Comments on: Human Nature, Morality and Progressivism: A Layman’s View

By: Human Nature, Power and Ethics: A Layman's View « Stump Lane

Human Nature, Power and Ethics: A Layman's View « Stump Lane — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:32:23 +0000

[...] This has been a rewrite of the post Human Nature, Morality and Progressivism: A Layman’s View. [...]

By: Stump Lane — Taking What You Need May Be a Listed Crime, but That Doesn’t Mean You Shouldn’t Do It!

Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:25:06 +0000

[...] sound, pragmatic advice for people who find themselves languishing toward the left end of our graphical diagram of human nature, that is, people that could be said to be ethically justified in the use of force for self [...]

By: Stump Lane

Stump Lane — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:27:06 +0000

[...] they would make the cut. Chief among them were the beginning of a series of long form posts (one and two) in which I began to sketch out my political thoughts in an attempt to figure out what it [...]

By: Mine Safety

Mine Safety — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 04:27:24 +0000

[...] This post isn’t really a part of the Series of Indeterminate Length on my sense of what “progressivism” is, that began with the post on human nature and morality the other day, but I thought I’d delve into the issue of mine safety in the terms laid out in that post, and attempt to further hash out some thoughts on liberalism. (And, you know: take a break from blood-boiling outrage: and focus on something important in basic human terms, but has that been given short shrift as things like democracy, justice and human dignity are going up in flames.) [...]

By: Fehlleistungen

Fehlleistungen — Sun, 19 Feb 2006 00:00:16 +0000

I guess that what I was trying to get at, obliquely, is the tension between individual and community in the proposed moral system. You posit an individual who has the right to full autonomy, the right to determine one’s own ends (as opposed to being determined by external authority). With this idea of the individual in mind, my thoughts about sociality come from two directions: (1) how does the autonomous individual come to know others, to treat others in a way that respects their autonomy (“sovereignty”)? How do you know how to treat others right?; and (2) How can a cooperative society be formed from this collection of autonomous, inviolable individuals? I don’t mean these as questions-to-be-answered, but just as something to keep in mind as morality remains under discussion.

By: Montag

Montag — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 02:01:24 +0000

First of all “the individual is not unable to meet their basic needs” should have read, “the individual is [~~not~~] unable to meet their basic needs.” I have fixed this in the original post.

I think I see what you are saying, Fehlleistungen. That if a society as a general rule seeks to empower individuals to meet their needs, there will be coercion (in a broad sense not limited to a negative use of force) that intrudes below the horizontal black line, and could potentially violate the tenet respecting personal sovereignty.

Example one: A person who needs health care and cannot afford it, but will accept help.

Example two: “End-of-life” issues: A person who does not want to be revived when the time comes.

Helping in the first example I would not consider “coercion,” since the person welcomes the help. A liberal society would try to help (empower) the person.

In the second example, if a Doctor (who was aware of the persons wishes) decided to revive the person, (they may see it as empowering them to continue to survive,) I would consider that coercion, as it is done in violation of their personal sovereignty.

Even so, I am not sure this paradox invalidates the third tenet; but perhaps indicates the need for a clarification that states: In cases in which the tenets conflict, personal sovereignty should be favored.

Is that a cop out? Suggestions?

By: Fehlleistungen

Fehlleistungen — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:46:22 +0000

Actually, on that first point, what I meant to refer to was the area of the graph above the red curve and below the magenta curve that you name the power deficit area, “where the individual is not unable to meet their basic needs because they lack the power.” What I was thinking was that when a just society decides to not allow “an inordinate number of its members to remain in this state of powerlessness,” some sort of “coercive” action would need to be taken to bring power to the powerless. It is in this sense (not in the sense of forcing members of society to donate to charity) that I meant a “broad coercion.”

By: Montag

Montag — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:12:37 +0000

…the third tenet suggests that a just society must subject personal sovereignty to some sort of coersion (in a broad sense), which appears to violate the first tenet…

No. My intention was to not include an individual striving for self-actualization by, say, climbing K2 and spending a great deal of power to do so. Because that falls in the “gray area,” the individual should not be forced to donate the money/resources/effort involved in climbing K2 to charity instead.

It’s when that person decides to meet his actualization needs by committing the perfect murder— an act of power that falls in the “yellow area” —that society needs to step in. Or to use a less extreme example: if he raids his employees’ pension fund to pay for his mountaneering expedition.

[W]hat is an “ordinate” number of society’s members in a state of powerlessness? [NMSP]

I don’t know. That is for the society to answer. But to my mind, in order to be considered liberal/progressive, the policies of the society must have the effect of reducing or minimizing its NMSP.

By: Fehlleistungen

Fehlleistungen — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:34:58 +0000

If I can summarize the three tenets as: (1) don’t mess with below-the-black-line; (2) above the black line, “excess power” should be used to empower, not dominate and (3) any society that fails to empower (perpetuates a power defecit) is not just, then I have two critiques aimed at instigating further thought (and not at all aimed at undermining your logic here). First: the third tenet suggests that a just society must subject personal sovereignty to some sort of coersion (in a broad sense), which appears to violate the first tenet; and second, also regarding the third tenet, what is an “ordinate” number of society’s members in a state of powerlessness?

By: Montag

Montag — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:59:18 +0000

I should have also said thanks, JR, for the kind words. And I might have also pointed out that this entry was selected for the carnival. We can now say, "Two time award winning blog, Stump Lane."