Yes, I see how the confusion could arise, RoseMorninStar. My terminology was inexact, which resulted in vison's, and maybe yours, misunderstanding of my emphasis, which was on honesty, and how it is a subjective, ephemeral concept, not on the need for reparations. It was vison's extrapolating of reparations that I felt, therefore, was a lone dialogue, but it seems I contributed more than I realised to it. I appear to have left myself open to the assumption that I was referencing reparations, which I was not. For Cain or Abel.RoseMorninStar wrote:Ghân-buri-Ghân wrote:But who decides what is thievery and fraud, and who decides what is honest? There are families whose wealth originates through the slave trade, an honest occupation. Once.I don't see how you can claim vison is having a dialog with herself ...you may not have recommended reparations.. but you walked into vison's comment by bringing up a money making situation of the past, people who made money when slavery was legal (not that it was ever 'right' IMO) implying that there should be some retroactive accountability.Ghân-buri-Ghân wrote:I don't believe I've recommended any reparations founded on historical precedence, so I feel there you are engaged in a dialogue with yourself.
Wealth and Relative Morality
- Ghân-buri-Ghân
- Posts: 602
- Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:31 pm
- Location: Evading prying eyes
tenebris lux
I don't believe that honesty is either ephemeral or particularly subjective. For the ordinary purposes of every day life, it is pretty straightforward.
We could get all philosophical, of course. We could say stuff like, "What is truth, O jesting Pilate?" but that's a whole other topic, is it not?
We could get all philosophical, of course. We could say stuff like, "What is truth, O jesting Pilate?" but that's a whole other topic, is it not?
Dig deeper.
-
- Posts: 7035
- Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:41 am
- Location: Cleveland, OH, USA
Mostly the Ivy League. Not sure about the liberal aspect. but the northeastern elite was the subject of a series of posts by the west-coast libertarian, Conor Friedersdorf, at Andrew Sullivan's blog a few weeks ago. He also solicited feedback from readers, one of whom suggested that the university mattered less than the preparatory high school; a fellow described his wife's career track:River wrote:Just out of curiousity, what exactly is this northeastern liberal elite and what are the schools they attend?
Another reader said that this matched his own experience, but that Groton and Milton were of higher standing than St. Paul's. (Here's a wikipedia article about prep schools. Of course, they're not all in the northeast. At least one on that list is located a half-hour from here.) I remember a nice fellow, ten years ago when I needed transportation to and from a Connecticut hospital in the midst of a long-distance hiking trip, expressing surprise that I'd never heard of the Hotchkiss School as he drove me past it. I am also reminded of a play we produced some years ago, Bright Ideas, in which parents scheme to get their three-year old child into the right pre-school (which will set him up for life) by poisoning the parents of the competition. A year later there were revelations of skullduggery along those lines actually happening in Manhattan.After college, from which she barely graduated, she delivered flowers for a living. In short, nothing doing financially or in life. However, a move to NYC (as I was on an academic odyssey) led to an immediate job in finance at a major company. Mind you, this is a person with a degree in communications, who had not taken math since high school. As part of this job, she had a full six months paid to acquire a variety of licences and skills. The interviews for this position extended over a week and nearly every interviewer inquired not about college but Andover.
This pattern has repeated itself as she has changed jobs. Andover is always discussed. If an interviewer went to Exeter or St. Pauls, that must be mentioned. Her college has never been discussed. Even positions which require minimum GPA's, which she could never meet, are waived. She actually leaves this block blank often on applications, and it is never asked about. Currently, she is a manager at top hedge fund without ever having a degree in finance or an MBA.
Mind you, there were a variety of posts from many viewpoints in Friedersdorf's series on the subject of the Ivies, the prep schools, and just what it meant to attend them.
- Ghân-buri-Ghân
- Posts: 602
- Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:31 pm
- Location: Evading prying eyes
But for the purposes of an "honest" creation of wealth, it is not straightforward, as the example I chose, of slavery, demonstrates. That "honest" wealth creation does not seem so "honest" now, yet at the time it was the norm. Thus, "honesty" is temporal, and in the long scheme of things, temporal equates to ephemeral, and it is most certainly subjective, as all morals are. Anti-Semitism, which this thread is focussed on, is a repugnant ideology, but it would be foolish to pretend that it has always been deemed repugnant. There have been times when it has been an accepted norm, and the persecution of Jews has even been applauded as an "honest" endeavour. Examining the fallacy of the Jews as "Christ-killers", and the consequences of this calumny, succinctly illustrates this.vison wrote:I don't believe that honesty is either ephemeral or particularly subjective. For the ordinary purposes of every day life, it is pretty straightforward.
