”The five types [identified by Haidt] are: 1) Harm (to others); 2) Fairness; 3) In-group loyalty; 4) Respect for authority; and 5) “Purity,” meaning respect for the sacred or the proper.I was unable to confirm Haidt’s Science publication, but I do have his book on the subject, where he identified several more areas as well, which were previously identified under his predecessor in this area, Seligman. Haidt and Seligman both were attempting to develop ethical areas that are beneficial to mental health, the idea being that, in many cases, sound mental health can be created by the individual without the need for much therapy or drug intervention.
…
Needless to say, I place myself at the very extreme liberal side of Haidt’s axis, and accordingly I am usually little concerned with authority, country and purity, and very much disturbed by what I perceive as harm and unfairness in human affairs.”
The point to consider here is Massimo’s response, which blatantly rejects three out five areas of ethical concern, under the banner of deontological virtue ethics. Massimo directs his attention to harm and unfairness in human affairs, which are the behaviors of other people than himself. This in not necessarily the case from the original description, it is Massimo’s interpretation.
What Massimo and the Atheo-Left want to pursue under their concept of ethics is the behavior of individuals in society for the good of society as a whole; this is an abstract, intellectual exercise, and not one that applies in any real sense to themselves. Certainly they will wish to present themselves as compassionate and just; but what comes through in the clinch is the perceived need for top down assertion of omnibenevolence to certain classes and groups at the cost of other classes and groups, and social justice, meaning the leveling of outcomes. This type of ethic is not a voluntary self-development of positive character traits and should not be mistaken for that. It is an enforced code.
Let’s attempt a comparison of the two types of ethic. the Atheo-Left ethic, and traditional ethics. The Atheo-Left sees omnibenevolence and social justice as rights, to be endowed upon the populace for their own good. They are an unearned entitlement, a gift from the ethically elite.
Traditional ethics focus upon personal character traits and how an individual is to behave, how to live. It is the responsibility of the individual to become educated in the character traits that are considered ethical, such as honesty and trustworthiness, and his responsibility to pursue those traits for his own character. There is no concept of entitlement, or of eliteness upon being ethical. Being ethical is an ongoing accomplishment, a personal struggle.
The Atheo-Left discounts any need for personal discipline or ongoing personal accomplishment; the individual is deserving purely by his membership in a group or class. It is the ethical duty of the ethically elite to supply the downtrodden with an egalitarian outcome, regardless of the personal characteristics of the individuals in the downtrodden class or group being benefited.
Traditional ethics has an objective of creating an individual with strengths. This stresses personal discipline, and it is tough.
Atheo-Leftist ethics supply a codependent with gratification of his codependence.
A person reared in traditional ethics develops a character strength to deal with adversity. A strong individual recovers from adversity on his own.
A person reared in Atheo-Leftist ethics develops an addiction to codependency on entitlements, and is vulnerable to adversity, to ideology, and to fallacies that help him maintain his entitlements.
In short, the Rights that are advocated by the Atheo-Left community which are touted as ethical entitlements are in fact invitations into bondage, perpetuated weakness, and permanent dependency.
The Atheo-Left denies any benefit to personal character development; some classes and groups of folks just can’t do that, they claim. That is a classist and racist position. Is it better to help them achieve for themselves, or to blanket them with guarantees of beneficence so that they don’t have to do anything for themselves?
The Atheo-Leftist ethic is not really an ethic. It does not address what is good for the individual, it addresses what is good for the Atheo-Left.
14 comments:
I've gotta say that this isn't very helpful. It's just a long blast of demonization without even any supporting examples. Frankly it reads like a chapter from "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion". Really, now: "A person reared in [these] ethics develops an addiction to codependency on entitlements, and is vulnerable to adversity, to ideology, and to fallacies that help him maintain his entitlements."??? Sheesh!
I'm not even sure if you're objecting to Social Justice, or to people cynically using the banner of Social Justice as a tool in their Vast Globalist Conspiracy.
If it's the Vast Globalist Conspiracy thing, you really ought to name names. (Is George Soros a member?) There are probably lots of atheists who didn't get invited to join, and who sincerely support Social Justice out of empathy for their fellow human beings.
If you're opposed to the idea of Social Justice because you think it's inherently atheistic, then I've got good news! Lots of religious people have also supported Social Justice. (Some names of the top of my head: Rev. Martin Luther King, Simon Wiesenthal, Nelson Mandela, and Mahatma Gandhi.)
At this point I'm going to put in a plug for Upton Sinclair's novel, "The Jungle". It's a quick read, and it paints a vivid picture of why Social Justice is needed. Reading it today, we can be proud of what society has accomplished since the book was written (in 1905), and troubled over everything that still needs to be done. Sinclair wasn't very religious but I think he's still worth listening to.
