-
Website
http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle -
Original page
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/19/mlk-bho-and-moral-progress/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
1 - Griswold v. Connecticut
2 - Loving v. Virginia
3 - Homosexuality removed from the DSM
4 - Roe v. Wade
5 - The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, still more honored in the breach, but extant nonetheless
6 - The UN Convention Against Discrimination and Abuse of Women, again, more honored in the breach in many countries
7 - The UN Convention Against Torture, no comment
8 - Goodridge v. Department of Public Health
If future evolutionary pressures, combined with powerful technologies of self-modification, result in Earth-descended life evolving into collectivistic hive-beings monomaniacally obsessed with reproduction at all costs, then they will also be able to note 'moral progress,' in the face of what you or I might see as moral disaster.
Sure. So what?
What if we extend our circle of moral concern to animals, and then to possible beings, and thus create a Repugnant Conclusion-like world of vast numbers of impoverished entities with lives just barely worth living? What if we get the same effect from natural selection on values (both memetic selection for pro-fertility religions/ideologies and genetic selection for relevant personality traits)? What if market pressures lead people to modify themselves into beings that do not indulge in what you would call eudaimonia? (http://www.nickbostrom.com/fut/evolution.html) What if advances in neuroscience lead us all to become wireheads or plug into Nozickian Experience Machines?
There are many incompatible extrapolations we could make, and you would find many of them appalling. It would be a mistake to be confused by the anthropic reasons for your endorsement of past changes into undue optimism or complacency about future values.
A relevant interview with Alan "Utilitarian" Durst here:
http://hooverhog.typepad.com/hognotes/2008/10/i...
I imagine an "apocalyptic imperative" for such reasons here:
http://entitledtoanopinion.wordpress.com/2008/0...
Anyway, I evidently need to do a post on how moral relativism, which is true, is compatible with moral progress, which is real.
What about the monsters who want to raise labor standards in the third world? Last I checked, "nationalist liberal egalitarians" were peddling "morally unserious arbitrary nonsense".
C'mon man, make up your mind!
For the record, I want to raise labor standards in the "third world."
Hm. If the issues you had with "liberal egalitarians" were primarily moral in nature, this would be a powerful argument. It seems to me, though, that you would agree that their unseriousness stems from their failure to address the consequences of capital flight, which is an economic issue, not from a failure to agree with us that sweatshops/trash sifitng are bad.
It's kind of hard to take your concern for the global poor seriously when you expend such rhetorical energy impugning the moral character of others who you claim share you concerns. How are you not a concern troll here?
By the way, comparing this contribution to the debate on global poverty to Dr. King's letter shows that you, sir, (as Colbert might say) have huge balls.
A small contribution is still a contribution, isn't it?
You're welcome to move that pile of sand with tweezers, and to point proudly at your accomplishments so far, but I'm more inclined to criticize you for ignoring the shovel at your feet.
I will, however, look into your reading recommendation, and, just to be clear, I do favor liberal immigration policies.
You've confused the CAPACITY to do harm with the WILL to do harm? How old are you? I would expect this from my 17 yo.
Wait, this must be performance art? "mush-headed followers"? That's it, it's some risible entreaty.
I'm an Obama supporter, here in hard red Texas, and I've got to say, mush headed is among the light-weight-i-est of slings my way. Here, let me try: It's rare to see such addlepated commentary promulgated as insight, even with an obtuse reference the "Whigs". Ah CATO! You've filled a void with the demise of the strip Peanuts.
Prop. 8 actually isn't a trivial example. The California court determined that the marriage laws were unconstitutional and violated basic rights in that state. You may not like it, but we'll assume the California court knows the state constitution fairly well and that what they deemed was true. What's frightening about Prop 8 is that a mere referendum - a majority of the popular vote - could take away people's constitutional rights. If you find that small potatoes, you're scary.
As for the snark against WW, not to judge you or anything, but I think you mean "abstruse" not "obtuse." I myself wondered a bit at the Whiggish, since while they were associated with a drive towards modernization, progress etc. they were also somewhat protectionist, no?
