In the past week, I've countenanced the idea that moral good may arise from noble lies and purposeful dissimulation based on romantic ideology. Perhaps I haven't expressed this idea explicitly, though a few commenters have interpreted my arguments as such. Nonetheless, let's go with it. To moderates and liberals, the pursuit of ultimate justice is subservient to appeasing all sides and avoiding "extremism" (read: an actual position). I can't tell you how many times someone has told me "to have an open mind" or "look at both sides". Ironically, I have considered both sides and this circumspection underlies my passion.
Related to this, Barry Goldwater said the following in a 1964 speech:
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.The current mainstream doctrine, one based on the "anything goes" mentality, has defined "extremism" as any position with steadfast loyalty to a set of principles. An "extremist" is now someone who refuses to capitulate and surrender his values, even if said values represent some ultimate good. As Goldwater states, one must sometimes engage in hidebound pursuit of justice and avoid the easy out of moderation if chasing a worthwhile objective.
And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Back to my earlier posts, the criticism expressed by some commenters pulls together the two ideas above - that moderation and the satisfaction of all values is the ultimate moral good and that "extremism" in the pursuit of justice is a moral wrong. The second follows from the first and in the end, nothing practical gets done.
15 comments:
"Religious agnostics and political moderates are the prime examples of these intellectual fence-sitters. Their position is defined by the complete absence of any value system besides inconsistent doublethink."
One can be both an agnostic and a political moderate without engaging in an abnormal level of doublethink.
I will agree though that moderates and liberals don't like extremists, that is conservatives (like Larry Auster) who hold a consistent position. However, liberal extremism is often overlooked or accepted as obvious, such as the principle of non-discrimination.
Religious agnosticism need not be fence-sitting. If you conclude that the issue is undecidable, what are you supposed to do? Take a position for the hell of it?
I was going to post what was turning into a long, meandering comment that was much longer than the original post, but I reread the post, decided that the comment mostly addressed a side issue and thus I'm going to settle for a somewhat brief comment instead.
I agree with the above commenters that religious agnosticism is not intellectual cowardice per se (it can be, but often isn't), and will also point out that political moderation is ill-defined and is thus hard to make general statements about it (to clarify, I'm saying that what is termed as "moderation" is actually a plurality of viewpoints).
Generally, using an extremism vs. moderation heuristic isn't incredibly useful for assessing a political or religious viewpoint unless you're asking a practical question, such as: "Is X position likely to find traction in Y religious or political body?"
So that said, I'd like our author to be a bit more clear about what he means by the sentence he partially bolded in the blog post above. Give examples, make clarifications, tell us what you mean, because as it stands, the sentence is vague, formless, and of questionable truth value.
"To moderates and liberals, the pursuit of ultimate justice is subservient to appeasing all sides and avoiding 'extremism' (read: an actual position)."
But the Liberals DO have actual positions.
They just don't want the less Liberal people to have actual positions of their own.
For example, the Liberals have the position that men should be discriminated against, while wanting the less Liberal people to either agree with them, or to just mindlessly go along with what the Liberals decided.
Also people of European descent...
The Liberal has the actual, and I might add divisive, position that people of European descent needs must be discriminated against.
The only thing the Liberal objects to is anyone having an actual position which disagrees with what the Liberals say "must be how things are done".
"To moderates and liberals, the pursuit of ultimate justice is subservient to appeasing all sides and avoiding 'extremism'"
I kinda disagree. I think liberals support appeasing all sides only to the extent it moves them in the direction they want to go.
For example, liberals want a complete ban on all private ownership of firearms. But they know they don't have the votes for it so instead they push for compromise after compromise to slide the country down the slippery slope.
Similarly, liberals are not interested in any compromise on abortion -- nothing less than full rights on the part of a woman to terminate her pregnancy at any time for any reason will do.
I can’t speak for Liberals but I’ll give a crack at rephrasing your main point: To moderates, the pursuit of ultimate justice is subservient to keeping peace between the extremists.
I may hold strong opinions but it’s rarely worth it to start a war over one. If justice is defined as the imprisonment of sinners or the eye-for-an-eye retribution of perceived wrongs, then no, I wouldn’t give it as much priority as you seem to.
I would define extremism as holding the position that one’s beliefs are based on absolute truth and authority and any means by which others can be made to respect and obey that authority or punished for their failure to do so is allowed. Any position not in agreement is seen as a threat to one’s way of life and values and must be met with aggression by all means available. This is to say that by allowing others to live outside of your supreme authority’s rules is as bad as living outside them yourself so to appease your self-righteousness and piety, you must try to force them to obey.
That is why we have theocracies all over the world.
A moderate doesn’t care if your religion says you must go to Mecca in your lifetime, meditate daily, count rosaries or perform ritual sacrifice of chickens. Just don’t tell me how to raise my children or steal my chickens to sacrifice. I’d love to see every hijab removed and thrown in the garbage – I think they’re totally disrespectful. I’d also like to see every Sunday school drop the guilt-trip about god, heaven, hell and all that mumbo jumbo. However, it is not my place or right to do anything. Live and let live. My right to swing my fist ends where my neighbours nose begins.
