Will Wilkinson - Latest Comments in MLK, BHO, and Moral Progress

Re: MLK, BHO, and Moral Progress

GilM — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:02:48 -0000

I'm guessing that we also differ in who those might be. Despite your reference to Bush (I just don't see it), my first thoughts were Kennedy and Clinton.

And, of course, if you'd gone back further we'd have to acknowledge FDR.

Re: MLK, BHO, and Moral Progress

GilM — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:17:23 -0000

I don't think he was using "liberal" or "democratic" in the way you think he was.

Re: MLK, BHO, and Moral Progress

Amicus — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 04:38:15 -0000

... the personality cultishness .... That's richly deserved.
=====
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.

Re: MLK, BHO, and Moral Progress

Amicus — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 04:29:12 -0000

Who is "we" in your writing and in Will's?

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?

Re: MLK, BHO, and Moral Progress

GilM — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:59:19 -0000

How can you not 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.

Re: MLK, BHO, and Moral Progress

Amicus — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 01:19:35 -0000

Really? Just bringing them with me?

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.

Re: MLK, BHO, and Moral Progress

Webgrrl — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:39:35 -0000

It shows that unlike many other countries our justice system is strong and respected. That America's 3-branch system works to ensure justice is done and the promise of liberty is extended to all as the Founding Fathers clearly stated.

Re: MLK, BHO, and Moral Progress

GilM — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:13:23 -0000

I didn't read Will to imply that "liberal" and "mush headed" were equivalent.

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.

Re: MLK, BHO, and Moral Progress

Amicus — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:13:35 -0000

I haven't read enough Wilkenson to know, honestly; but he couldn't go wrong with better quidditas/quiditties, from Quine or otherwise.

Re: MLK, BHO, and Moral Progress

Amicus — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:11:12 -0000

Sorry, if I don't find the leeway you do.

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.

Re: MLK, BHO, and Moral Progress

mk — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 03:30:28 -0000

That's true.

Re: MLK, BHO, and Moral Progress

DMonteith — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:41:57 -0000

What gives, Will? Too busy to concede the point?

Re: MLK, BHO, and Moral Progress

Random Walk — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:35:08 -0000

If you write that post, I'm curious about how you justify not continuing to extend the circle of moral concern to animals and possible people (as well as distant people elsewhere in the universe, with their own preferences about this region).

Re: MLK, BHO, and Moral Progress

Will Wilkinson — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 21:40:38 -0000

It's fun to read a utilitarian crazy enough to take it seriously.

Anyway, I evidently need to do a post on how moral relativism, which is true, is compatible with moral progress, which is real.

Re: MLK, BHO, and Moral Progress

TGGP — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 21:01:38 -0000

Agreed.
A relevant interview with Alan "Utilitarian" Durst here:
http://hooverhog.typepad.co...

I imagine an "apocalyptic imperative" for such reasons here:
http://entitledtoanopinion....

Re: MLK, BHO, and Moral Progress

webgrrl — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:50:30 -0000

Amicus:

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

Re: MLK, BHO, and Moral Progress

GilM — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:03:34 -0000

Amicus,

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.

Re: MLK, BHO, and Moral Progress

Random Walk — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:58:11 -0000

In other words, you can expect 'moral progress' leading *up to your current values* for anthropic/observer selection reasons, but you have less reason to expect that to continue into the future.

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/... 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.

Re: MLK, BHO, and Moral Progress

Random Walk — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:15:51 -0000

So there's an observation selection effect. You don't have as much reason to expect continued moral progress by your lights as you would have if your values were determined by a process independent of recent trends.

Re: MLK, BHO, and Moral Progress

TGGP — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:10:46 -0000

The Soviets won WW2 but lost the Cold War. I'm saying that the same changes deemed "moral progress" also change the grounds on which we evaluate such changes as "moral" and common conceptions of "moral progress" include the changing of other people's conceptions of what is "moral". Your observation that there seems to be moral progress basically mean "I am a product of historical changes and identify with them". To someone that preceded those changes and may well have looked upon them with horror if they had foreseen them, you have NO OBJECTIVE WAY of showing your opinion to be more correct (and symmetrically, neither to they).

Re: MLK, BHO, and Moral Progress

Amicus — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:44:20 -0000

Will, with respect, your post reads like a prime example of why the original cynics ... never got anywhere, politically or in terms of 'moral progress'.

"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.

Re: MLK, BHO, and Moral Progress

Mike P — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:45:44 -0000

Will, no argument from me on those who've gone off the deep end, of which there are certainly many.

Re: MLK, BHO, and Moral Progress

DMonteith — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:36:44 -0000

Forgive me if I have created the impression that I am claiming that capital flight is a non-moral issue. What I'm saying is that to the extent that capital flight has results that are harmful to the cause of economic empowerment of the poor it should be regulated. This isn't a judgment concerning where capital "belongs", but rather to observe and criticize the results of completely untethering it from other forms of capital (i.e. social, human, natural). Since, in this case, it is easier to regulate the movement of financial capital than it is to give billions access to wealthier labor markets, the preponderance of moral obligation seems to lie on the capital side of the equation at this point. Your moral error, as I see it, is to see an equivalence, given the current situation, between capital regulation and immigration liberalization regarding both costs and effects. This is compounded by the enthusiasm with which you condemn those who reside on the same coin as you, but are simply focused on the other side of it (an inelegant metaphor, but time's a wasting...).

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.

Re: MLK, BHO, and Moral Progress

Will Wilkinson — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:48:55 -0000

Mike P... I really didn't mean that all Obama supporters are starry-eyed and mush-headed. I favored Obama over McCain during the campaign myself. I meant that lots of Obama's supporters ARE starry-eyed, mush-headed, and culty as I'm sure you can agree (especially if you watch the Demi and Ashton video embedded below), and those people in particular need to be told to get a grip.

Re: MLK, BHO, and Moral Progress

Mike P — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:28:42 -0000

Will,
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.