I’m a lot more inclined to give credence to intervention requests when the locale is one we’ve screwed up in the past (particularly, selling weapons to countries that then use them on their populace).
Heh. That's much of what gives me pause.
I'll reshuffle your words to give something much closer to my take:
I’m a lot more inclined to give credence to intervention when the locale has requested it.
I’ll just say, that if “moral” is to mean anything important, it has to do with our obligations to others. If you can think of a meaningful concept outside of that, I’m all ears, but for the most part, it seems like that is the only conception not covered by other phrases and that gets at something shared by the large number of instances in which morality is invoked, which all seem to do with our social interaction with others.
Dude! I wrote an essay!
Anyway, I don't understand how "I’ll just say, that if “moral” is to mean anything important, it has to do with our obligations to others" is not an intuition.
I ask, do you agree, because I’d like to short circuit any talk of moral relativism or anti-realism from the start, but if you want to hold anyone of those positions, that’s fine, in which case people’s calls for acting morally shouldn’t just be unpersuasive to you, but completely uninteresting.
Assuming I am a moral relativist or anti-realist, what else ought I find completely uninteresting?
So I only put out the assumptions for hope that we could go beyond them, but if you have serious reservations, then by all means let’s delve in.
My reservations have to do with the intuition that the majority, if not entirety, of my moral intuitions are culturally seated. That essay I wrote was an attempt to divorce morality from historical trivia (the inclination to do so is probably one of the shackles that I'm not even noticing that I'm wearing).
What will my morality look like in 100 years?
I tell you what, 100 years ago, I think it's safe to say that I'd be considered, at the very least, unfit to be seated on a jury. Why? Because the Judge, Prosecution, and Defense know that they have obligations to society.
Not unusual at all. Reading people uncharitably is something that comes naturally to me.
I’ll ask you first if you believe moral duties exist, at all, anywhere, at anytime.
There are 15 or 16 essays in this question.
I am pretty sure that I have at least one moral intuition that goes almost entirely counter to a moral intuition that you have. This alone gives me a great deal of pause.
The world is full of examples of devout, inspired people who were absolutely certain of their moral rectitude.
So when you ask about moral duties in theory, there are a lot of questions there with answers that go from "Russell's Teapot?" to "And that's why you need to watch Reverend X on youtube."
And, what the hell, I'll point you to that essay I wrote about Vector Morality:
https://ordinary-times.com/blog/2009/07/07/the-vector-a-post-theist-moral-framework/
We may not agree 100%, but I’m fairly confident that we could zero in one some situations where intervention is justified, and others where it is morally obligatory (morally does not have to mean “in our best interest”).
Would it be uncharitable to read this as justification coming from two dudes agreeing? Probably. How about if I reframed this as "I am a fairly intelligent person who has reached consensus with another fairly intelligent person from my same culture and we've come to agreement on moral issues pertaining to our responsibility to intervene when it comes to the following folks doing the following things."
I mean, seriously, there are a lot of assumptions here.
How many things are you doing right now that not only *COULD* but *DO* qualify as something worth intervention according to a handful of cultures that have actually, for real, existed (and may even exist today)?
I am willing to bet that the answer is *NOT* "none".
The answer is *NOT* none for me.
This also gives me pause.
You continuing questions seem to be aiming at the idea that, yes, these kinds of moral calculation are difficult, but simply taking a long time to figure out and not having 100% certainty or consensus does not mean they are not real.
I don't know. I have intuitions... but I don't know how much weight I ought to give them. Certainly not as I look back with how much certainty I had when it came to our invasion of Iraq.
Part of my aim was to say there some important principles to wrestle with that aren’t about attacking the bona fides of those advocating intervention.
Oh, absolutely.
It's like saying that, sure, the South was wrong but that didn't give the North the right to invade! Why, look at Lincoln!
If we had to wait for a white knight to save us, we'd be stuck until doomsday.
The problem comes that pretty much any intervention will end up costing a huge amount and much, much more than is promised to those paying for the intervention... It seems crass to say that we should only intervene if the price for not doing so will, eventually, be higher than if we do. It also creates one hell of a perverse incentive.