If it appears that moderates don’t have a position, it’s simply because the extremists are too busy fighting with each other to listen to the reasonable voices.
Your belief that dissimulation is allowed to protect moral good rings so hollow it could almost be ignored if it weren’t so scary. Any intentional bald face lie is no basis for a value system. Besides, having one lesson for the lower class and one for the upper crust (who can handle the truth) is absurd. I don’t believe, as you seem, to that the masses with their lower IQ are too simple to discern the truth from lies. I don’t really believe that people with high IQ’s are any less susceptible to lies. There is something else in human instinct that helps people know when they are being lied to. Bravery to question authority is more important than smarts when discerning a lie. Granted, intelligence helps to spot inaccuracies and contradictions. But intelligence doesn’t always follow a smooth genetic line like hair colour. Average parents bear brilliant children and vice versa. Siblings can have wide-ranging IQ’s. Your “masses” of low-class proles will be spotted with geniuses who will despair in the lies, breading revolt.
I can’t speak for Liberals but I’ll give a crack at rephrasing your main point: To moderates, the pursuit of ultimate justice is subservient to keeping peace between the extremists.
I may hold strong opinions but it’s rarely worth it to start a war over one. If justice is defined as the imprisonment of sinners or the eye-for-an-eye retribution of perceived wrongs, then no, I wouldn’t give it as much priority as you seem to.
I would define extremism as holding the position that one’s beliefs are based on absolute truth and authority and any means by which others can be made to respect and obey that authority or punished for their failure to do so is allowed. Any position not in agreement is seen as a threat to one’s way of life and values and must be met with aggression by all means available. This is to say that by allowing others to live outside of your supreme authority’s rules is as bad as living outside them yourself so to appease your self-righteousness and piety, you must try to force them to obey.
That is why we have theocracies all over the world.
A moderate doesn’t care if your religion says you must go to Mecca in your lifetime, meditate daily, count rosaries or perform ritual sacrifice of chickens. Just don’t tell me how to raise my children or steal my chickens to sacrifice. I’d love to see every hijab removed and thrown in the garbage – I think they’re totally disrespectful. I’d also like to see every Sunday school drop the guilt-trip about god, heaven, hell and all that mumbo jumbo. However, it is not my place or right to do anything. Live and let live. My right to swing my fist ends where my neighbours nose begins.
If it appears that moderates don’t have a position, it’s simply because the extremists are too busy fighting with each other to listen to the reasonable voices.
Your belief that dissimulation is allowed to protect moral good rings so hollow it could almost be ignored if it weren’t so scary. Any intentional bald face lie is no basis for a value system. Besides, having one lesson for the lower class and one for the upper crust (who can handle the truth) is absurd. I don’t believe, as you seem, to that the masses with their lower IQ are too simple to discern the truth from lies. I don’t really believe that people with high IQ’s are any less susceptible to lies. There is something else in human instinct that helps people know when they are being lied to. Bravery to question authority is more important than smarts when discerning a lie. Granted, intelligence helps to spot inaccuracies and contradictions. But intelligence doesn’t always follow a smooth genetic line like hair colour. Average parents bear brilliant children and vice versa. Siblings can have wide-ranging IQ’s. Your “masses” of low-class proles will be spotted with geniuses who will despair in the lies, breading revolt.
I can’t speak for Liberals but I’ll give a crack at rephrasing your main point: To moderates, the pursuit of ultimate justice is subservient to keeping peace between the extremists.
I may hold strong opinions but it’s rarely worth it to start a war over one. If justice is defined as the imprisonment of sinners or the eye-for-an-eye retribution of perceived wrongs, then no, I wouldn’t give it as much priority as you seem to.
I would define extremism as holding the position that one’s beliefs are based on absolute truth and authority and any means by which others can be made to respect and obey that authority or punished for their failure to do so is allowed. Any position not in agreement is seen as a threat to one’s way of life and values and must be met with aggression by all means available. This is to say that by allowing others to live outside of your supreme authority’s rules is as bad as living outside them yourself so to appease your self-righteousness and piety, you must try to force them to obey.
That is why we have theocracies all over the world.
A moderate doesn’t care if your religion says you must go to Mecca in your lifetime, meditate daily, count rosaries or perform ritual sacrifice of chickens. Just don’t tell me how to raise my children or steal my chickens to sacrifice. I’d love to see every hijab removed and thrown in the garbage – I think they’re totally disrespectful. I’d also like to see every Sunday school drop the guilt-trip about god, heaven, hell and all that mumbo jumbo. However, it is not my place or right to do anything. Live and let live. My right to swing my fist ends where my neighbours nose begins.
