The "turnaround" test fails in practice because people think that they are good and out group members are bad. So they conclude "yes, if I were a [member of out group] it would be ok to murder me, because then I would be bad. But I am good."
Historically, it seems to go beyond that to the ones doing the genocide first convincing themselves THEY are the ones being victimized, and they are merely defending themselves.
Right, the group comparison already presumes some sort of equality between groups. For example, convicted-murders really should be kept in prison. I don't think the average person should be kept in prison, they aren't part of that group. If you really think $bad_minority_group really is criminal, then it is easier to make the distinction. To equality without context is not possible, so you need to decide which criteria is relevant. I think you can still get there is a basis in core, classical liberal human rights and enlightenment values, but it does still require a bit more education in some some of ethical framework - but that civic, religious or otherwise.
That which impacts moral judgement more than anything is "rule of the unanimous."
When you look about you and find no one endorses a conjecture that is unique, you stop promoting it.
"No one understood better than Stalin that the true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade, but to produce a uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of unorthodox thought reveals itself as a jarring dissonance.“
The idea that you should follow the law no matter what is not a serious belief anyone has. It is always selectively deployed against outgroups and ignored for ingroups. I remember back in the 2010s reading tons of comments on Bryan's blog by irate conservatives insisting that illegal immigrants needed to be deported because they broke the law, and following the law was important, even if you thought the law was stupid. Then COVID lockdowns hit and guess who became the loudest scofflaws who disobeyed various stupid NPIs that government implemented? Those same people. And it wasn't something they did sheepishly and pled weakness of will when they were called out on it, it was something they did proudly!
They became even more proud scofflaws when their preferred presidential candidate was caught breaking the law repeatedly. If they treated Donald Trump the same way they want to treat illegal immigrants, he'd be serving multiple life sentences right now.
It was a perfect illustration of Wilhoit's Law: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
Strictly speaking, COVID lockdowns were not laws, nor were they obviously lawful orders. While I don't necessarily disagree, the distinction between legislation, regulation and executive orders/administrative decisions is important. One can say one should always follow the law, then dispute that some aspect of government action is actually law.
Do you think and NPI scofflaws would have followed mask mandates if instead of being executive orders they had instead been rammed through emergency sessions in the legislature?
Maybe, maybe not, but if mandates had been put through the legislature instead, those not following them would actually be scofflaws instead of people ignoring illegal orders. Of course one could still question the constitutional validity of such laws. Limited government and all.
Who gets to determine whether a law is stupid or not? Is it obvious? History shows us at various times some societies thought human sacrifice was fine, even obligatory. Good luck untangling all of this.
I think there's a simpler test that makes ethics objective; that which promotes human life. Sure, the Communists could argue that - but not for long. The pile of dead bodies from famine and widespread poverty were a clue. Maybe the case could be made in Russia that these were an agarian people that didn't really know history, the Industrial Revolution, and in that case it IS difficult. I once read that in Soviet Russia the authorities used to make the point, "Are you doing better than your father? So shut up." So in the context of a very rural, poor nation, maybe it IS tough to make the case for freedom and rights, because they simply don't know.
Nazi Germany certainly did not have that excuse. These were some of the most educated people in history. They knew the Enlightenment. They knew medicine, and industrial and economic achievement. What they did was blind themselves to what Hitler was because they didn't want to believe it. They were so blinded by fear of the Communists and the Left, that they were willing to band together with any monster that fought the Left, and overlooked all his flaws. There is a parallel here; it isn't enough to be "anti" Far Left or Far Right or whatever, you have to look around you and ask, what would happen if the people I support actually won? You aren't just what you oppose, but that which you stand for.
It has certainly done a lot of terrible things, although they are often done as much due to incompetence as to malice. I'm not sure how relevant that is to the average person, though. What can the average American do about foreign policy or drug policy besides vote for the right people and donate to the right causes? Not call the cops when you see someone doing drugs, I guess.
I am not sure, I think US is in serious moral decline (as a muslim, this is supposed to make us happy after what we witnessed from US in Middle East), but I am fearful that I grew in a certain world, that is now abandoned for power games with negligence to human life. Simon Sinek talked about how US no longer plays values in its foreign policy, but rather interests which is very worrying.
|| Ordinary people have no obligation to devote their lives to the study of moral philosophy and social science. But anyone who wields political power over thousands of human beings – much less millions – absolutely does.
That's so profound, it's banal! Or it should be. More people should read this Substack, especially leaders
Impressive comments. I'm impressed, at least. Societies don't go from 30 MPH to over 100 in seconds - rounding up Jews, dragging Latinos to jail for deportation, banning Islam... whatever.
The recent kerfuffle re IVF struck me. People, many of them, who oppose abortion defended IVF. How? A means-ends pitfall, no? A child born as result of IVF is good therefore...
I don't "buy" Brian's simple tests.
I use a simple test. What does the Church say? I can't figure it all out on my own.
Many people oppose *mid- to late-term abortion* because the fetus is clearly sentient, and have good reason to think this doesn't apply to IVF. Moral status at birth may not be the best position, but that doesn't mean the most reasonable alternative is ensoulment at fertilization.
What is reasonable is what is accepted. I was citing it as an example of Bryan's "substituting moral reasoning" (hard) with norms (easy). To the extent many folks engaged in reasoning, they tended to end up with a means-ends dilemma.
The "turnaround" test fails in practice because people think that they are good and out group members are bad. So they conclude "yes, if I were a [member of out group] it would be ok to murder me, because then I would be bad. But I am good."
