You can also choose to be emailed when someone replies to your comment. The existing Open Comments threads will continue to exist for those who do not subscribe to Independent Minds.
- If you’re a Conservative, I’m not your friend?
- Sprachentwicklungsstörungen. Interdisziplinäre Diagnostik und Therapie (German Edition).
- Accessibility links?
- Three Weeks Until Tomorrow.
- The 25 conservatives actually worth following on Twitter!
- Théâtre sans animaux (Babel) (French Edition).
- Take My Hand, My Heart.
Due to the sheer scale of this comment community, we are not able to give each post the same level of attention, but we have preserved this area in the interests of open debate. Please continue to respect all commenters and create constructive debates. Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Try Independent Minds free for 1 month to access this feature. Find your bookmarks in your Independent Minds section, under my profile.
Subscribe Now Subscribe Now. Final Say. Long reads. Lib Dems. US Politics. Theresa May. Jeremy Corbyn. Robert Fisk. Mark Steel. Janet Street-Porter. John Rentoul. Chuka Ummuna. Shappi Khorsandi. Gina Miller. Our view. Sign the petition. Spread the word. Steve Coogan. Rugby union. Motor racing. US sports. Rugby League. Geoffrey Macnab. Tech news. Tech culture. News videos. Explainer videos. Sport videos. Money transfers.
Health insurance. Money Deals. The Independent Books. Voucher Codes. Minds Articles. As I understand it, the argument of the OP is of the form a Conservatives hold actively offensive views; b one cannot easily change those views, at least not over facebook. Unfriending seems to quite naturally follow.
Exactly that is the issue with the left — they think they have a monopoly on moral and truth. And that is why, dear writer of this pathetic article, you may just have done your Tory FB friends a favour by sparing them your moralistic arrogance. If so, what does that say about how rational your views are? The more subtle flaw in the post is the implicit view that conservatives support the policies they support because they are evil and want to hurt the poor, the sick, the disabled and so on.
Hence the comparison with racists, who assign less value to minorities, etc. A much less arrogant position would at least assume that the author and conservatives want the same things i. For example — a key Labour policy is rent controls. The intention with rent controls is to benefit the poor, who suffer disproportionately from expensive housing.
But a decent person might oppose rent controls and thus prefer the conservatives not because they dislike the poor, but because rent controls often harm the people they are trying to help — in other words, you might oppose rent controls for altruistic reasons. That seems obviously wrong to me. The most effective way of alleviating poverty is through employment. We currently have the highest rate of employment since records began being collected by the ONS in But more than that obvious point — though not obvious to you — is the broader argument that there is a moral dimension to Conservatism itself, especially perhaps to the old one-nation Toryism.
Go back somewhat further, and Thackeray strikes me as having been the fons et origio of that tradition. What job would you have forced Ivan Cameron into out of interest?
Conservative policies have forthrightly targeted people with disabilities — labelling them as scroungers — while removing their benefits. The Conservatives promulgate false stories in the right-wing media about the disabled, labelling them as benefit scroungers like the Nazis — see the T4 advertisements. The Conservatives target the disabled like the Nazis blaming them for all the problems in the economy rather than their banker friends.
David Cameron uses his dead, disabled son as a human shield to deflect any criticism of his atrocious handling of disability provision or NHS provision. How low can the man possibly sink? Oh and for the record, the first time I ever voted, I voted Conservative. I was ignorant. More fool them!
Then compare that to the weekly Tory press releases shaming and labelling disabled benefits claimants. The Tories are grim. Grim Conservatives, I hate to descend to your level, but the only people who have actually advanced plans to kill the disabled, historically, have been the eugenecists — most of whom were and remain on the left. It was because they were lazy and because they were allowed to be by the State. But, anyway, please do keep building these straw men, because it will ensure an even bigger Tory victory in All of this. On the other hand the Tories did none of the things you claim to connect them with the Nazis.
So in ending our wait for Godwin, you also failed to make a coherent argument. Policies that make it easier to employ people disproportionately affect the unemployed and those on low pay. Policies that increase the availability of cheap goods and services which make good profit to the seller disproportionately affect those that cannot afford to pay for government red tape and taxes.
They cannot afford the protectionism of the left, either the exclusion from jobs or the expense of services. Policies that allow people to more easily start their own businesses disproportionately affect the poor, because they cannot afford accountants and solicitors, and can get employment from new firms. The rich are fine either way, and often prosper under excessive government of Labour they can avoid taxes or just leave; they can afford to deal with regulation to start or sustain businesses.
