurdity that challenges the author's narrative: if North America became more like a legitimate social democracy, there would be greater, not less, comprehension, basic awareness, and acceptance of Marxism and social theory.
4. Only crackpots write political science papers without a bibliography. Do you want to read crackpots, or do you want the input of serious expertise just like you would in scientific literature? Being part of the process of knowledge generation means following due diligence, and following the best practices of using citations and being part of that dialog. Not preparing citations means no serious researcher will take this text seriously. It also shows the author didn't truly grapple with the issues.
5. There's nothing liberal in repeating well-known strawman argument about anarchism. Strawman arguments and related sophistry are antithetical to liberalism. Consider that.
To go back to the opening of the article, no, I disagree, yet I don't find zompist's effort annoying or foolish. On the contrary.
posted by polymodus at 12:24 PM on July 25, 2016 [11 favorites]
2. One serious weakness of this article is conflating is and ought. It references Social Democracy, which the US is not, and makes an appeal for it. That's okay, even though I think the appeal would not pass academic norms of constructing an argument. The bigger problem is, the bulk of the essay is just arguing for the status quo. It is a logically wrong operation to use something that isn't the case (variant of social democracy) to argue for not changing or questioning or challenging actually existing "liberalism".
3. I'll put it differently and I hope this shakes the complacency of "liberal" privilege. European social democrats do not identify as pro-capitalist liberals (See: Yanis Varoufakis). Their politics are founded on seriously understanding what Marx was actually about. On understanding that capitalism is problematic; not that it's the villain and certainly not the ignorant canards, repeatedly reproduced in this text, about implementations of Marxian political economy or Communism. So here's the absurdity that challenges the author's narrative: if North America became more like a legitimate social democracy, there would be greater, not less, comprehension, basic awareness, and acceptance of Marxism and social theory.
4. Only crackpots write political science papers without a bibliography. Do you want to read crackpots, or do you want the input of serious expertise just like you would in scientific literature? Being part of the process of knowledge generation means following due diligence, and following the best practices of using citations and being part of that dialog. Not preparing citations means no serious researcher will take this text seriously. It also shows the author didn't truly grapple with the issues.
5. There's nothing liberal in repeating well-known strawman argument about anarchism. Strawman arguments and related sophistry are antithetical to liberalism. Consider that.
To go back to the opening of the article, no, I disagree, yet I don't find zompist's effort annoying or foolish. On the contrary.
posted by polymodus at 12:24 PM on July 25, 2016 [11 favorites]
What, to you, is the difference? I think it's wrong to steal. Is that what you call morals? Or ethics?This may be entirely personal and eccentric, and I'm happy to listen to arguments that I'm wrong and or abusing terminology, but I'd claim that if you can provide a coherent and plausible reason why you think that stealing is a bad idea, then it's an ethical choice. The vital distinction is between "I don't steal because I'd be happier living in a world where nobody steals" vs. "I don't steal because it feels wrong" and "I don't steal because God said so."
posted by eotvos at 12:28 PM on July 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
The one relevant class I took was a long-ass time ago and I am super not an expert, but IIRC, eotvos, the distinction you're drawing is between deontological, intuitionist or maybe emotivist/expressivist, and natural-law-ish or other religious theories of moral reasoning — not between morality and ethics. There are also other options other than the ones you lay out (utilitarian, virtue ethics, etc.).
posted by en forme de poire at 12:42 PM on July 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by en forme de poire at 12:42 PM on July 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
This may be entirely personal and eccentric, and I'm happy to listen to arguments that I'm wrong and or abusing terminology
I actually think that, although many many people draw a distinction between 'morals' and 'ethics', it's pretty much unclear what that distinction is. So in this case, I thought I'd ask!
posted by thelonius at 12:47 PM on July 25, 2016
I actually think that, although many many people draw a distinction between 'morals' and 'ethics', it's pretty much unclear what that distinction is. So in this case, I thought I'd ask!
posted by thelonius at 12:47 PM on July 25, 2016
In the technical sense, there is no distinction. If you told an ethicist that you valued ethics over morals, they'd give you a puzzled look. But in popular use, there frequently appears to be a distinction. The "principles vs. feelings or religion" distinction seems to be common, and I think I've seen people draw a line between "ethics are about things that affect other people" and "morals are those things that are just about me (e.g., masturbation or drinking alcohol)".
posted by middleclasstool at 1:26 PM on July 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by middleclasstool at 1:26 PM on July 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
> and certainly not the ignorant canards, repeatedly reproduced in this text, about implementations of Marxian political economy or Communism.