You seem determined to make my case for me. Aside from the false accusations of conspiracy theory / Protocol…Elders, you defend the practice of declaring a class/race to be inferior to the challenge of caring for itself, and requiring the interference of the anointed (Note 1) to produce the outcome leveling that the class/race are too weak to produce themselves. You do not mention the fact that their weakness is not addressed by challenges of personal responsibility and positive character development, it is addressed with confiscation from haves and corresponding gifts to the have-nots. There is sufficient evidence that the have-nots are made comfortable at their marginal existence, the comfort being provided by the constant promise of more outcome leveling to come. Their situation is not improved, it is sustained. Their weakness is not removed, it is perpetuated.
The failure of the War on Poverty, the Homeless, seem to be sufficient examples of the failure of outcome leveling to produce productive, educated citizens.
You did not express any concern for the lack of any focus whatsoever on the development of individually strong members of society via the emphasis on personal development of personal character.
Your comment seems to be a justification of the position taken in the article.
Note 1: I recommend two books that delineate the failures of outcome leveling through social justice and omnibenevolence to produce contributing members of society. First is Kevin Black’s book, “The Big Black Lie”. Next is Thomas Sowell’s book, “The Vision of the Annointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy.” Both authors are part of the designated protected/afflicted genetic class, both being black.
Also recommended is following Alveda King’s position in her fight against the destruction of black society through abortion as a eugenic ameliorative. Alveda King is the niece of Martin Luther King Jr.
http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/testimonies/alveda-king.html
http://www.priestsforlife.org/africanamerican/
All of these individuals have been attacked as “uncle Tom’s” for stepping outside the arena of outcome leveling and advocating personal responsibility.
In fact the emphasis on social justice over traditional justice removes the concept of responsibility for ones actions. It can be shown that social justice advocates (e.g. Piggliucci)also claim the absence of free will and personal agency (known positions of internal non-coherence). This clearly is a recipe for social destruction of the afflicted class/race.
You defend the practice of declaring a class/race to be inferior to the challenge of caring for itself, and requiring the interference of the anointed (Note 1) to produce the outcome leveling that the class/race are too weak to produce themselves
When did I do that?
Actually, I'm still not entirely sure what you're talking about.
Are you condemning the ideal of Social Justice as seen by the people I mentioned (King, Wiesenthal, Mandela, Gandhi and Sinclair)?
Or are you praising those ideals, and condemning me for betraying them in some manner that I'm not aware of?
My communication skills must be way off. Please be aware that social justice is NOT the same as traditional justice, and is not just at all in the traditional sense. It does not address the same issues as justice for wronged individuals; it is a social program, not an issue of moral or legal behavior of individuals. The naming of the program is designed to attempt to steal legitimacy from a valid pursuit (justice) for a program of classism and racism. Like the inversion of the meaning of the word “liberal” from its original meaning, the term “social justice” is not justice at all.
I have attempted to define the following things:
First, the two areas of ethics (out of five) that are accepted by the Atheo-Left under the example of avowed Atheo-Leftist Massimo Pigliucci; those acceptable areas being justice and compassion/empathy.
Second, I have attempted to show what those two areas, Justice and compassion/empathy, mean in the inverted parlance of the Atheo-Left, under the example of Massimo Pigliucci: justice means outcome leveling, also known as "social justice", which is virtually opposite from traditional justice. And compassion/empathy also means omnibenevolence in the sense of support of outcome leveling: "social justice" again. These two “ethics” are used to create righteous indignation, resulting in external controls on other people’s behaviors.
Third I have attempted to show the inevitable consequences of adhering to social justice and omnibenevolence, as compared to traditional justice and ethics of personal responsibility and character development. The consequences of each, like the two concepts, are diametrically opposite. Traditional justice benefits both the individual and society; social justice benefits only the egos of the anointed elites, while damaging both the individual and society.
I suspect that you have not connected with the actual underlying meaning of the perverted terminology, "social justice", which is not in any way related to the usual use of the term "justice". And that's the other thing that I tried to point out: social justice is a fabricated term that covers classist/racist suppression of a needful class or race by the mechanism of dumping money on them while ignoring, even denigrating, the need for emphasizing positive character development of traits like honesty, reliability, and other traits an individual needs which are necessary for social success.
Now with regard to your list of famous empaths, I don't have any information that indicates that any of them supported outcome leveling and omnibenevolence. I especially doubt that King would have. I don't know about the others. Almost certainly they would have supported justice and rejected social justice. Do you have reference evidence that indicates otherwise?