I think you’d be hard pressed to argue that those two things are roughly equivalent.
So we're haggling.
Are there rates of taxation that you think would justify an invasion? Rates of incarceration? Laws against certain things? Laws mandating certain things?
Is mass murder your price and beyond that it's none of your business?
Stillwater, I can't get you to agree that society in general doesn't like the idea of food stamps being used for cigarettes.
I can't get Blaise to agree that society exists.
Part of my argument is to lay out my premises. P. R.
Then I get to lay out P -> Q. Q -> R.
This will allow me to explain not only that R is due to P but also argue that it is not the case that (~R -> ~Q) And (~Q -> ~P).
But we can't even agree that society exists, let alone that there is a general consensus that says that parents who receive food stamps for their children shouldn't be able to buy cigarettes with them.
(I must say that it's particularly irritating that these arguments come from folks who make accusations against my character when I express skepticism as to the nature of positive rights. Positive rights exist but society doesn't? Positive rights exist but we can't know if society has an opinion on using food stamps to but smokes???)
You say society doesn’t want to pay for cigarettes for poor people. Who speaks for this Society? People believe such things all on their own, more precisely, you believe it. So huddle up with your fellow believers on the pew of the church of your own belief structure, so you don’t feel quite so alone. But this Society business is a knife which cuts both ways: anyone can pull any assertion out of his ass and claim it’s what Society believes, with about as much proof and gravitas as some bearded prophet type on the corner saying God Hates Fags.
My position is that the modern prison state as it exists here in America is an extension of the modern welfare state as it exists here in America... indeed, that they provide positive feedback to each other.
I think that there are a lot of things that are intertwined and they include the super-Protestant history of much of the country, the social contract that has resulted in us, as a society, saying that we have a responsibility to feed, educate, and protect The Children, and that much of what we want is at odds with other things that we want and that government isn't particularly skilled at providing us with either.
But I can't even get people to admit that society, in general, doesn't like the idea of food stamps being used to buy cigarattes DESPITE the fact that food stamps were deliberately created to be food vouchers.
Rock and Roll provides us another Omelas to walk away from.
You can listen to this great music... but it will require the artist to be miserable, drug-addled, his girl/boyfriends to be regularly heartbroken, and given a 50-50 shot of dying young.
Let's say that Maribou tells me to go to the store to get some grapes.
I would say that, now, I have a positive obligation to go to the store to get some grapes (or to come back with an explanation of how they're out of season, or sold out, or in bad shape due to freezes, or whatnot).
This is a relatively trivial obligation, I think we all agree... or is it the general position that this is *NOT* an obligation that I have to Maribou and the fact that I think that she asking me to do something for her creates an obligation just demonstrates how little I understand what "obligations" are?
This entire discussion brings echoes of Paul to my ears.
It seems that my saying that I've met all of my positive obligations is like me saying that "I am not a sinner". Well, we *ALL* know that anybody who says that they aren't a sinner is probably the biggest sinner on the block!!!
But I'm not talking about "sin".
I'm talking about my positive obligations that have to each of you because we all live in a society together... and, again, it seems to me that my positive obligations to each of you is met... and if it is your position that I am not, in fact, meeting my obligations I would like to know what I could do to meet them.
And if it is the case, like with sin, that it's not possible for anybody except for Doctor Dobson Himself to be without sin, I'd like that established too (this seems to be closer to stillwater's position... did I get it right?).
So when we get to either you accept the validity of the obligation or you don’t and I say "awesome!", how do we still have a problem?
It's stillwater who doesn't believe that I have met all of my obligations (see comment #154)... and yet, when I ask for specifics, he won't tell me what obligations I have not met (and tells me that only I can know what my obligations are).
Either only I can know what my obligations are or you can know what my obligations are too.
If you can know what my obligations are to the point where you're pretty sure that I'm not meeting them, I would hope that you'd be able to say what the ones I'm not meeting would happen to be.
If we all have so many, so very many, obligations that it's not likely that any given person is meeting them all, then I'd say that "obligations" is probably not the right word for what we're talking about and we should use a different one.