The middle class are fine with the evils of socialism, they will manage. It is the poor that need liberal economic policy and small government. But it does seem rather hasty to assume that anyone who supports the Tories must do so for morally abhorrent reasons e. As Person notes above, some simply think that free market policies are a more effective means to bringing about better results for all. So a little more argumentative support really would seem to be needed here…. I think this needs to distinguish between moral and empirical disagreements, and explain why to privilege a particular red line for shunning.
That would be quite in line with anti-racism and the inclusion of all ethnicities into our moral calculus, and is a question clearly within subject matter of philosophy. All of the parties propose to continue to permit animal agriculture. So should we shun everyone who votes? Presumably not, since this would achieve little and forgo access to many fruitful contributions from and opportunities to cooperate with people who vote. But one can ask the same questions about a narrower group, e.
There are people with strong religious views with whom I would disagree strongly. But shunning and successfully excluding everyone with conservative views would result in the deaths of hundreds of innocent children. I think that would be terrible. More broadly, religious people and conservatives privately give more to charity, and to specifically foreign aid charities, than their complements. Shunning these people, e. Both David Cameron and George W. Had those interlocutors instead engaged in shunning, they could have lead to at least hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Shunning all commercial and scientific interactions with those who disagree would likewise mean lower standards of living for shunners and shunned , slower economic growth, slower technological progress, and large humanitarian consequences. Moreover, a shift from cooperative to antagonistic equilibria may provoke backlash. By and large in survey research the public underestimates the degree of ideological distance between itself and areas such as academia, and there is substantial public respect for science as a neutral source of truth which can receive bipartisan support.
Perceptions of hostile partisanship and ideological discrimination can further weaken that trust and the security of public support and finding for research. Legitimation of ideological discrimination may also empower similar discrimination in business and the military where conservatives of one kind or another are in the majority. It is possible that an easy victory where shunning by academics leads to the rapid conversion of the opposition would greatly outweigh such costs, rather than continued separated polarization, but that is a complex empirical question of political science, strategy, economics, psychology.
Philosophy alone seems inadequate to justify such a specific practice of shunning while letting off others for endorsing harms of similar magnitude , though it might support a broad deontological shunning. The role of empirical social science relative to philosophy also comes up with respect to the particulars of selecting small proportional adjustments to the scope of the welfare state and state ownership of industry as grounds for shunning. For example, it is clearly possible to have a public sector and effective tax rates that are too large for aggregate welfare, as well as ones that are too small.
Tens of millions starved to death in China and the Soviet Union due to high effective tax rates on farmers in collectivized agriculture, and billions were kept in poverty in China and India under communism and socialism respectively. Conversely, market reforms in those two countries have contributed a large share of the poverty reduction of the last century with most of the rest going to technological improvements from science and business. Debates in rich countries are far from the extremes of Maoist China or the license raj in India, but they concern small proportional changes in a background context of social spending and redistribution that makes up a large share of a very high per capita GDP, with social safety nets that are very large.
Whether spending is 11, pounds per British resident or 12, pounds per British resident, state services for British citizens will be extensive. At that margin the economics are not so obviously in favour of more or less aggregate spending with the current mix, although particular sorts can be identified as clearly too high or too low. Similarly, in the context of government funding, the difference between giving recipients cash or vouchers to use in the market, as with food or automobiles, and providing both the funds and a state-owned enterprise to produce the product, is fairly marginal.
In the private charitable context, GiveDirectly is seen as having an advantage in allowing recipients among the global poor flexibility in the use of the redistributed resources. Many developed countries allow recipients of government support to purchase from private providers in industries where Britain does not and vice versa, sometimes with negative results and sometimes with positive ones.
I would not want to adopt a principle of shunning that would frequently be put me in conflict with the expertise of economics. This also puts them more in line with economists who develop these views through their training, and remain overwhelming liberal on social and cosmopolitanism issues. The 1-dimensional spectrum analogy fails here, as the 2D structure social and economic issues is crucial:. Similarly, Feldman and Johnston find in multiple nationally representative samples that social conservatism negatively predicted educational attainment, whereas economic conservatism positively predicted educational attainment.
Together, these results likely explain why both Heaven et al. In fact, Carl found that Republicans have higher mean verbal intelligence up to 5. Carl suggests that libertarian Republicans overpower the negative correlation between social conservatism and verbal intelligence, to yield the aggregate mean advantage for Republicans. This post confuses and concerns me. Essentially I see in this article that the author disagrees with Tory policies and principles.