If it appears that moderates don’t have a position, it’s simply because the extremists are too busy fighting with each other to listen to the reasonable voices.
Your belief that dissimulation is allowed to protect moral good rings so hollow it could almost be ignored if it weren’t so scary. Any intentional bald face lie is no basis for a value system. Besides, having one lesson for the lower class and one for the upper crust (who can handle the truth) is absurd. I don’t believe, as you seem, to that the masses with their lower IQ are too simple to discern the truth from lies. I don’t really believe that people with high IQ’s are any less susceptible to lies. There is something else in human instinct that helps people know when they are being lied to. Bravery to question authority is more important than smarts when discerning a lie. Granted, intelligence helps to spot inaccuracies and contradictions. But intelligence doesn’t always follow a smooth genetic line like hair colour. Average parents bear brilliant children and vice versa. Siblings can have wide-ranging IQ’s. Your “masses” of low-class proles will be spotted with geniuses who will despair in the lies, breading revolt.
@ CDSH:
A point about religion (a noble lie) and the masses. [I keep repeating this but oh well.] It's not that I find noble lies superior to truth (though I do think they can be useful and anyone who disagrees is being purposefully obtuse) - it's that I understand that religion isn't going anywhere so we might as well use it to create better nations. The masses will always believe in the supernatural; there's simply nothing one can do about it. It's not condescending or scornful to note this inexorable fact of humanity.
And further, the alternative is even worse (liberal religion) given the correlation between religiosity and conservatism.
I may hold strong opinions but it’s rarely worth it to start a war over one.
This sums up moderates. Strong values ARE worth going to war over. Strong values are what we as people and as societies should seek to uphold. I applaud people, even liberals, who actually stand by what they believe instead of capitulating their own ideals because someone else disagrees.
ultimate justice is subservient to keeping peace between the extremists.
Justice should be the ultimate value, not peace. Because without justice, peace isn't worth it.
For a concrete example: take the abortion issue. If a moderate believes abortion is murder, but believes it should also be legal, then by compromising between the two extremes, he's essentially accepting the murder of thousands of innocents - all in the name of appeasement and avoidance of ideological enmity. He might get peace, but in doing so, he accepts something far worse than political war.
Moderates simply don't understand total good nor do they understand that one must lose a battle to win a war and finally, that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. [How's that for cliches?]
"I would define extremism as holding the position that one’s beliefs are based on absolute truth and authority and any means by which others can be made to respect and obey that authority or punished for their failure to do so is allowed."
This seems to be the most common version of human belief. That means that extremism is the norm. The actual beliefs vary but extreme commitment is the human norm. Truly tolerant positions like the US Constitution's First Amendment would be outliers.
Abortion is a good example of an issue in which both sides on the extremes are so deeply entrenched that they won’t budge an inch to the opponent. The more they hear the other side, the more they strengthen their resolve. One side won’t even consider that people might have the right to make a difficult decision themselves and that punitive measures only make the situation worse. The other side won’t consider that most would agree that, at some point, the baby is a viable human life. The moderate says that it doesn’t matter who’s right or wrong, only that it is not the government’s job to make that decision for everyone. That may sound like side-stepping the issue, however, it leads to a careful decision-making process that is far more difficult and takes more bravery than any extremist position.
That’s why Justice is too abstract an idea to be the ultimate goal of a nation. Justice meaning fair and equitable treatment for all is a worthy and necessary goal. Justice, as in law and order, punishment equivalent to the crime is somewhat empty. In the end, it becomes simply the will of the stronger. “I have a bigger army, so, you’ll have to obey my laws.”
Moral absolutism is simply ridiculous. The vestige of people too frightened of the unknown to consider other possibilities. They supposedly cling to their values while they debase them in defence of their “way of life”.
As for abortion, if conservatives really wanted to reduce the number of them, they’d change their hypocritical positions on sex-ed, remove the stigma of pre-marital sex and unwed mothers. Instead, they see the two problems as one and the same and wish they could go back to the time when sex was considered a sin and just not discussed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/31/pawlenty-mcdonnell-abstinence-obamacare_n_700951.html
The actual beliefs vary but extreme commitment is the human norm.
I’d argue that most people who outwardly profess to a belief or follow a religion would admit that they actually harbour doubt were they truly honest with themselves.
"The current mainstream doctrine... has defined "extremism" as any position with steadfast loyalty to a set of principles."
I'll make one point.
When most people think of loyalty to principles, they think of sacrifice. For example, refraining from a self-advancing or pleasing tactic because it violates a personal code. That's what I think of.
You, on the other hand, define loyalty to principles as a permission slip to behave however you want.
I also have a question. What are these principles that you are loyal to?
We can rule out honesty, I guess.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfPPtHtUfmQ
Is this what you would call "taking a stand". This guy believes in total good. Does that make his actions ok? A pragmatitic moderate would balance his opinion with the results of his actions.
Post a Comment