Social justice (still not the same as traditional justice) has failed time and again. This is documented.
If this is still not clear, I will try again.
OK, I think you're using a non-standard definition of "Social Justice". It'ss usually taken to mean "Making sure that the powerful don't take advantage of the powerless too much." (To which we can add, "Even if the powerless got that way by being born to the wrong parents or making other equally irresponsible lifestyle choices.") It's not inherently atheistic or leftist. The US "Tea Party" movement is a good example of an ultra-rightist hyper-Christian movement that uses the rhetoric of Social Justice.
It's certainly possible for a Social Justice movement to get hijacked by the elite and twisted to serve their own interests. (The US "Tea Party" groups are a good example of this.) But that doesn't mean that the concept of Social Justice is inherently corrupt.
That's why I've been asking for specific examples of real-world non-strawman policies you oppose, instead of these general attacks.
I gave you two examples; maybe you didn't read the whole thing.
Of course, your definition is not standard under any full meaning of the subject, either. There seems to be no standard definition; what serves best is to look at the actions proposed and taken under that banner, and the definitions that are implied there as well as the common usage of leftist philosophers. I cannot find your definition, and I suspect that you made it up, especially since you had not heard of social justice before. If you think your definition is standard, please give a source for it: I gave a source for mine.
Your definition of the term social justice is without specifics and obscures the actual objectives and tactics, which are these:
Objective: outcome leveling for classes/races that are targeted. E.g. Progressive tax structure, and statements from progressive leaders that, "At some point you have made enough money", with confiscation and redistribution clearly in mind.
Tactic: define a class or race as a target by declaring that the entire class/race is not capable of rising above its situation economically, socially, politically or all of those. E.g. targeting "the Poor", while ignoring the fact that most of the poor (not all) are young people entering the job market who are upwardly mobile; the population of the "poor" remains relatively constant, but the individuals who are poor change over time as they escape poverty. Those who choose entitlement over opportunity remain trapped in poverty.
Tactic: Use political force to remove assets from other classes. Soak the rich. Listen to current Democrat sound bites.
Tactic: Give those assets to the target class, after removing a substantial amount for yourself (the power structure).
Tactic: Lower the expectations for the target class or race; give them benefits not available to the non-targeted classes or races" free food, income, and medical care; low entrance requirements for many things.
I gave two specific examples: The War on Poverty (LBJ’s Great Society, which has never ceased for two generations); The war on the Homeless; and sources of documentation. In addition, here are more: the lowering of mortgage expectations to guarantee the American Dream for the non-productive (via Barney Frank and G.W.Bush, et al). Subsidies for Wall Street, banks, FDIC, etc. The gift of GM to the UAW, the parasite that will suck it dry long term, while repaying bailout $ with bailout $.
Here are more examples: Head Start; Lowered university entrance requirements and fees for the targeted classes/races; preference in hiring to meet race/sex balancing; preference for contracts; preference for targeted protection of censorship and hate crime laws (e.g. United Nations, Rights of the Child; U.S. hate crime law passed summer of 2010; internet censorship law coming up; FCC Fairness Doctrine); subsidies for children out of wedlock and/or without fathers; subsidies for abortion; subsidies for women’s programs in universities; gerrymandering to politically favor target class/race; subsidies for black farmers; subsidies for large farmers; subsidies for various classes of industries; subsidies for artists; subsidies for certain science projects; subsidies for sexual experimentation in Africa; the list of preferential programs is seemingly endless.
You said,
”The US "Tea Party" movement is a good example of an ultra-rightist hyper-Christian movement that uses the rhetoric of Social Justice.”
If you actually believe this, please give an example of such rhetoric by the Tea Party.
This is in no way a conservative, libertarian or tea party objective/tactic. That association is false. These targets are not individuals with needs not brought about by themselves, it is classism and racism. Conservatives, libertarians or tea partiers will support helping individuals who are in legitimate need of specific help, including widows, orphans, insane, abused individuals, or those who incur disaster, for example. But to declare a race to be incapable is a) racist, b) destructive to the race, c) likely untrue, d) beneficial only to the egos, electability, and cash flow of the benefactors. Same goes for classist preferences.
I'd posted an informal and sort of light-hearted definition of "Social Justice" off the top of my head. You're right that we really need a more formal definition to debate this. Is Wikipedia good for a start? The article is a bit more faith-oriented than I'd like but I think it comes pretty close.
As to the list of policies that you posted...that's kind of a mixed bag. I'll absolutely agree that the mortgage crisis was an absolute travesty of justice from start to finish.