Fair enough. But the claim that Tory views have the moral standing of racist or sexist ones confuses me. Let me stress this: I am not a Conservative, I disagree with much of what they stand for. Here are some things I disagree with: euroscepticism, rampant capitalism, austerity. Do I think these stances are worthy of moral rebuke to the same extent as racism? And frankly I think it is simply provocative rhetoric to say otherwise.
Sexist and racist ones are prejudiced, they do not have good any? I can be a eurosceptic because I believe that democracy works best when its devolved to smaller communities. These are not repugnant views. They are views that have much in their favour. There is much that is wrong with the Tories. I would perhaps understand this article more if it targeted Tory policy-makers who are responsible for some very suspect policies indeed.
But this is targeted at voters. I would not call a Labour voter immoral because the party stood for an illegal war that devastated the lives of millions. Or for a party that facilitated an unregulated banking industry that heightened the impact of a crisis that reduced thousands of this country to poverty. I am not unreasonable. I realise there were individuals in particular circumstances who are responsible beyond an organisation which has a rich history that allies itself with certain values.
My values may not be conservative. But the values that do guide some of the broad brush strokes of the Tory agenda are not immoral either. None of these influences are anything like racism or homophobia. They are political narratives that deserve reasoned attention. And though many voters probably do hold some repugnant views and perhaps MPs as well, the same is true of all parties and I do not think it is responsible or well-reasoned to paint all Tories, and an amalgamation of political and philosophical traditions as abhorrent.
Most political disagreements are a function of emotional dispositions realised in particular historical and linguistic contexts. That said, I personally find Conservatism to be as objectionable as homophobia or sexism. Firstly, one does not have control over most of the biological and social determinants of that potential market value, and thus the individual hardly seems entitled to reward or disadvantage for as much. X does Y ergo is entitled to Z simply falters when it is not X that is doing the work for Y.
That is my premise for racial inequality inasmuch it is material inequality. Also, on that same distributive level, market value clearly is not commensurate with even that concept of desert, and has so many egregiously distorting characteristics; b it is the archetypical instance of a particular configuration of power historically reproducing itself: the powerful using their relative power to entrench that power.
As was the case throughout the history of slavery, patriarchy, imperialism, and so on and so forth. This is the most sensible comment on this thread.
- Brennende Begierde - aus Verlockende Versuchungen (German Edition).
- Telly Davidson | The American Conservative.
- Yes, they exist?
- Nathalie Duprees Shrimp and Grits;
- Battlefields of Pax Americana.
- Desert Angels;
- Lesson Plans On War;
I think more needs to be done to illustrate and emphasise some of the fundamental philosophy which undergirds the many political views held. In short, people need to do more philosophy to understand their own politics, or to drive them on to more rational politics. Your post diminishes you. Entirely your call. None of my business. These are exactly the virtues that arguments against homophobia, racism and sexism turn on. Fiscal discipline has real benefits to countries over the long-term, and austerity now may or may not lead to improvements in overall welfare in the future.
The best way to lift overall living standards over time is very probably different from the best way to ensure equity today. Free trade deals, ceteris paribus, should lead to mutual gains and closer interdependence, which increases the costs of conflict. There are open questions about the ceteris paribus bit. You may disagree with it, but many people who know at least as much about policy as you do senior civil servants, policy experts, etc find them at least worth contemplating.
To claim that supporting the Conservatives is abhorrent is ignorant and unjustified, as well as disrespectful and intolerant. The only way effectively to combat this is to engage in really deep processing, which is not simply thinking about it for a while, but devoting many many hours to it, reading deeply, and so on. So there are good grounds for avoiding views you have good antecedent grounds for rejecting unless you have time and expertise for proper engagement. No one has time and expertise for proper engagement on a broad range of topics, so either you specialise or resign yourself to mental contamination.
Unfortunately, most people accept the Millian view about the marketplace of ideas, which simply has false psychological assumptions about debate. This will favor the truth. Absolutely its symmetric. Good reasons has nothing to do with it; depth of processing has everything to do with it, and that requires time. Lots and lots of time.
Nothing new here:. If you think political views are formed more by length of exposure than strength of argument, how can you be confident left-wing views are correct? Most of the UK parties, including Labour, propose to continue border controls that refuse virtually all potential immigrants from low-income countries, participating in what has been plausibly described as a system of global apartheid see the book Homelands by Stephan Faris , differing only at the margins of how complete the restrictions are.