"...we have become better. The idea that ours is a culture in moral stagnation or decline is simply preposterous. Martin Luther King Day is an excellent time to expose the silliness of the moral stasists and declinists. It’s an excellent time to celebrate the profound and rapid progress we have made, and can continue to make."
You and I are young, male, and white; we've not been long at the center of any kind of personal or systemic target. This isn't about feeling bad or guilty. Perception emerges from experience, right? So how can we make these kinds of statements, judging how life has changed for someone else, let alone a group of people, extending to other times and places?
Interesting post. I'm an occasional reader of your site and often find your posts thoughtful and provocative, and as I'm a registered Democrat and enthusiastic supporter of the new president, I find it interesting to always see things from another political perspective.
That said...I agree with you that a lot of people have become parodies in their fawning over Obama, but I'm really, really TIRED of being cast as a, "starry-eyed, mush-headed followers." It's as if people think you have to be a total Kool-Aid drinker to support the man. One can have considered reasons to support Obama and those reasons don't lead them all to think Obama is some sort of political messiah. Enthusiasm for a new direction does not have to equate to being a follower of a political cult, which seems to be the only way that some people can refer to people who backed Obama.
I look forward to reading your thoughts as the new administration progresses.
"Organized aggression"? "Mush headed followers"? Your lame attempt at any disambiguation, if that was your goal, is hamstrung by your tone, if not your entire philosophy of moral progress.
I don't think that people who stop thinking because they're distracted by the tone (many as they are) comprise Will's target audience.
I, personally, like the color and the snark in some of Will's pronouncements. I don't always agree with him, but I always appreciate getting a sense of how annoyed or excited certain ideas and people get him. And, it's often funny.
I think we can all agree that he's unelectable as a politician. But, I suspect that most people who like to think about the ideas he writes about find it more pleasant than dry, scholarly, arguments.
And, maybe some of those people will help influence the masses towards progress.
In the name of Barbara Millicent Roberts, I can't believe it's true - Irony, snark and wit have overrun the Intert00bz? No. I suppose since John Stewart hasn't been invented yet, WW should go back to quoting Quine?
Amicably,
Skipper
Frankly, I'm rather frustratingly bored to see the continual equation of "liberal" with "mush headed".
And I don't see any intellectually superior or insouciant position of Will's that makes it interesting analysis to more or less label 'liberal moral progress' (or Obama) as something like Le Bon Doctor, Malgre Lui.
I think he sees some (the ones he's going to be hard on) of Obama's followers as "starry-eyed" and "mush headed". That seems uncontroversially true to me. Some are.
And, I haven't seen anything he's written that implied that either 'liberal moral progress' or Obama were farcical.
You seem to be bringing some of these ideas with you, rather than finding them here.
I think you are finding more in the text than is there.
Is there something positive or decent about Liberals or Liberalism that is clearly and unequivocally brought forward in this piece?
If there were, it might substantiate your qualification, "some", but really I don't see it.
The main point of the post is about the tremendous moral progress we've made in terms of civil equality. The civil rights movement was largely a liberal project, and Will enthusiastically supports and praises it.
It's the personality cultishness that he insults. That's richly deserved.
As I say, it's not in the text: "thanks to MLK, to those who marched beside him [any mush-heads?], and to the tens of millions to whom he gave such a powerful voice [any starry-eyed?], we have become better."
Where is the positive nod to liberals or liberalism, in that? Or here:
"I think I’m not being cynical about liberal democratic politics when I concede that it is a very advanced, civilized, and relatively peaceful form of organized coalitional agression."
Is that "enthusiastic" praise for liberals/liberalism or a liberal project?
No, the tenor is, 'boy, I'm sure proud of where 'we've' got to", despite those contemptible, mush-headed liberal followers of Obama, etc.
Here, I'll go a step further. Without the "mush heads" or "starry-eyed" of their day, do you think there would be Wilkersonian pride today?
=====
When I think over the leaders of the past, say, 50 years, and those who truly worked to develop personality cults for themselves and used it to wield significant power, I cannot help but think that Mr. Obama is ... bush league, when it comes to 'personality cutlishness'...
I guess we just differ in our assessments.
And, of course, if you'd gone back further we'd have to acknowledge FDR.