I'm not clear what you mean by this. Is any reference to implementations ipso facto an ignorant canard? Are we only allowed to talk about the beautiful dream of Communism and not mention the unfortunate results of attempts to put it into practice?
posted by languagehat at 1:43 PM on July 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm not clear what you mean by this. Is any reference to implementations ipso facto an ignorant canard? Are we only allowed to talk about the beautiful dream of Communism and not mention the unfortunate results of attempts to put it into practice?
posted by languagehat at 1:43 PM on July 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
For me morals are the values I hold dear, and ethics are the consequences of those values.
posted by Zalzidrax at 2:32 PM on July 25, 2016
posted by Zalzidrax at 2:32 PM on July 25, 2016
I'm not clear what you mean by this. Is any reference to implementations ipso facto an ignorant canard? Are we only allowed to talk about the beautiful dream of Communism and not mention the unfortunate results of attempts to put it into practice?
Of course not; that would be just as absurd, right? If you are sincerely interested, I recommend spending some time with lectures by Harvey, Wolff, and Chomsky. My last comment was taxing to write, so maybe someone else whose studied some critical theory could do it, but there's no way for me to respond in brief without setting up all the context needed. (Put yourself in the shoes of asking someone to explain why a canard is racist, etc.) But those names are pointers and if you spend some time with the literature and revisit this question about canards I guarantee you'll see the issue more clearly.
posted by polymodus at 2:38 PM on July 25, 2016
Of course not; that would be just as absurd, right? If you are sincerely interested, I recommend spending some time with lectures by Harvey, Wolff, and Chomsky. My last comment was taxing to write, so maybe someone else whose studied some critical theory could do it, but there's no way for me to respond in brief without setting up all the context needed. (Put yourself in the shoes of asking someone to explain why a canard is racist, etc.) But those names are pointers and if you spend some time with the literature and revisit this question about canards I guarantee you'll see the issue more clearly.
posted by polymodus at 2:38 PM on July 25, 2016
I actually think that, although many many people draw a distinction between 'morals' and 'ethics', it's pretty much unclear what that distinction is. So in this case, I thought I'd ask!
In the technical sense, there is no distinction. If you told an ethicist that you valued ethics over morals, they'd give you a puzzled look. But in popular use, there frequently appears to be a distinction. The "principles vs. feelings or religion" distinction seems to be common, and I think I've seen people draw a line between "ethics are about things that affect other people" and "morals are those things that are just about me (e.g., masturbation or drinking alcohol)".
To clarify a side conversation:
This actually depends on what theoretical/critical/philosophical tradition you're working and speaking in. The distinction-without-a-difference may be correct in Anglo-American philosophy, as far as I know, although "ethics" itself has a specific meaning there. ("Moral" can be used differently by different thinkers.)
However, in the broad suite of approaches that fall under the classification critical theory, the two are distinct. There, to (over?)simplify, "the moral" concerns normative judgements about things (e.g. what's good and what's bad); "the ethical" concerns what a subject should do and/or a subject's duties and obligations.
For a more concrete example in this tradition, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Michel Foucault's ethics is pretty good.
posted by migrantology at 3:28 PM on July 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
In the technical sense, there is no distinction. If you told an ethicist that you valued ethics over morals, they'd give you a puzzled look. But in popular use, there frequently appears to be a distinction. The "principles vs. feelings or religion" distinction seems to be common, and I think I've seen people draw a line between "ethics are about things that affect other people" and "morals are those things that are just about me (e.g., masturbation or drinking alcohol)".
To clarify a side conversation:
This actually depends on what theoretical/critical/philosophical tradition you're working and speaking in. The distinction-without-a-difference may be correct in Anglo-American philosophy, as far as I know, although "ethics" itself has a specific meaning there. ("Moral" can be used differently by different thinkers.)
However, in the broad suite of approaches that fall under the classification critical theory, the two are distinct. There, to (over?)simplify, "the moral" concerns normative judgements about things (e.g. what's good and what's bad); "the ethical" concerns what a subject should do and/or a subject's duties and obligations.
For a more concrete example in this tradition, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Michel Foucault's ethics is pretty good.
posted by migrantology at 3:28 PM on July 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
Only crackpots write political science papers without a bibliography.
