"Chav - the Musical"

Philosophical discussion and ideas need to integrated with social and political concerns to make them appropriate for governance, but that’s not to say that we can ignore and deny convincing philosophical arguments just because they’re uncomfortable or would be difficult to apply in practice…

True...but the argument that we need to reward hard work so as to encourage it, and punish crime so as to discourage it, is still 'philosophical': it's just a bit more grounded in practicality than rarefied discourse on the nature of conditioning, determinism and free will.

That’s a bit of a stretch isnt it, if we’re honest…is it really ”the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct”? its a sociological argument really

Mr. Tea said:

True...but the argument that we need to reward hard work so as to encourage it, and punish crime so as to discourage it, is still 'philosophical': it's just a bit more grounded in practicality than rarefied discourse on the nature of conditioning, determinism and free will.

Click to expand...

Well, it seems to work independently of whether you have free will or not doesn't it - either rewarding behaviour A will mean that about 15% of people will freely decide to do A or that a predetermined 15% of people will be essentially compelled to do A.

The thing that bothers me is that we seem to apply this sort of deterministic blame reduction rather selectively - why is it still alright to call a public schoolboy[1] guffawing at chavs a cunt? Is it his fault that he's been isolated from real life and been told all his life that he's entitled to more than everyone else because he's better than they are and that it's alright to laugh at people who are less well off because they're naturally inferior? Wouldn't any of us be doing the same thing if we'd been born in the same situation?

[1] irrelevant aside - why do people keep assuming that anyone not from 'the streets' went to a public school?

Arguably it's an assertion of a system of (imposed) ethics, so it's a meta-ethical argument, which is certainly philosophy. As you say, it's sociology and politics at the same time. I don't think philosophy need necessarily be purely theoretical.

Edit: in your example, surely the sooner this hypothetical snob is knocked down a peg or two and made to realise he's no better than anyone else, this will ironically make him a better person (more pleasant to be around, at any rate) and will presumably improve his chances of being a functional member of society rather than an unbearable twat - which is good for him, in the long run, and good for people he interacts with. Likewise, if a young kid who's starting to act up is shown a bit of discipline*, he'll adjust his behaviour accordingly and grow up with a sense of social responsibility, which again is better for him and for society in general. It's a win-win situation. Perhaps if we assume people have a moral choice, whether you think that's fundamentally the case or not, they are much more likely to act in a 'moral' way than if we just throw up our hands and say there's no point in rewarding or punishing anyone, 'as they were obviously going to do it anyway'. I know I work harder when there's some kind of reward involved (who doesn't?), and if I were ever tempted to do something severely illegal, I'd have to want really badly to do it to overcome fear of the the legal consequences.

*I just mean made to realise that there are boundaries to socially acceptable behaviour, before the word 'discipline' puts anyone in mind of public flogging...

I thought it was hilarious when Goldsmiths educated artist Mat Collishaw claimed that he was inclined to make shock value art by being "a product of our society" like an ADD kid smashing up a bus stop or something. Whether he meant it as a joke or not, I don't know.

Im not convinced that it has a place at this stage of debate, only once you’ve made a statement one way or the other about the fundamental processes. But in any case, as Slothrop points out, that argument is actually irrelevant to the central debate.

Slothrop, you can still call him a cunt, you just cant say that its his ‘fault’.

quite a deep quote from Einstein i came across a while back...

"I don’t believe in the freedom of the will. Schopenhauer’s saying, that a human can very well do what he wants, but cannot will what he wants, accompanies me in all of life’s circumstances and reconciles me with the actions of humans, even when they are truly distressing. This knowledge of the non-freedom of the will protects me from losing my good humor and taking much too seriously myself and my fellow humans as acting and judging individuals"

Mr. Tea said:

Edit: in your example, surely the sooner this hypothetical snob is knocked down a peg or two and made to realise he's no better than anyone else, this will ironically make him a better person (more pleasant to be around, at any rate) and will presumably improve his chances of being a functional member of society rather than an unbearable twat - which is good for him, in the long run, and good for people he interacts with. Likewise, if a young kid who's starting to act up is shown a bit of discipline*, he'll adjust his behaviour accordingly and grow up with a sense of social responsibility, which again is better for him and society in general. It's a win-win situation.

Click to expand...

Can you not see that thats irrelevant to the fundamental debate as to free will, determinism and moral responsibility? The question is about whether blame can be assigned in any meaningful sense (i.e. 'moral blame')

elgato said:

Can you not see that thats irrelevant to the fundamental debate as to free will, determinism and moral responsibility? The question is about whether blame can be assigned in any meaningful sense (i.e. 'moral blame')

Click to expand...

Can you not see how the debate about free will and determinism is irrelevant to real life?

noel emits said:

Can you not see how the debate about free will and determinism is irrelevant to real life?

Click to expand...