Ditto with the "free food, income and medical care" for the lazy and proudly-ignorant, but I don't know why you think this has anything to do with class or race. You can see that kind of parasitism in people from all social groups, from the tenement slums of New York to the mansions of Wasilla, Alaska. The first step to solving it is to recognize it as a universal problem, not one that's the sole responsibility of other classes or other races.
I had to laugh at your inclusion of the 2010 Hate Crimes Act as an injustice. I've got a radical new idea! How about if people show some personal responsibility, and stop committing assaults! If you don't get arrested for assault to begin with, then you won't have to worry about getting the extra "hate crime" penalty tacked on to your sentence. (Sheesh!)
Taking all of them together, what I'm seeing is that you define "Social Justice" as "Everything that's opposed by Republican Party talking points circa 2010".
I suppose that's fair enough, but I don't see how religion ties in to it. A lot of atheists are Republicans (although they tend to be passively irreligious rather than actively antireligious), and a lot of theists are Democrats.
Can you expand on how you think religion relates to this? Did you get your list of injustices directly from God, or was it passed along by a third party?
Yesterday you claimed that the Tea Party supported all this; today you suggest that the Republicans are against all this. Neither is the case, is it? This is not about the Tea Party or the Republicans, it is about Atheist ethics. Forget the Red Herrings and address the issue of self-derived ethics of class and race vs. personal character development.
""free food, income and medical care" for the lazy and proudly-ignorant, but I don't know why you think this has anything to do with class or race. You can see that kind of parasitism in people from all social groups, from the tenement slums of New York to the mansions of Wasilla, Alaska. "
What is your evidence w/r to the mansions of Wasilla, Alaska?
What you have not done is to make a case that it is not a moral objective of either Virtue Ethics or of Social Justice to pursue classes/races rather than to follow an ethic of individual personal development. I have said that it is the case; you have only questioned the definition of the term "social justice", for which I gave a clear definition.
So disregarding the term, Social Justice, why is it moral to designate classes/races as too incompetent to better themselves, while ignoring the personal responsibility of character development and the benefits that improving character provide? Why is it moral to level all outcomes for all people, regardless of their input?
"Can you expand on how you think religion relates to this? Did you get your list of injustices directly from God, or was it passed along by a third party?
This is where religion comes in: Character development is abandoned by the self-described Atheist intellectuals who dominate Atheist thought and Leftist programs. They pursue their own custom-made self-derived ethics that are intended to show their own righteousness, while denigrating traditional attributes of character. This is easily seen through empirical observation. There is no need for the False Dichotomy slur, re: "Did you get your list of injustices directly from God, or was it passed along by a third party?" One only need to look at the co-dependent programs and their failure to cure, and exacerbation of, the problems that the programs are advertised to solve.
You still have only proven my point. And you have not even answered any of the questions, which, for your convenience, are listed again, here:
1. What is your evidence that the Tea Party supports Social Justice as I have defined it?
2. What is your evidence to support your claim of parasitism in the mansions of Wasilla, AK?
3. Why is it moral to designate classes/races as too incompetent to better themselves, while ignoring the personal responsibility of character development and the benefits that improving character provide on an individual basis?
4. Why is it moral to level all outcomes for all people, regardless of their input?
1 - When I said that the Tea Party used the rhetoric of Social Justice, I was using my definition of "Social Justice". I'll agree that they don't use the rhetoric of your definition.
2 - I was thinking of the "Dancing With the Stars" scandal that was in the news last week. Even if you don't think that was an injustice, do you have any objection to the larger point I was making? ("[...] I don't know why you think this has anything to do with class or race. You can see that kind of parasitism in people from all social groups [...]")
3 and 4 - It isn't moral, which is why most atheists don't support it.
I'm not sure why you think that atheists are opposed to "personal character development". Haven't you ever heard atheists refer to religion as a "crutch" and argue that people use it to avoid responsibility?
Have you ever seen an atheist equivalent to the "Prosperity Gospel" scam, whereby gullible people are pushed to invest in impossible get-rich-quick schemes? (You might point to Marxism, but that was at least based on, "From each according to his abilities", not "Earn $100,000/year in your spare time." Besides, Marxism has been on the fringe for more than 50 years and you'd be hard-pressed to find any modern atheists that endorse it.)
For that matter, have you ever heard an atheist say, "I don't care what all them experts with their fancy book-learning believe! My common sense is worth more than all their years of experience and study!"
1. OK.
2. I don’t watch Dancing With Stars, but I think it’s hard to conceive of any reality show producing an endemic condemnation of a city or a portion of a city.
3/4. There seem to be two issues here. First, by what standard do you declare it to be “not moral”? Atheist Intellectuals have thought this through and have decided that it is, indeed, moral. If you have a different moral standard, what is it and how was it derived?
