mrs sweet dirks wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:
Behind every policy proposal, there's an underlying moral motivation. In markets, you tend to get much less moral rationalizations, while in politics you tend to get much more. That's how life works, sweet cheeks.
What is the moral motivation behind the signing of a free trade agreement, or the building of a new high speed railway? What is the moral motivation behind demanding another country cede territory to yours? There are gajillions of policies that do not have an underlying moral motivation.
Each of those outcomes have emerged from a series of interactions among voters, bureaucrats, politicians, and special interest groups. Obviously, policies, states, or markets themselves have no moral motivation because they are not acting entities. The individuals within them purposefully act, and (nearly) all individuals are influenced intellectually and emotionally through their interactions with others. From childhood, people tend to have certain moral habits instilled with them, and these habits can become practices which further reinforce them (of course, moral sentiments can change). Nevertheless, moral sentiments guide the application of reason to various objects of inquiry.
For example, notions of fairness play a strong role in government policy. "It's not fair that poor people lack cheaper means of transportation; therefore, vote for me. High speed rails for the people!" Politicians tend to appeal to people's emotions (their sense of righteousness) in order to gain support for the politicians' goals.
Suppose the country outright confiscates a village's land, forcibly relocates them, and pays no compensation. "Hey, that's
our land! Give it back!" Even property rights resonate with the moral principle of 'don't take what isn't yours'. Usually, this basic principle is taught in kindergarten. Maybe you missed out, but don't worry! There's the other moral principle about 'sharing,' which you Communists oh so love. (Again, this ties back into notions of fairness--which is really the flip side of 'what is just').
morally superior sweaty drunk wrote:BigBallsOfFire wrote:mrswdk wrote:I want to live in an economy with some form of governance, and one whose policies promote growth, prosperity and harmony, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with morality.
Sure, it does, on two levels. Level (1): Some people view rape, pillage, and plunder as morally superior to your silly "growth, prosperity, and harmony" campaign (blehk!). This is the easy cop-out argument about vulgar moral relativism (which shouldn't be convincing unless you're AoG). Level (2): I see your goals of "growth, prosperity, and harmony," and I raise you a question about the means: what means will attain those ends?
Now, people tend to answer in a manner which is partially informed by reason and partly informed by emotion (moral attitudes, etc.). It's just unavoidable. (Some are much better at hiding it than others).
1) I don't understand how that demonstrates that I refer to morality when making decisions. All that shows is that there are other people out there who believe they are 'morally superior' to me, which is very nice for them but irrelevant to this discussion.
2) Why do you assume that I would incorporate moral judgements into my plan for achieving growth, prosperity and harmony?
(1) So, like I said, it depends on the means for attaining those goals. Your choice over the means is influenced by your moral sentiments. Nearly everyone has a vision of the Good/Ideal Society and the Correct Means to obtain it, and very few are totally apathetic about these issues. Part of that judgment is intellectually driven and part of it is morally driven. You don't need to explicitly refer to your moral sentiments; the moral sentiments have already driven your reason into envisioning a certain range of means.
For example, adhering to libertarianism (a moral philosophy) will make one more hesitant to advocate for state intervention to attain the 3 Goals. Look at anti-government types: there's the kind which primarily rely on emotion to refute climate change (and its consequent state intervention), and there's the kind which try to discuss means, rely on logic, blah blah blah. The presumption toward less state intervention has underlying moral principles (seriously respect other people's property; don't initiate violence except in self-defense).
Then consider the quasi-socialists with their adherence to a social contract (a moral justification) which makes one less hesitant about state intervention. What's a social contract about? A contract is essentially a promise; it resonates with the moral principle of 'keeping one's promise'. Why bother to keep one's promise? Because you shouldn't lie. The presumption toward more state intervention has underlying moral principles.
(2) Ya get 'em from childhood. I view emotions/sentiments and moral principles as two sides of the same coin. For example, most people who view a video of an ISIS soldier slitting an American journalists' neck think: "this is awful! It's not right! Somebody (government) must set things right." I tend to think: "the killer is maximizing utility at the expense of the victim's utility. Zero-sum exchange. Actually, it's probably negative-sum; the extent of the market has decreased by 1. Anyway, why did he slit his throat? What's his goal? Are the chosen means effective in attaining that goal? etc. etc."