I still think there’s a fundamental confusion about what a positive obligation is.
This is why I have been asking for examples.
Apparently, I have to purchase certain products, give to certain charities, volunteer for certain social functions, and recycle (bottles, blood, and organs).
I can appreciate that this list may not be exhaustive... and that, oddly enough, much of it does not look perfectly analogous to helping a drowning person at little to no cost to me (except for the organ donor thing... hey, if I'm dead, I certainly don't need them anymore, right?).
I mean, I suppose we're kinda doing it now... but it doesn't really feel like we're doing anything but commenting on a post on a blog. Could "academia" sit down with "the conservatives" and ask what they want?
I have no idea who would be enough of an authority to ask the question. I have less of one when it comes to who would answer it.
I’m pretty sure that philosophical skepticism is not what grounds conflicts between in- and out-groups.
No, and I'm not saying it did. I'm saying that it's a useful tool, on both sides, to explain how the other side isn't *REALLY* this, that, or the other. The in-group hasn't *REALLY* addressed the fundamental problems faced by the out-group... or the out-group isn't *REALLY* interested in joining us over here anyway.
On “Toward a norm of humanitarian intervention”
It's purple. It's not very good. It's a rough draft. It kinda sucks. It's puerile, really.
"
I’m a lot more inclined to give credence to intervention requests when the locale is one we’ve screwed up in the past (particularly, selling weapons to countries that then use them on their populace).
Heh. That's much of what gives me pause.
I'll reshuffle your words to give something much closer to my take:
I’m a lot more inclined to give credence to intervention when the locale has requested it.
"
Hey, E.C. Down here.
I’ll just say, that if “moral” is to mean anything important, it has to do with our obligations to others. If you can think of a meaningful concept outside of that, I’m all ears, but for the most part, it seems like that is the only conception not covered by other phrases and that gets at something shared by the large number of instances in which morality is invoked, which all seem to do with our social interaction with others.
Dude! I wrote an essay!
Anyway, I don't understand how "I’ll just say, that if “moral” is to mean anything important, it has to do with our obligations to others" is not an intuition.
I ask, do you agree, because I’d like to short circuit any talk of moral relativism or anti-realism from the start, but if you want to hold anyone of those positions, that’s fine, in which case people’s calls for acting morally shouldn’t just be unpersuasive to you, but completely uninteresting.
Assuming I am a moral relativist or anti-realist, what else ought I find completely uninteresting?
So I only put out the assumptions for hope that we could go beyond them, but if you have serious reservations, then by all means let’s delve in.
My reservations have to do with the intuition that the majority, if not entirety, of my moral intuitions are culturally seated. That essay I wrote was an attempt to divorce morality from historical trivia (the inclination to do so is probably one of the shackles that I'm not even noticing that I'm wearing).
What will my morality look like in 100 years?
I tell you what, 100 years ago, I think it's safe to say that I'd be considered, at the very least, unfit to be seated on a jury. Why? Because the Judge, Prosecution, and Defense know that they have obligations to society.
"
Not unusual at all. Reading people uncharitably is something that comes naturally to me.
I’ll ask you first if you believe moral duties exist, at all, anywhere, at anytime.
There are 15 or 16 essays in this question.
I am pretty sure that I have at least one moral intuition that goes almost entirely counter to a moral intuition that you have. This alone gives me a great deal of pause.
The world is full of examples of devout, inspired people who were absolutely certain of their moral rectitude.
So when you ask about moral duties in theory, there are a lot of questions there with answers that go from "Russell's Teapot?" to "And that's why you need to watch Reverend X on youtube."
And, what the hell, I'll point you to that essay I wrote about Vector Morality:
https://ordinary-times.com/blog/2009/07/07/the-vector-a-post-theist-moral-framework/
We may not agree 100%, but I’m fairly confident that we could zero in one some situations where intervention is justified, and others where it is morally obligatory (morally does not have to mean “in our best interest”).