Second, what is your evidence that “most” Atheists don’t support it? Consider that Atheists construct their own temporary ad hoc ethic (due to not accepting absolute morals), those ethics are necessarily either Virtue ethics or Consequentialist ethics. Naturalism / Materialism are required due to the belief in physical existence only, with a firm belief that no non-physical existence is possible. Now, Atheist philosophers do not accept either Free Will or Agency, nor do they accept the concept of self, due to the necessity of physical law and the determinism required by Naturalism and Materialism. Under Atheism and its necessary subjugation to Naturalism and Materialism, Free Will, Agency and self are seen as impossible, and therefore non-coherent philosophical delusions: they cannot exist.
With determinism being fundamental to Atheism, there is no possibility for personal agency, and thus no reason to pursue personal development. And here is the paradox, the non-coherence: Atheists think they (alone) have both agency and the responsibility to make things “just” for those Others who do not have agency and who must depend on the Atheists for their justice. So the Other is saddled with determinism and lack of free will and is permanently dependent upon the superior Atheo-Left, who do have free will and can choose their own temmporary ad hoc ethic.
”I'm not sure why you think that atheists are opposed to "personal character development". Haven't you ever heard atheists refer to religion as a "crutch" and argue that people use it to avoid responsibility?”
If that is an Atheist claim, it is referring to “responsibility” for supporting the Atheist headlong charge toward outcome leveling, not for personal responsibility. This claim is the analog of the current Leftist political charge that bipartisanship means supporting whatever the Left wants to do. However, what I have heard the most is that religion is the opiate of the masses, not relating to responsibility.
(continued)
” Have you ever seen an atheist equivalent to the "Prosperity Gospel" scam, whereby gullible people are pushed to invest in impossible get-rich-quick schemes?”
Actually, my presumption is that the prosperity gospel scammers, like many other gospel and non-gospel scammers, are really Atheists: criminal operatives functioning under no absolute moral code, but are de facto Consequentialists.
”For that matter, have you ever heard an atheist say, "I don't care what all them experts with their fancy book-learning believe! My common sense is worth more than all their years of experience and study!"
Of course not. Atheists believe that they are rational by virtue of simple denial, not by virtue of demonstrated logical thought processes, nor by virtue of empirical evidence supporting their denialism. Atheists are thus more impressed with the number of years spent in school rather than in what knowledge of the world / universe they actually possess. This might be referred to as narrow field accreditation or certification in isolation rather than as acquired wisdom, or even general knowledge. It is remarkable how many Atheists are completely ignorant of the foundations of logic and the enlightenment basis for the acquisition of empirical knowledge – even though they love to advertise how “rational” and “bright” they are. Despite decades of schooling, they have never taken a college course in logic nor studied it at that level, much less applied it to their own opinions and worldviews. But since they are convinced that they are “bright” and “rational”, and everyone else is deterministically stupid and irrational, many Atheists behave in just that manner, superior and arrogant, under that unfounded presuppositional conviction.
Fascinating!
Do you know the story behind the book “A Clockwork Orange”?
In essence, the story is about a violent young man who is treated, by the state, via making him view violent images of all sorts whilst experiencing the effects of a drug that made him hyper-nauseous (violently ill).
This resulted in a bad association so that thereafter, whenever he felt the urge to be violent, he became hyper-nauseous—problem solved.
Well, not quite.
In the story he ends up attempting suicide and so the state relents and he is off of the drug, treatments etc. Thus, he returns to his old violent ways—the end.
However, the book was censored and published sans the last chapter. Also, the movie (which I do not recommend for Christian viewers) was based on the censored book. The story end with no reform.
But what is in the last chapter?
Well, he goes back to his old violent ways until such a day as he sees a young lady and he imagines himself actually loving her instead of doing well…those things that he used to do with young ladies. As it turns out, she is the girlfriend of his ex-gang mate and the story ends in, as it were, self-reform; he grew up and got over being violent.
All of this was brought to mind by your statements about “the idea being that, in many cases, sound mental health can be created by the individual without the need for much therapy or drug intervention” and “The Atheo-Left denies any benefit to personal character development; some classes and groups of folks just can’t do that, they claim.”
Mariano,
Interesting that they would choose to remove the ending with self-induced change. I have addressed that further in the post on Naturalism, above.
A significant new trend in psychology is toward self-induced change based on the work of Seligman and Haight, who have found that positive therapy can do much of the work that drugs used to do. Also, the brain is now known not to be a static, pre-programmed device, it is constantly changing itself, and some of the change can be consciously guided.
Post a Comment