It's an essay. It's an attempt to communicate and the author's political position to people who aren't engaged in politics, because they think that politics is for crackpots who can utter the right shibboleths. It succeeds as that essay.
And because its conclusions are generally regarded as non-crackpot, it doesn't need the intellectual rigour that essays in an environment as fissiparous as Marxism might.
posted by ambrosen at 3:53 PM on July 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's an essay. It's an attempt to communicate and the author's political position to people who aren't engaged in politics, because they think that politics is for crackpots who can utter the right shibboleths. It succeeds as that essay.
And because its conclusions are generally regarded as non-crackpot, it doesn't need the intellectual rigour that essays in an environment as fissiparous as Marxism might.
posted by ambrosen at 3:53 PM on July 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
As far as I can make out, the only difference between the statement, "racism is disgusting" and the statement, "miscegenation is disgusting," is that I happen to agree with the former and hold the later in contempt. And that's a thoroughly unconvincing and vacuous reason to believe in anything.
Voting one's morals, rather than one's ethics, is terrifying advice, even if I happen to agree with the outcomes in this particular instance.
Ideas are more important than society. the first statement comes out of a universal idea, 'we are all people'. The second comes out of society 'my people are better than yours'.
posted by Sebmojo at 4:44 PM on July 25, 2016
Voting one's morals, rather than one's ethics, is terrifying advice, even if I happen to agree with the outcomes in this particular instance.
Ideas are more important than society. the first statement comes out of a universal idea, 'we are all people'. The second comes out of society 'my people are better than yours'.
posted by Sebmojo at 4:44 PM on July 25, 2016
Regarding the differences between morals and ethics...the subtlety and playfulness of Alexander Payne's Election is giving me a very warm feeling right now.
posted by lazycomputerkids at 7:08 PM on July 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by lazycomputerkids at 7:08 PM on July 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
In the technical sense, there is no distinction. If you told an ethicist that you valued ethics over morals, they'd give you a puzzled look
There is often some blurring of the definitions, but the most common academic distinction in philosophical ethics is that morality is the code of behavior that is understood to a community. Ethics, then, is the self-reflective discipline that explains why we understand those things to be normative, versus other things. As such, ethics is often understood as a more formal evaluation regarding why some understanding of behavior is sanctioned or condemned, and not another. Also, ethics can be a discipline within a common community. Religious communities who agree on many things may disagree on another thing. Ethics would be the place in which justification for one interpretation versus another is worked out.
posted by SpacemanStix at 7:55 PM on July 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
There is often some blurring of the definitions, but the most common academic distinction in philosophical ethics is that morality is the code of behavior that is understood to a community. Ethics, then, is the self-reflective discipline that explains why we understand those things to be normative, versus other things. As such, ethics is often understood as a more formal evaluation regarding why some understanding of behavior is sanctioned or condemned, and not another. Also, ethics can be a discipline within a common community. Religious communities who agree on many things may disagree on another thing. Ethics would be the place in which justification for one interpretation versus another is worked out.
posted by SpacemanStix at 7:55 PM on July 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Voting one's morals, rather than one's ethics, is terrifying advice, even if I happen to agree with the outcomes in this particular instance.
People vote for any number of reasons (the appeal of a particular platform; the offensiveness of a whole system [in this case, they vote against]; the sound of a candidate's voice). A lot of them are terrifying.
posted by cotton dress sock at 7:57 PM on July 25, 2016
People vote for any number of reasons (the appeal of a particular platform; the offensiveness of a whole system [in this case, they vote against]; the sound of a candidate's voice). A lot of them are terrifying.
posted by cotton dress sock at 7:57 PM on July 25, 2016
The difference between ethics and morals is like the difference between geeks and nerds: they really don't have solid definitions to separate them from each other but everybody seems to have their own idiosyncratic definition for each without a lot of justification for why which is which.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:46 PM on July 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:46 PM on July 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's an essay. It's an attempt to communicate and the author's political position to people who aren't engaged in politics, because they think that politics is for crackpots who can utter the right shibboleths. It succeeds as that essay.
And because its conclusions are generally regarded as non-crackpot, it doesn't need the intellectual rigour that essays in an environment as fissiparous as Marxism might.