Would it be uncharitable to read this as justification coming from two dudes agreeing? Probably. How about if I reframed this as "I am a fairly intelligent person who has reached consensus with another fairly intelligent person from my same culture and we've come to agreement on moral issues pertaining to our responsibility to intervene when it comes to the following folks doing the following things."
I mean, seriously, there are a lot of assumptions here.
How many things are you doing right now that not only *COULD* but *DO* qualify as something worth intervention according to a handful of cultures that have actually, for real, existed (and may even exist today)?
I am willing to bet that the answer is *NOT* "none".
The answer is *NOT* none for me.
This also gives me pause.
You continuing questions seem to be aiming at the idea that, yes, these kinds of moral calculation are difficult, but simply taking a long time to figure out and not having 100% certainty or consensus does not mean they are not real.
I don't know. I have intuitions... but I don't know how much weight I ought to give them. Certainly not as I look back with how much certainty I had when it came to our invasion of Iraq.
"
Part of my aim was to say there some important principles to wrestle with that aren’t about attacking the bona fides of those advocating intervention.
Oh, absolutely.
It's like saying that, sure, the South was wrong but that didn't give the North the right to invade! Why, look at Lincoln!
If we had to wait for a white knight to save us, we'd be stuck until doomsday.
The problem comes that pretty much any intervention will end up costing a huge amount and much, much more than is promised to those paying for the intervention... It seems crass to say that we should only intervene if the price for not doing so will, eventually, be higher than if we do. It also creates one hell of a perverse incentive.
"
I think you’d be hard pressed to argue that those two things are roughly equivalent.
So we're haggling.
Are there rates of taxation that you think would justify an invasion? Rates of incarceration? Laws against certain things? Laws mandating certain things?
Is mass murder your price and beyond that it's none of your business?
On “Our man in Fukushima”
I do not endorse twitter but, maybe, he's okay.
http://twitter.com/theinductive
There is a couple of tweets that say (and I'm quoting here):
@Drudge_Report You're a fucking asshole. I'm actually here in Japan with no idea what I need to do to save my children because assholes...
...like you keep sensationalizing EVERYTHING. Which way is the fucking wind blowing, and how many goddam microsieverts are there!?
Good luck, Carr. I (we) hope you and your loved ones pull through.
On “We Don’t Need No (overpriced) Education”
Where are these people coming from?
On “Net Neutrality, Libertarianism, and Free Information”
Moot point. Moot.
On “Incoherent Democracy, Again”
Stillwater, I can't get you to agree that society in general doesn't like the idea of food stamps being used for cigarettes.
I can't get Blaise to agree that society exists.
Part of my argument is to lay out my premises. P. R.
Then I get to lay out P -> Q. Q -> R.
This will allow me to explain not only that R is due to P but also argue that it is not the case that (~R -> ~Q) And (~Q -> ~P).
But we can't even agree that society exists, let alone that there is a general consensus that says that parents who receive food stamps for their children shouldn't be able to buy cigarettes with them.
(I must say that it's particularly irritating that these arguments come from folks who make accusations against my character when I express skepticism as to the nature of positive rights. Positive rights exist but society doesn't? Positive rights exist but we can't know if society has an opinion on using food stamps to but smokes???)
"
You say society doesn’t want to pay for cigarettes for poor people. Who speaks for this Society? People believe such things all on their own, more precisely, you believe it. So huddle up with your fellow believers on the pew of the church of your own belief structure, so you don’t feel quite so alone. But this Society business is a knife which cuts both ways: anyone can pull any assertion out of his ass and claim it’s what Society believes, with about as much proof and gravitas as some bearded prophet type on the corner saying God Hates Fags.
My position is that the modern prison state as it exists here in America is an extension of the modern welfare state as it exists here in America... indeed, that they provide positive feedback to each other.
I think that there are a lot of things that are intertwined and they include the super-Protestant history of much of the country, the social contract that has resulted in us, as a society, saying that we have a responsibility to feed, educate, and protect The Children, and that much of what we want is at odds with other things that we want and that government isn't particularly skilled at providing us with either.
But I can't even get people to admit that society, in general, doesn't like the idea of food stamps being used to buy cigarattes DESPITE the fact that food stamps were deliberately created to be food vouchers.