When people walk around every day turning their noses up at those who have not been so fortunate as themselves, and thinking, talking and arguing that those people have brought it on themselves, deserve what they’ve got etc etc, or at the least talking as if they have, you don’t think its relevant?

noel emits said:

Can you not see how the debate about free will and determinism is irrelevant to real life?

Click to expand...

Hahaha, well put.

The free-will question is certainly interesting, but I'm not sure it's all that relevant when it comes to passing laws and structuring society. There is no inherent reason why the conventions that society is based on ought to be based on ab initio philosophical reasoning, just as we don't teach toddlers Cantorian set theory before teaching them to count to ten.

I think a good example of a society that was structured around overly abstract philosophical reasoning rather than any kind of practical political approach would be the USSR.

elgato said:

When people walk around every day turning their noses up at those who have not been so fortunate as themselves, and thinking, talking and arguing that those people have brought it on themselves, deserve what they’ve got etc etc, or at the least talking as if they have, you don’t think its relevant?

Click to expand...

So we do what, exaclty - abolish the very concept of crime? Legalise everything, since no-one can help what they do? Pay everyone the same amount of money unemployed people receive in benefits, since people who work hard were simply 'destined' to do that and have no control over it?

well in terms of public policy it is a dilemma i will give you that, if you note the tone and questions of my first post in this thread i think you'll see that i never doubted that, or represented otherwise

edit, for ease:

There is no merit in it in the 'moral' question, but in terms of formulating public policy, or opinions on it, it must be an advantage to examine the factors involved in as precise a detail as possible i think...

But on a general note, it amazes me how rarely one comes across people who are willing to believe that no-one really 'deserves' anything any more than anyone else.

But there is a question in that by acknowledging the lack of free will, we alter a key environmental factor which defines behaviour, most likely for the worse (in terms of motivation and empowerment). So ultimately, practically, is it better to propagate the fallacy that we can make of our lives what we choose? At the expense of the self-respect of those less fortunate? I dont think it can really...

Click to expand...

however

attitudes are a different matter, and it is these that i would like to see challenged

because i do not believe that all of the dickheads walking around carrying these attitudes towards the poor and unsuccessful (in whatever sense) are doing so following a fundamental consideration of the issues, and coming to a rational conclusion, choosing to act contrary to their logic in the interests of societal progression or whathaveyou

its because its easier, and it makes them feel good. and when those attitudes inevitably feed into action / behaviour which further break down the will, self-respect and positivity of those born into unfortunate circumstance (or with unfortunate tendencies) i think its relevant to point out that its based on a fallacy no?

elgato said:

because i do not believe that all of the dickheads walking around carrying these attitudes towards the poor and unsuccessful (in whatever sense) are doing so following a fundamental consideration of the issues, and coming to a rational conclusion, choosing to act contrary to their logic in the interests of societal progression or whathaveyou

its because its easier, and it makes them feel good. and when those attitudes inevitably feed into action / behaviour which further break down the will, self-respect and positivity of those born into unfortunate circumstance (or with unfortunate tendencies) i think its relevant to point out that its based on a fallacy no?

Click to expand...

I swear the exact opposite of this is also true.

There are equally 'poor' people who carry around attitudes towards those seen as less 'poor' or more 'successful' (silver spoon, public school, whatever) that are equally irrational and probably held for the exact same reasons and to the exact same ends.

Prejudice works both ways you know. It's the same with sex and race too btw.

noel emits said:

I swear the exact opposite of this is also true.

There are equally 'poor' people who carry around attitudes towards those seen as less 'poor' or more 'successful' (silver spoon, public school, whatever) that are equally irrational and probably held for the exact same reasons and to the exact same ends.

Prejudice works both ways you know. It's the same with sex and race too btw.

Click to expand...

of course

why would i argue otherwise given everything i've said?

does that make it right?

elgato said:

bollocks i forgot that two wrongs make a right

Click to expand...

Eh?

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the real enemy here is prejudice and intolerance in general.

Heheh, I quoted you too quick....

This lack of personal accountability sounds like a serious cop-out to me. I'd be interested to know when Einstein came out with that quote above. My guess is that it was perhaps his way of dealing with his involvement in the development of the A-Bomb.

i just edited, sorry i realised once i typed it that it was unnecessarily inflammatory

noel emits said:

Eh?

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the real enemy here is prejudice and intolerance in general.

Click to expand...

why did you assume that i would think otherwise?

you presented the point as if it combatted my argument. my argument was not specific to the example i used, as all my other posts should have made clear. thus from my perspective it boiled down to you saying 'because everyone is judgemental and assumes moral responsibility etc, its fine the fallacy is irrelevant'

noel emits said:

I'd be interested to know when Einstein came out with that quote above. My guess is that it was perhaps his way of dealing with his involvement in the development of the A-Bomb.

Click to expand...

i believe that is indeed the case. hadn't clocked it though, which is now a bit upsetting

but someone tell me why its a "cop out". justify the other position