We could get all philosophical, of course. We could say stuff like, "What is truth, O jesting Pilate?" but that's a whole other topic, is it not?
tenebris lux
So, yes, human morality is not perfect. Should we therefore discard our attempts at bettering our moral perceptions? No, we follow the best moral guidelines of our times and do our best to improve them as we gain knowledge and wisdom. So...I don't find your line of thought particularly, um, helpful.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
- RoseMorninStar
- Posts: 12943
- Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:07 am
- Location: North Shire
- Ghân-buri-Ghân
- Posts: 602
- Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:31 pm
- Location: Evading prying eyes
And from where do these moral guidelines that we should do our best to follow originate? How can we be sure we are bettering our moral perceptions, rather than simply being manipulated? Are we really on an ever-improving moral journey, or are we, in fact, descending into a new dark age of individualistic greed, where the God of Gods is profit and monetary gain, with the promotion of the individual forever paramount?yovargas wrote:So, yes, human morality is not perfect. Should we therefore discard our attempts at bettering our moral perceptions? No, we follow the best moral guidelines of our times and do our best to improve them as we gain knowledge and wisdom. So...I don't find your line of thought particularly, um, helpful.
tenebris lux
There's no point in talking to folks who insist on this "everything is relative" POV. So I'll just quote vison:
vison wrote:For the ordinary purposes of every day life, [honesty] is pretty straightforward.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
- Ghân-buri-Ghân
- Posts: 602
- Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:31 pm
- Location: Evading prying eyes
But where do absolutes originate? The Bible? The Bhagavad Gītā? The Koran? Perhaps from the works of Bentham or Mill? Because moral absolutes seem only to be absolutes to those groups that profess them, do they not?yovargas wrote:There's no point in talking to folks who insist on this "everything is relative" POV. So I'll just quote vison:
vison wrote:For the ordinary purposes of every day life, [honesty] is pretty straightforward.
tenebris lux
My honesty isn't fed with any religion. My parents were honest people and taught us kids not to lie and steal. It seems to be a pretty good system.
Is it an "absolute"? Of course not. I've told plenty of lies and no doubt will tell more. I would lie to save someone's life, or save them unnecessary pain, for instance: so, no, it's not an "absolute" for me.
I am not a relativist, if that's the term. I am clear in my own mind about Right and Wrong, and I suspect most of us are, without getting into "absolutes".
Is there an "absolute" morality? I suspect that it's close to: harm no one. Human beings can only live together if they practice that and by and large most of us do. Some better than others. Is it founded in religion? I doubt it. I think it's a matter of survival.
As for the "northeastern liberal elite", they are not the people who went to school with Mr. Bush and his sort. Mr. Bush's ilk are, basically, the sort of people who generally run things in a quiet way and try to keep a low profile. Now and again one or two of them go into public life, as Mr. Bush's father did, and his grandfather Prescott. They are pretty nearly all WASPS and are not prone to voting Democrat. They are your landed gentry, your real upper crust, and they are there, all right.
The Northeastern Liberal Elite is really code for "the Jews".
Is it an "absolute"? Of course not. I've told plenty of lies and no doubt will tell more. I would lie to save someone's life, or save them unnecessary pain, for instance: so, no, it's not an "absolute" for me.
I am not a relativist, if that's the term. I am clear in my own mind about Right and Wrong, and I suspect most of us are, without getting into "absolutes".
Is there an "absolute" morality? I suspect that it's close to: harm no one. Human beings can only live together if they practice that and by and large most of us do. Some better than others. Is it founded in religion? I doubt it. I think it's a matter of survival.
As for the "northeastern liberal elite", they are not the people who went to school with Mr. Bush and his sort. Mr. Bush's ilk are, basically, the sort of people who generally run things in a quiet way and try to keep a low profile. Now and again one or two of them go into public life, as Mr. Bush's father did, and his grandfather Prescott. They are pretty nearly all WASPS and are not prone to voting Democrat. They are your landed gentry, your real upper crust, and they are there, all right.
The Northeastern Liberal Elite is really code for "the Jews".