On “State Dept Spokesman: Bradley Manning’s Treatment “Ridiculous and Counterproductive and Stupid.””
Get your government out of my body.
"
Er, expecting.
"
That was faster than I expected. I was expected Tuesday.
On “Friday Night Jukebox”
Rock and Roll provides us another Omelas to walk away from.
You can listen to this great music... but it will require the artist to be miserable, drug-addled, his girl/boyfriends to be regularly heartbroken, and given a 50-50 shot of dying young.
Do you accept that bargain?
"
I enjoy listening to Every Picture Tells A Story a hell of a lot more than I enjoyed being able to relate to it.
On “Fleshing out the University (Pt .4)”
Let's say that Maribou tells me to go to the store to get some grapes.
I would say that, now, I have a positive obligation to go to the store to get some grapes (or to come back with an explanation of how they're out of season, or sold out, or in bad shape due to freezes, or whatnot).
This is a relatively trivial obligation, I think we all agree... or is it the general position that this is *NOT* an obligation that I have to Maribou and the fact that I think that she asking me to do something for her creates an obligation just demonstrates how little I understand what "obligations" are?
"
This entire discussion brings echoes of Paul to my ears.
It seems that my saying that I've met all of my positive obligations is like me saying that "I am not a sinner". Well, we *ALL* know that anybody who says that they aren't a sinner is probably the biggest sinner on the block!!!
But I'm not talking about "sin".
I'm talking about my positive obligations that have to each of you because we all live in a society together... and, again, it seems to me that my positive obligations to each of you is met... and if it is your position that I am not, in fact, meeting my obligations I would like to know what I could do to meet them.
And if it is the case, like with sin, that it's not possible for anybody except for Doctor Dobson Himself to be without sin, I'd like that established too (this seems to be closer to stillwater's position... did I get it right?).
"
As I've said, again and again, it seems to me that all of my positive obligations have been met.
If it is your take that they are not, in fact, being met, please tell me what I could do to meet them.
"
So when we get to either you accept the validity of the obligation or you don’t and I say "awesome!", how do we still have a problem?
It's stillwater who doesn't believe that I have met all of my obligations (see comment #154)... and yet, when I ask for specifics, he won't tell me what obligations I have not met (and tells me that only I can know what my obligations are).
Either only I can know what my obligations are or you can know what my obligations are too.
If you can know what my obligations are to the point where you're pretty sure that I'm not meeting them, I would hope that you'd be able to say what the ones I'm not meeting would happen to be.
If we all have so many, so very many, obligations that it's not likely that any given person is meeting them all, then I'd say that "obligations" is probably not the right word for what we're talking about and we should use a different one.
"
If "I have an obligation to do X" does not, in fact, mean "I have to do X", then we are using words very, very differently.
"
I still think there’s a fundamental confusion about what a positive obligation is.
This is why I have been asking for examples.
Apparently, I have to purchase certain products, give to certain charities, volunteer for certain social functions, and recycle (bottles, blood, and organs).
I can appreciate that this list may not be exhaustive... and that, oddly enough, much of it does not look perfectly analogous to helping a drowning person at little to no cost to me (except for the organ donor thing... hey, if I'm dead, I certainly don't need them anymore, right?).
"
Hey, b and c totally make my answer to a irrelevant.
Good enough for me.
Whew.
"
Could this be done in theory?
I mean, I suppose we're kinda doing it now... but it doesn't really feel like we're doing anything but commenting on a post on a blog. Could "academia" sit down with "the conservatives" and ask what they want?
I have no idea who would be enough of an authority to ask the question. I have less of one when it comes to who would answer it.
"
I’m pretty sure that philosophical skepticism is not what grounds conflicts between in- and out-groups.
No, and I'm not saying it did. I'm saying that it's a useful tool, on both sides, to explain how the other side isn't *REALLY* this, that, or the other. The in-group hasn't *REALLY* addressed the fundamental problems faced by the out-group... or the out-group isn't *REALLY* interested in joining us over here anyway.