I don't understand your comment. "Either side" of which debate?
A discussion that goes back to Plato, and includes tons of great thinking on either side, from the US "Founding Fathers", Tocqueville, Burke, to Enlightenment philosophers like Diderot and Voltaire, to people like Dewey, Elliot (the subject of the article and a huge intellectual force in the early 20th century), modern critics like Bloom and Lasch, all the way to todays cultural wars.
People will discuss philosophy forever. That doesn't stop society, rightly or wrongly, from forming consensus that some positions are dumb.
So with my original comment, I am curious (a) if I understand the article correctly, and (b) why some HN readers support a position that, in my neck of the woods, people consider dumb.
No, but it also doesn't stop society from forming dumb consensuses either. It's not like what's dumb is determined by popularity contest (even if one assumed that most of "society" is on the same page on such issues).
>(b) why some HN readers support a position that, in my neck of the woods, people consider dumb.
Because what people consider dumb and what is dumb is not the same thing.
Some people believe that science and tech aside (where progress is cumulative), it's not at all clear that modern norms, culture, practices, art, laws, etc are better than older norms and practices.
And it's a totally reasonable stance to have (and a lot of the counter-arguments are not really very deep, e.g. "You prefer the 50s society? But back then they had more racism". Well, it's not like we have to "take-or-leave" everything from today or from a past era. Plus, today we have more of other negatives that they didn't have at some other time -- e.g. the quality of modern politics, for one, the obesity and opioid epidemic, zero corporate loyalty, increased privacy erosion, pricier college education, and other such things...).
It's not like what's dumb is determined by popularity contest
One thing is sure: all common knowledge, all traditional
opinions, are foolish, for the very reason that the
majority agrees with them.
My personal view is that it's dumb to use 'inherited wealth' as a gauge of a person's character or competence. For the past century, that view has also been the majority view in the West. If the views didn't agree, I would have had to position my original post differently. I probably would have gone with something like "I realize most of you believe inherited wealth is a sign of good genes, but I disagree because.." But then, I wouldn't likely be as interested, since - in such an alternate universe - I would already be aware of the popular reasoning.
Eh. At this point, maybe we're off in the weeds
For others, for example, inherited wealth means inherited culture (from their cultivated parents etc). It's not as much "inherited wealth" but inherited class (as in the sentence "this man has class").
Plus, even if it's not the perfect gauge of "character of competence", respecting such a wealth order can be argued that results in a stabler society than one where people always compete for a place at the top.
Not saying that I agree with those arguments (and they are not the sole ones fans of that arrangement make).
>For the past century, that view has also been the majority view in the West.
Depends, because there's a very real classism in both the US and (even more so) the UK for example. Both in that rich families take care of their own, consider themselves a separate league above the rest, and see outsiders as intruders, and in the very real sense that for all "startup rags to riches" success stories, those in top don't change that much:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-07-10/rich-k...
https://newrepublic.com/article/116462/family-wealth-lasts-t...
https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-14...
And people still consider nouveaux-rich ("new money") as gaudy and uncultivated.
people still consider nouveaux-rich as gaudy and uncultivated.
It's hard to call one person gauche when it's stylish for another to own a print of a Campbells soup can. Modern-day haute couture might include a tattered tee shirt emblazened with the word "Urine". There's probably a Youtube video somewhere of Prince William wearing Crocs and "dabbing". There is little agreement over what "is done" these days.
there's a very real classism in both the US and (even more so) the UK for example
Holy False Dichotomy, Batman!
I don't believe in an inevitable march, but I'm definitely not enamored of keeping social norms the way they are just because they're social norms. I think society can and should be improved based on sound policy, but my ideas aren't teleological; that is, they don't move towards a specific long-term end goal, just a short- or medium-term goal which is, essentially, a position better than this one, from which we can plot the next improvements.
Do I believe in questioning everything? Sure, with the caveat that I'm willing to accept "We don't know how to improve it" or "It isn't something we can improve" as answers. Do I believe in equalizing everything? The question is unanswerable as posed, not least because "equality" means different things in different contexts, and some people have a distressing propensity for equivocation.
We have consensus on basic ethical norms - isnt it possible to identify which courses of action/inaction (regardless of bent) lead to ethical outcomes - and review the results of past actions under an ethical lens?
This debate just seems like some (maybe great) philosophy buried under a mountain of incentivised people searching for ammo.
Because half of the world has an IQ under 100 and it takes about an IQ of 120 to have a small chance of thinking about these ideas rationally.
There are still people who are way smarter than that who believe Zombie Jesus was real and thus being gay is evil. So progress is hard.
>There are still people who are way smarter than that who believe Zombie Jesus was real and thus being gay is evil.
There are people so uninformed and uneducated as to reduce all kind of religious or moral question to BS Americanisms like "Zombie Jesus".
On some, but morality has not been resolved, not even close.
> isnt it possible to identify which courses of action/inaction (regardless of bent) lead to ethical outcomes
No, figuring out all the consequences of a given action quickly gets intractable the bigger the action is. You can make predictions as to the effect of a law or policy, but you usually can't make guarantees as to their effects. nth order effects keep piling up.
Because rationality is just about making logical deductions. Not preferences, not what life is better, not goals, and nothing. At best it's about how to achieve one's goals more efficiently/faster etc. Not what goals to have.
Rationality as some all-around solution to the worlds problems is a naive pre-modern concept. Tons of 20th centuries atrocities and bad decisions have been performed by highly intelligent people using very rational means to pursue them.
>We have consensus on basic ethical norms
No, we don't, except at very crude stuff like don't kill and don't punch blind old ladies. And even "don't kill" can get tons of discussion and counter-arguments when it comes e.g. to protecting one's country, property, interests, the law, whatever.
>- isnt it possible to identify which courses of action/inaction (regardless of bent) lead to ethical outcomes - and review the results of past actions under an ethical lens?
Even assuming we agreed on ethical outcomes (which we don't) the world is too complex to determine "which courses of action/inaction lead to those outcomes" except in very crude cases. Plus, all actions/inactions have second order effects to other ethical outcomes where people can disagree, ad infinitum.
The past is not some safe guide either: circumstances can and will be different, so following the same action/inaction might bring results now whereas it didn't in the past (and vice versa).
Plus, even more hoopla is not about "ethical outcomes" but about personal interests.
No matter what the "ethical outcome" is, even if we agree on what it is, people can still, completely rationally, want to screw ethical considerations and e.g. take your property, squeeze value out of you to your detriment, etc, if it means they get more wealth/happiness/whatever out of that.
Bad things happening in the name of rationality tend to happen where people are not considering ethical outcomes. You can use computers to time traffic lights or launch missiles, doesn't mean computers are at fault. Building a social system that sees people put in gulags, if your course of action is intended to uphold ethical norms - is irrational.
Peoples preference, their goals, their opinions on which life is better aren't plucked out of the air. They follow logic based on a persons circumstance, history and assumptions about what will happen based on their choice. Coal miners didnt strike because they were marxist, they did it for better wages. Gun owners want to keep guns not because of a philosophical stance, but because they distrust the government or just like shooting guns.`
And yes, it's complicated to make decisions and resolve competing interests. But attempting to categorise individual stances on decisions into two groups of thought - when it's actually individual choices on some very low level stuff - doesn't add anything to the table.
Thats what Im confused about..