Historically, it seems to go beyond that to the ones doing the genocide first convincing themselves THEY are the ones being victimized, and they are merely defending themselves.
Spot on.
Right, the group comparison already presumes some sort of equality between groups. For example, convicted-murders really should be kept in prison. I don't think the average person should be kept in prison, they aren't part of that group. If you really think $bad_minority_group really is criminal, then it is easier to make the distinction. To equality without context is not possible, so you need to decide which criteria is relevant. I think you can still get there is a basis in core, classical liberal human rights and enlightenment values, but it does still require a bit more education in some some of ethical framework - but that civic, religious or otherwise.
That which impacts moral judgement more than anything is "rule of the unanimous."
When you look about you and find no one endorses a conjecture that is unique, you stop promoting it.
"No one understood better than Stalin that the true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade, but to produce a uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of unorthodox thought reveals itself as a jarring dissonance.“
--Alan Bullock
The idea that you should follow the law no matter what is not a serious belief anyone has. It is always selectively deployed against outgroups and ignored for ingroups. I remember back in the 2010s reading tons of comments on Bryan's blog by irate conservatives insisting that illegal immigrants needed to be deported because they broke the law, and following the law was important, even if you thought the law was stupid. Then COVID lockdowns hit and guess who became the loudest scofflaws who disobeyed various stupid NPIs that government implemented? Those same people. And it wasn't something they did sheepishly and pled weakness of will when they were called out on it, it was something they did proudly!
They became even more proud scofflaws when their preferred presidential candidate was caught breaking the law repeatedly. If they treated Donald Trump the same way they want to treat illegal immigrants, he'd be serving multiple life sentences right now.
It was a perfect illustration of Wilhoit's Law: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
Strictly speaking, COVID lockdowns were not laws, nor were they obviously lawful orders. While I don't necessarily disagree, the distinction between legislation, regulation and executive orders/administrative decisions is important. One can say one should always follow the law, then dispute that some aspect of government action is actually law.
Do you think and NPI scofflaws would have followed mask mandates if instead of being executive orders they had instead been rammed through emergency sessions in the legislature?
Maybe, maybe not, but if mandates had been put through the legislature instead, those not following them would actually be scofflaws instead of people ignoring illegal orders. Of course one could still question the constitutional validity of such laws. Limited government and all.
Who gets to determine whether a law is stupid or not? Is it obvious? History shows us at various times some societies thought human sacrifice was fine, even obligatory. Good luck untangling all of this.
I think there's a simpler test that makes ethics objective; that which promotes human life. Sure, the Communists could argue that - but not for long. The pile of dead bodies from famine and widespread poverty were a clue. Maybe the case could be made in Russia that these were an agarian people that didn't really know history, the Industrial Revolution, and in that case it IS difficult. I once read that in Soviet Russia the authorities used to make the point, "Are you doing better than your father? So shut up." So in the context of a very rural, poor nation, maybe it IS tough to make the case for freedom and rights, because they simply don't know.
Nazi Germany certainly did not have that excuse. These were some of the most educated people in history. They knew the Enlightenment. They knew medicine, and industrial and economic achievement. What they did was blind themselves to what Hitler was because they didn't want to believe it. They were so blinded by fear of the Communists and the Left, that they were willing to band together with any monster that fought the Left, and overlooked all his flaws. There is a parallel here; it isn't enough to be "anti" Far Left or Far Right or whatever, you have to look around you and ask, what would happen if the people I support actually won? You aren't just what you oppose, but that which you stand for.
There's a big gap between violating speed limits and stop signs and killing someone.
But would not you classify imperial US post cold war (with war on drugs and war on terror) with little results as an evil society now?
It has certainly done a lot of terrible things, although they are often done as much due to incompetence as to malice. I'm not sure how relevant that is to the average person, though. What can the average American do about foreign policy or drug policy besides vote for the right people and donate to the right causes? Not call the cops when you see someone doing drugs, I guess.
I am not sure, I think US is in serious moral decline (as a muslim, this is supposed to make us happy after what we witnessed from US in Middle East), but I am fearful that I grew in a certain world, that is now abandoned for power games with negligence to human life. Simon Sinek talked about how US no longer plays values in its foreign policy, but rather interests which is very worrying.
Well done, Bryan. By the reasoning you cite in the post, I expect you to become a vegan soon. Good luck.
I declined to Like this excellent post because Caplan not only failed to mention today’s USA, but, above all, ISRAEL.
|| Ordinary people have no obligation to devote their lives to the study of moral philosophy and social science. But anyone who wields political power over thousands of human beings – much less millions – absolutely does.
That's so profound, it's banal! Or it should be. More people should read this Substack, especially leaders
Impressive comments. I'm impressed, at least. Societies don't go from 30 MPH to over 100 in seconds - rounding up Jews, dragging Latinos to jail for deportation, banning Islam... whatever.
The recent kerfuffle re IVF struck me. People, many of them, who oppose abortion defended IVF. How? A means-ends pitfall, no? A child born as result of IVF is good therefore...
I don't "buy" Brian's simple tests.
I use a simple test. What does the Church say? I can't figure it all out on my own.
Many people oppose *mid- to late-term abortion* because the fetus is clearly sentient, and have good reason to think this doesn't apply to IVF. Moral status at birth may not be the best position, but that doesn't mean the most reasonable alternative is ensoulment at fertilization.
What is reasonable is what is accepted. I was citing it as an example of Bryan's "substituting moral reasoning" (hard) with norms (easy). To the extent many folks engaged in reasoning, they tended to end up with a means-ends dilemma.