And I gave some simple suggestions how it could be a stronger essay if it addressed certain problems. You are also making two fallacies here. Marxian discourse is not rigorous because there are so many conflicting versions of it. Scientists know well that common sense does not excuse an opinion from standards of exposition and argument. This applies to the social sciences and history and so on. The way to engage apolitical citizens is not to tell them what to think, but to show them so they learn skills to build the concepts themselves. That means citations and resources, not pandering to their intuitions, and certainly not misrepresenting what Marx was about, with a definition dug out from the 1990s.
If there are ways to teach people medical information sensibly, it should be done for politics too. So the second fallacy is having intellectual standards has anything to do with Marx.
To the author's credit, their summary on Piketty is pretty nice. So this is entirely doable.
posted by polymodus at 10:27 PM on July 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
And because its conclusions are generally regarded as non-crackpot, it doesn't need the intellectual rigour that essays in an environment as fissiparous as Marxism might.
And I gave some simple suggestions how it could be a stronger essay if it addressed certain problems. You are also making two fallacies here. Marxian discourse is not rigorous because there are so many conflicting versions of it. Scientists know well that common sense does not excuse an opinion from standards of exposition and argument. This applies to the social sciences and history and so on. The way to engage apolitical citizens is not to tell them what to think, but to show them so they learn skills to build the concepts themselves. That means citations and resources, not pandering to their intuitions, and certainly not misrepresenting what Marx was about, with a definition dug out from the 1990s.
If there are ways to teach people medical information sensibly, it should be done for politics too. So the second fallacy is having intellectual standards has anything to do with Marx.
To the author's credit, their summary on Piketty is pretty nice. So this is entirely doable.
posted by polymodus at 10:27 PM on July 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Rosenfelder referenced the conversation we had in this thread. I was surprised to see my words in the piece, if only because I think other people have expressed that idea more eloquently - if less cynically - than I did. Possibly on other threads.
I think a lot of the value in this piece is the way it states things more simply, in a way that acknowledges commonly held viewpoints but shows their underlying meanings, too. I didn't read it as something that needs citations; certainly op-ed pieces in major newspapers rarely (often never) have citations.
Regarding ethics and morals, professional ethics - and ethicists - are largely in agreement about what is ethical in most non-edge cases, which is why hospitals, among other places, hire ethicists. My understanding is that morals are far more relative to the person doing the observing than are ethics. Most people find moral relativism repugnant, but the truth is that all morals are relative, and morals are largely derived from culture (religion, legal custom, etc.). Ethics are being approached in a more academic fashion, with all the advantages and disadvantages that apply.
posted by Strudel at 12:06 AM on July 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think a lot of the value in this piece is the way it states things more simply, in a way that acknowledges commonly held viewpoints but shows their underlying meanings, too. I didn't read it as something that needs citations; certainly op-ed pieces in major newspapers rarely (often never) have citations.
Regarding ethics and morals, professional ethics - and ethicists - are largely in agreement about what is ethical in most non-edge cases, which is why hospitals, among other places, hire ethicists. My understanding is that morals are far more relative to the person doing the observing than are ethics. Most people find moral relativism repugnant, but the truth is that all morals are relative, and morals are largely derived from culture (religion, legal custom, etc.). Ethics are being approached in a more academic fashion, with all the advantages and disadvantages that apply.
posted by Strudel at 12:06 AM on July 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's an interesting essay and a timely one, I think. In reading Metafilter I am sometimes struck by the reflexive ease with which people trot out the word "racism" without much in the way of an argument. Limiting immigration = racism; Brexit = racism; Islamic terrorism = racism. I find it a baffling conflation of concerns which seems to reduce the word to a bit of liberal liturgy not unlike "heretic" or "class enemy" in other contexts.
Which in turn seems dangerous since to me actual racism is about actual disgust and actual hatred rooted in viscerally held beliefs over pedigree and race, actually expressed and practiced against actual people. The mere fact that people who are not like you frighten or annoy you is not that and might better be called xenophobia or neuroticism. It makes the phenomenon much easier to relate to and address.
posted by dmh at 8:43 AM on July 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
Which in turn seems dangerous since to me actual racism is about actual disgust and actual hatred rooted in viscerally held beliefs over pedigree and race, actually expressed and practiced against actual people. The mere fact that people who are not like you frighten or annoy you is not that and might better be called xenophobia or neuroticism. It makes the phenomenon much easier to relate to and address.
