vimothy

yurp
The notion of rationality is also very interesting. To most modern people, rationality is strictly a means and ends issue. Economics is like the reification of this belief, in many respects. In economic theory, a rational actor is one who can solve the model for himself. That is, a rational actor knows what the maximizer of the optimization problem is. The model is objective—there’s a right answer, and many wrong answers. The right answer is the solution. It maximizes some value: utility, welfare, intertemporal consumption, profit, or whatever, and so determines the particular behaviour that brings about the best outcome, according to objective criteria.

Obviously, I think there’s a lot of value to this approach, which is why I’m studying economics. But it’s also true that it leaves a lot out. What does it leave out? Well, it leaves out everything else. And this rule or convention whereby decisions are made according to means and ends judgements is not one whose primacy is necessarily taken for granted in other times and in other places. In fact I’d say that it’s pretty specific to the modern world view that we’ve all inherited.

Strict consequentialism isn’t the only way of doing things. People have in the past—and will continue to in the future—used different standards of behaviour to guide their actions: truth, beauty, God’s will, and so on. It’s not limited to crazy-ass backwards theocracies in the Middle East either. It also happens right here in our own societies.

When you rule out all these other standards as nonsensical by definition, it seems to me that you end up with quite a strained perspective on the world. And I think you can see that in this thread.
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
This is just what I was talking about a couple of pages ago - people on average or even slightly under-average incomes who've been conned into thinking a Tory govt is going to benefit them. How much good is a small tax break that benefits you to the tune of a few quid a week if you fall ill and can't get the treatment you need because your local NHS trust has been 'streamlined' and you're still a long way from being able to afford private health care?

People also lose sight of the fact that policies that directly benefit a demographic they don't belong to can indirectly benefit them as well. Even if you don't have an empathetic bone in your body, it's not hard to see that closing youth clubs, trashing the EMA, cutting already meagre funding for treatment of mental health and drink/drug problems etc. is going to lead to a big rise in crime and ASB, which is detrimental to everyone who doesn't live in some fucking gated mansion with private security goons.

Yep, London has felt a more violent place in the past year. And of course the UK riots happening in 2011, and not in 2008 or 2005, is anything but a coincidence. It's just incredible that studies need to be commissioned to find out that people feel angry if they are continually shat on and oppressed.
 

vimothy

yurp
If you just reason backwards from violence in that fashion, how do you deal with, e.g., the EDL?

You can start out with an a priori belief that the people are oppressed, and then any violence on the part of the people confirms your priors. How could it do otherwise? It's a circular argument.

Why are people venting their anger by going on a weekend long orgy of destruction in our major cities? I don't see how you can explain that by recourse to simple "oppression". What happened to social solidarity between, you know, people? Where did that go?
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
When you rule out all these other standards as nonsensical by definition, it seems to me that you end up with quite a strained perspective on the world. And I think you can see that in this thread.

No-one was ever ruling out standards other than means-and-end pragmatic rationality as nonsensical. Quite the opposite. Where you're getting this from is anyone's guess.

But, if I'm reading you right, you're suggesting that people who vote for policies that do objectively destroy the lives of others (i'm taking recent Tory policies in Britain as the example), might think they are being motivated by truth and beauty? And what else do you think might be going on in their heads as they think in this way?
 

vimothy

yurp
Well, I don't know what's going on in their heads--you seem very sure that you do, though.

People might vote for political parties that worsen their overall economic position (for example) because they think that they are more in line with their moral values. I'm sure you could think of many different reasons, if you wanted to.

I also think that you're wrong about the prominence of consequentialism in society. It's certainly how policy decisions are made, and how their results are evaluated.
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
If you just reason backwards from violence in that fashion, how do you deal with, e.g., the EDL?

You can start out with an a priori belief that the people are oppressed, and then any violence on the part of the people confirms your priors. How could it do otherwise? It's a circular argument.

Why are people venting their anger by going on a weekend long orgy of destruction in our major cities? I don't see how you can explain that by recourse to simple "oppression". What happened to social solidarity between, you know, people? Where did that go?

OK, I'm struggling to work out what your point is here. You're seriously suggesting that the timing of the riots is a coincidence? That seems staggeringly silly, so silly that I can only assume you're playing Devil's advocate.

First of all, for some reason you refer to an imagined 'a priori' belief that people are oppressed. I was referring to the fact that many people have had vital services taken away from them over the past year, and have been more economically squeezed than ever. That to me is pretty oppressive. If you genuinely don't think many people have gone through a lot of hardship in the past year, then that is quite terrifying. It's hardly an 'a priori' belief, and to suggest a circular argument when your own argument is based upon using Latin phrases incorrectly seems...a little patronising?

"Why are people venting their anger by going on a weekend long orgy of destruction in our major cities?" You're actually asking this? Because the

As to the EDL, the far right typically becomes strong when times are economically bad. This seems fairly straightforward. Most people who've joined the EDL have a lot of anger which they are directing towards the perceived 'weakest' groups in society, as they're afraid of directing it towards people who do have power over them. Which is what a lot of people do in different ways, obviously.