Dig deeper.
What are you arguing for anymore? You're the one who started this talking about redistribution of wealth. If you're going to stand behind this kind of perspective, you have to be willing to have no opinion on right and wrong, including bankers defrauding the world. Cuz who's to say that's dishonest, right?Ghân-buri-Ghân wrote:But where do absolutes originate? The Bible? The Bhagavad Gītā? The Koran? Perhaps from the works of Bentham or Mill? Because moral absolutes seem only to be absolutes to those groups that profess them, do they not?yovargas wrote:There's no point in talking to folks who insist on this "everything is relative" POV. So I'll just quote vison:
vison wrote:For the ordinary purposes of every day life, [honesty] is pretty straightforward.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
Bush is liberal.RoseMorninStar wrote:Andover.. didn't Bush attend Andover? And Yale & Harvard? As I am sure many other Republicans/conservatives have.. but why then, 'liberal elite'?
And you are wrong vison. The phrase is not "code," and whenever someone says as you do, they are trying to smear someone as anti-semetic.
For the TROUBLED may you find PEACE
For the DESPAIRING may you find HOPE
For the LONELY may you find LOVE
For the SKEPTICAL may you find FAITH
-Frances C. Arrillaga 1941-1995
For the DESPAIRING may you find HOPE
For the LONELY may you find LOVE
For the SKEPTICAL may you find FAITH
-Frances C. Arrillaga 1941-1995
- Ghân-buri-Ghân
- Posts: 602
- Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:31 pm
- Location: Evading prying eyes
I don't think acknowledging that behaviours are deemed acceptable or unacceptable through subjective interpretation, a relativist perspective, automatically demands having no opinion of right and wrong. What it does lead to is acceptance that there is no universal right and wrong, simply personal conclusions. I might support violent revolution against an exploitative ruling class whereas this might be treated with horror by my neighbour, a Confucian who believes that all humans are assigned a status in life at birth which they must accept. Which morality is correct? I mentioned Bentham and Mill, Utilitarians, but their philosophical ethics are not universally accepted. There is ample evidence that vast disparities in wealth create dysfunctional societies. Those societies would, I would argue, be morally inferior to societies in which wealth disparity was minimised, for any number of reasoned arguments, yet my guess is that there would be many people who would deny the immorality of wealth, that the pursuit of vast riches is an honest endeavour. How can both positions be tenable unless morality is personalised and relative?yovargas wrote:What are you arguing for anymore? You're the one who started this talking about redistribution of wealth. If you're going to stand behind this kind of perspective, you have to be willing to have no opinion on right and wrong, including bankers defrauding the world. Cuz who's to say that's dishonest, right?Ghân-buri-Ghân wrote:But where do absolutes originate? The Bible? The Bhagavad Gītā? The Koran? Perhaps from the works of Bentham or Mill? Because moral absolutes seem only to be absolutes to those groups that profess them, do they not?yovargas wrote:There's no point in talking to folks who insist on this "everything is relative" POV. So I'll just quote vison:
But I realise that, although it was not my intent to, I have drifted somewhat alarmingly off topic, so I will stop now.
tenebris lux
Maybe it's the other way around: maybe dysfunctional societies create vast disparities in wealth. I think it's very likely, actually.Ghân-buri-Ghân wrote: There is ample evidence that vast disparities in wealth create dysfunctional societies.
The honest accumulation of wealth is not a bad thing. Problems arise when wealth is the only means to political power, which is the situation I see in the US.
It's a complicated subject, one not easily given to simplicity.
Dig deeper.
- Dave_LF
- Wrong within normal parameters
- Posts: 6813
- Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:59 am
- Location: The other side of Michigan
Yup. It's probably both, though--dysfunctions feed off each other.vison wrote:Maybe it's the other way around: maybe dysfunctional societies create vast disparities in wealth. I think it's very likely, actually.Ghân-buri-Ghân wrote: There is ample evidence that vast disparities in wealth create dysfunctional societies.
Or to take another example which is very difficult to argue against - Bill and Melinda Gates. I would really like specific answers, as yov said, not in the abstract.yovargas wrote:If someone could provide some logical reasons why, say, Steve Jobs' enormous wealth contributes to a dysfunctional society, I'd be interested to hear it.
'You just said "your getting shorter": you've obviously been drinking too much ent-draught and not enough Prim's.' - Jude