posted by dmh at 8:43 AM on July 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
"That's not racism, it's really [form or manifestation of racism]" only serves to mask the racism built into our society from its foundations up. Insisting that it's only really racism if it's KKK-style foaming at the mouth and shouting racist slurs while beating up a member of an ethnic minority group just serves to establish racism as something that other, bad people do, rather than as something which is structural to society and ourselves and requires careful attention and lots of work to extricate and eliminate.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:11 AM on July 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:11 AM on July 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
Pope Guilty, I think that your argument is flawed and that your understanding of racism is simplistic and wrong. First, because you resort to hyperbole ("foaming at the mouth") which distorts what I said. Second, because your claim that racist violence is perceived as something "other, bad people do" belies your ignorance of trends in the EU and the US, where more and more people in fact do openly support racist violence. Third, because your notion of racism does not extend beyond "our society", ie. presumably Western society, when in actual fact racism is endemic throughout the world, and it is my personal experience that the Western world is one of the places where racism is least entrenched and accepted. Finally I find it preposterous to be told that my experience of racism is wrong by someone who as a paleface cannot possibly have shared that experience.
posted by dmh at 10:13 AM on July 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dmh at 10:13 AM on July 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well I think it's super relevant that you bring up racism in a global context. For the people experiencing outright racist violence, does an incrementalist political ideology make sense? The history of the West knowing what's better for everyone else? Does the Rawlsian premise make sense there? How does telling humans that It Gets Better, over 100 years, maybe not in their lifetime, translate to politics in their daily lives? Who is the audience here?
posted by polymodus at 11:46 AM on July 26, 2016
posted by polymodus at 11:46 AM on July 26, 2016
In reading Metafilter I am sometimes struck by the reflexive ease with which people trot out the word "racism" without much in the way of an argument. Limiting immigration = racism; Brexit = racism; Islamic terrorism = racism.
What do you mean by this? I've read plenty of Metafilter comments which argue that limiting immigration is racist, and I've read more than a few Metafilter comments which argue supporting Brexit is racist - or at least that racists supported Brexit, for some reason - but I haven't read many Metafilter comments which portray Muslim terrorism as racist violence.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 2:09 PM on July 26, 2016
What do you mean by this? I've read plenty of Metafilter comments which argue that limiting immigration is racist, and I've read more than a few Metafilter comments which argue supporting Brexit is racist - or at least that racists supported Brexit, for some reason - but I haven't read many Metafilter comments which portray Muslim terrorism as racist violence.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 2:09 PM on July 26, 2016
Oops, strudel, I should have provided some attribution, and I will, if you don't mind. I thought your comment was vivid and memorable.
posted by zompist at 3:23 PM on July 26, 2016
posted by zompist at 3:23 PM on July 26, 2016
Finally I find it preposterous to be told that my experience of racism is wrong by someone who as a paleface cannot possibly have shared that experience.
Your experience of racism hasn't even come up, he disagreed with your definition of racism. I find your definition ("actual racism is about actual disgust and actual hatred") quite idiosyncratic and I don't think I've really heard anyone use it before. Are you arguing that this currently is the common usage, or that it should be the common usage?
posted by the agents of KAOS at 7:36 PM on July 26, 2016
Your experience of racism hasn't even come up, he disagreed with your definition of racism. I find your definition ("actual racism is about actual disgust and actual hatred") quite idiosyncratic and I don't think I've really heard anyone use it before. Are you arguing that this currently is the common usage, or that it should be the common usage?
posted by the agents of KAOS at 7:36 PM on July 26, 2016
The difference between ethics and morals is like the difference between geeks and nerds: they really don't have solid definitions to separate them from each other but everybody seems to have their own idiosyncratic definition for each without a lot of justification for why which is which.
Perhaps in common day usage, but there's a good way to show the difference between the two. An ethicist, most would agree, is someone who talks about moral claims. Someone who is a moralist, on the other hand, makes a moral claim. Instinctively, we tend not to see the second as being as objectively removed in a second-order way as the first. Similarly, there's isn't a discipline called Philosophical Morality, but there is one called Philosophical Ethics. Ethics, more often than not, is reserved academically for the second-order, self-reflective process of evaluating moral claims, rather than simply making moral claims.
posted by SpacemanStix at 9:32 PM on July 26, 2016
Perhaps in common day usage, but there's a good way to show the difference between the two. An ethicist, most would agree, is someone who talks about moral claims. Someone who is a moralist, on the other hand, makes a moral claim. Instinctively, we tend not to see the second as being as objectively removed in a second-order way as the first. Similarly, there's isn't a discipline called Philosophical Morality, but there is one called Philosophical Ethics. Ethics, more often than not, is reserved academically for the second-order, self-reflective process of evaluating moral claims, rather than simply making moral claims.