I honestly don't see what your point is, other than to massage your own ego by talking about other people's 'strained perspectives'. The self-aggrandisement is laughable.
 

vimothy

yurp
I'm glad you're getting something out of it.

BTW, I'm not saying that the timing of the riots was a coincidence. I'm saying that you can't explain much of their significance using cuts to govt. services, or anything like that.
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
Well, I don't know what's going on in their heads--you seem very sure that you do, though.

People might vote for political parties that worsen their overall economic position (for example) because they think that they are more in line with their moral values. I'm sure you could think of many different reasons, if you wanted to.

I also think that you're wrong about the prominence of consequentialism in society. It's certainly how policy decisions are made, and how their results are evaluated.

No, again, I never said this (it's very dull when you continually put words in someone else's mouth)...sigh. I'm positing an idea as to why many people of middle-ish income (or below middle income) vote for the Conservatives or equivalent when (i) it doesn't make them better off themselves; (ii) it impoverishes (both economically and in terms of opportunity) many other people. If you have an alternative idea, fine.

"People might vote for political parties that worsen their overall economic position (for example) because they think that they are more in line with their moral values." - Sure - where are you getting the idea that other people have denied this? Stop imagining what you want others to have said. As above. In the situation outlined in the previous paragraph, of certain groups voting Tory/Republican/conservative, you haven't explained what moral values you mean, beyond a vague thing about 'truth, beauty and God's will'. The onus would be on you to come up with a good explanation, but now you say you don't know what's going on in other people's heads (sure, none of us do absolutely, but you gotta try if you want to find anything out about the world). My explanation would be that they are afraid to take on the ruling political class, find some self-esteem bonus in bullying those lower down the 'food chain' than them etc etc. People exist within power relations which you seem happy to ignore.

"I also think that you're wrong about the prominence of consequentialism in society. It's certainly how policy decisions are made, and how their results are evaluated." Woah, yet more putting words into my mouth. When were we talking about policy makers?

I'm outta here. My recommendation to you: less hubris based upon your undoubted proficiency in economics, and more reading what other people actually say. I'm myself bad at getting that balance, but you're shockingly bad at it.

Edit: i realised I didn't finish a paragraph in the previous response. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/intera...ting-england-s-summer-of-disorder-full-report - I know it's a Guardian link, but at least there's some argument in here, and the LSE is hardly a bastion of left-wing thought. I suppose this is 'a priori' thought again?
 

vimothy

yurp
I dunno man, I read the thread, you read the thread, and it's like we see two different things. Maybe it's not the same thread.

I still find your explanation for why people vote for conservative parties to be interesting and significant. It's an opinion I'm familiar with, because it's shared by a lot of the people that I know. And it's something that I probably would have agreed with myself, at one time.
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
It's a question about why some people are such assholes that they support ideas that actively lead to the oppression of other people, most of whom they have obviously never met in their lives. Why do they hate people they don't know so much? And moreover, a large chunk of such people come to support such ideas even when those ideas also do not benefit them. Why?

Well in some cases it's simple economic interest. If you take the angry white southern archetype (that informs so much of what's become Tea Party thinking), the political and economic progress made by blacks in the 60s came at their expense (iirc, according to Nixonland) – humdrum stuff, such as jobs now going to black people when they wouldn't have had a prayer of getting them 10 years earlier.
 

Leo

Well-known member
i wonder...maybe it's possible that some people vote in ways that are against their best interest because it's an aspirational vote: they want to be "better" -- be that wealthier, more successful, higher social standing, etc. -- and thus vote in ways that reflect and favor those who they want to be (ie, the more well-off). perhaps they vote for parties who cut social services because they don't want to view themselves as people in need of social services.

but then again, i've been known to create strawman arguments based on fictitious people. ;)
 
Last edited:

luka

Well-known member
vimothy, i want to know how you came to have YOUR views. i inherited mine becasue i dont like to think for myself. i modified them a bit but they are in essence inherited.
my parents are guardian readers. thats why my views are boring and yours are interesting.
 

luka

Well-known member
if there is too much background noise email me. heron bone gmail
i am more human on email but less entertaining.
 

vimothy

yurp
Luka, It's a bit like being asked, when did you get so tall? Since this was a continuous process over time, it's hard to point to any particular thing. Maybe if you were more specific...?

On inheriting your views, I think that it's perfectly natural to do this. Everyone's perspective is necessarily very limited--because we're all human. It's impossible to lay everything out flat and then classify it all objectively. There simply isn't enough time. That's why things like consequentialism, rationalism and positivism aren't the whole story, and why people find tradition to be useful.

A tradition is just a collection of ideas common to a particular group of people that worked in the past. If you think of something like the US constitution, then it's not obvious from a strictly rational point of view why it should be something that people take seriously. But it although it can be had to put into words the reasons why specific traditions exist, our limited perspective requires them. This is not something to be ashamed of. These shared beliefs also connect us to the rest of society and help to place us in a wider context of human relationships.
 

vimothy

yurp
Hahaha

Maybe I could try a bit harder.

What are you asking for--a rationalisation, or something more biographical?
 

luka

Well-known member
no, dont worry. unless you feel like it. i was being unreasonable and demanding yesterday.
 
Top