posted by SpacemanStix at 9:32 PM on July 26, 2016
There's no mystery about it: liberalism is the political/economic system the US had from the inauguration of Franklin D. Roosevelt to that of Ronald Reagan; that is, from 1933 to 1980, just under half a century. The major difference since then is that conservatives were able to implement plutocracy instead: running the country for the benefit of the wealthiest 10% rather than for the whole population... The answer to the question 'Why haven't liberals fixed this and that problem??' is almost always 'Because we're not in charge'... The liberal response is: change is possible, but it takes work.
Can This Capitalism Be Saved?
so hobbes --> mill --> webb --> friedman (with the latter more of a half-a-counterrevolution to state 'overreach' according to the right of center authors) but with that in mind i'd note that delong, among others, is leading the charge to expand the role of gov't: "the optimal size of the 21st-century public sector will be significantly larger than the optimal size of the 20th-century public sector, and the proper level of the 21st century public debt should be significantly higher than typical debt levels we have seen in the 20th century."
posted by kliuless at 9:55 PM on August 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Can This Capitalism Be Saved?
Robert Reich’s Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few is an excellent book. It powerfully argues that America needs once again—as it truthfully reminds us that we did four times in the past—restructure its institutions to build both private and public countervailing power against the monopolists and their political servants in order to right the distribution of income and boost the pace of economic growth.fwiw, an interesting complement to the discussion of the 'march of liberalism' is wooldridge and (former economist editor) micklethwait's _fourth revolution_ which provides an even larger context: "For 500 years, the West's ability to reinvent the state has enabled it to lead the world."
Reich wants to remind us Americans of our strong record of “expanding the circle of prosperity when capitalism gets off track.” We have in our past no fewer than four times built up countervailing power to curb the ability of those controlling last generation’s wealth and this generation’s politics to tune institutions, property rights, and policy to their station. This repeated, deliberate construction of countervailing power kept America a high-wage economy—the world’s highest-wage economy, in fact—for ordinary (white, male) guys.
Until now.
Thus Reich wants us here in America to fix our future by recalling our past.
The first piece of our past Reich wants us to remember is Andrew Jackson’s Age [...] the Jacksonian Revolution prevented America’s drift toward a more English form of political-economic organization, in which restrictions on westward migration coupled with political grants of economic monopoly rights lead to a lower-wage economy.
Of course, that drift came after the Civil War, with the coming of the Gilded Age and then of the second piece of history that Reich wants us to remember: the 1901-1916 Progressive Era of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson as a response to Gilded Age inequality and political corruption of the system. The response to the Great Depression took the form of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 1933-1939 New Deal and the partial construction of the great arch of American social democracy, which was then extended with Lyndon Johnson’s 1964-1966 three-part legislative program of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and the 1965 Medicare Act.
All of these, Reich argues, show that:We need not be victims of impersonal “market forces” over which we have no control. The market is a human creation… based on rules that human beings devise. The central question is who shapes those rules and for what purpose…. The coming challenge is not to technology or to economics. It is a challenge to democracy. The critical debate for the future is not about the size of government; it is about whom government is for. The central choice is not between the “free market” and government; it is between a market organized for broadly based prosperity and one designed to deliver almost all the gains to a few at the top… how to design the rules of the market so that the economy generates what most people would consider a fair distribution on its own, without necessitating large redistributions after the fact…The key for Reich is the proper construction of institutions that provide, in a phrase he borrows from John Kenneth Galbraith, countervailing power to that power over political-economic arrangements provided by the oligarchic inheritance of last generation’s wealth and the oligarchic building up of political influence.
so hobbes --> mill --> webb --> friedman (with the latter more of a half-a-counterrevolution to state 'overreach' according to the right of center authors) but with that in mind i'd note that delong, among others, is leading the charge to expand the role of gov't: "the optimal size of the 21st-century public sector will be significantly larger than the optimal size of the 20th-century public sector, and the proper level of the 21st century public debt should be significantly higher than typical debt levels we have seen in the 20th century."
posted by kliuless at 9:55 PM on August 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
« Older Then two will be in the field; one will be taken... | Apocalypse Bona Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by rebent at 11:59 AM on July 25, 2016 [1 favorite]