The Green Party proposes open borders for rich countries, including the UK, but the SNP has only suggested some increase in immigration, not opening the borders. Only the Green Party is even nominally committed to long-term abolition, and it envisages only much more modest immediate reforms. The 1-dimensional spectrum analogy fails here, as the 2D structure social and economic issues is crucial Duarte et al. Yet further evidence to demonstrate just how detached and culturally elitist academia has become. Could it have something to do with the cultural elitism on display here?
To express their opinion leads to the implication they should be subjected to social re-engineering or behavioural modification. Any contrary view on any of aforementioned topics like multiculturalism, an ism which has been politicised beyond all comprehension over the last three decades but is seemingly too sensitive to be criticised within political spheres, is met by the exploitation, on the part of progressives, of any number of social narratives see racism, xenophobia, and every other method of exploitation to make people conform to groupthink of the sort you seemingly engage in.
If they fail to conform, then they must face social exile. But even if all philosophers did somehow agree with it, that would still leave the rest of non-philosophy academia, such as the biological and physical sciences, psychology, economics, engineering, history etc..!
Conservative Wit : Robert Golla :
The blog is often used to post provocative claims and ideas, in order to draw attention to factors that people may have never considered. But this is just…nothing, other than a fairly empty rant. Or what about the University of Dundee banning the society for the protection of unborn children on the same grounds? It really does go on and on — I could cite hundreds of examples over the past year. It spells out, very clearly, that UK university campuses are infested by progressive groupthink. To make a claim which infringes the moral superiority of the left it to be subjected to vitriol, a tirade of abuse, or calls for the infringement of your fundamental rights, with the implication you should undergo some form of behavioural modification.
She will exploit social narratives like racism, sexism, misogyny, etc. The Labour Party held a gender segregated rally just the other day, largely to appeal to Muslim voters — Harriet Harman proclaimed it would be rude to interfere with this. Another Labour councillor up North is the former head of a neo-Nazi movement.
Suddenly, conservative lawyers are condemning Trump for abuses of power
A Labour candidate sent 33 homophobic text messages to his opponent after losing to him at the last election. It just goes on and on and on and on. All in all, I could list examples of the aforementioned crimes occurring since January 1st of this year. I think what particularly gets me, however, is that in her cultural elitism, she fails to realise just how much damage exploiting racism narratives and using them against people in the most synthetic manner possible, has done to society.
I think a large part of the problem orientates around identity. A large portion of the electorate has been taught to think within the confines of identity, not policy. Full fiscal autonomy is the poison chalice the UK has to offer Scotland to make the identity ideologues back off — it will be the demise of Scotland. It only takes a simple reversal to see through it.
I know sexual objectification is very low down the list of state priorities, as is male and female spaces, however I hope you understand these are merely examples or symptoms of the disease. The list is endless. Pit one side of the population off against the other and pick them off. Residents vs. FPTP was a valid choice in , and most, near all, of it is manufactured by left-wing politics. A seems to presuppose the same partisanship that you criticise in this post, or at least that a political affiliation is itself a sufficient condition of detachment and cultural elitism.
That is not to deny its influence, but I doubt you would find much support for as wide a denial of platform as is practiced among the student body within academia. Although inevitably, people tend to highlight the more questionable cases. I actually mostly agree with C, and believe that most arguments from freedom of speech to the contrary are seriously confused. Maybe you could elaborate? The victim narrative you invoke is a favourite. Have you even read the report produced by Professor Jay, Tim? Some councillors seemed to think it was a one-off problem, which they hoped would go away.
Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so. There are many, many more like it, all throughout the report. I think this generalisation might have some questionable aspects to it.
They over-simplify debates, exaggerate certain phenomena such as by implying that benefit fraud is comparable to tax avoidance in scale when far more is lost through the latter , often promote sexism and frequently attack immigrants and oversimplify issues relating to the effects of immigration. They also ceaselessly promote the views and interests of their owners, most of whom are tax-dodging plutocrats whose priorities may be questionable and they do so in a more simplistic manner, on average, than the equally right-wing broadsheets which make up most of the remainder of the British press.
Secondly, I am not sure that modern progressivism is particularly ruthlessly pro-EU nor sure that this is such a huge problem even if it is the case. Of course, there are arguments to be made against the EU just as there are arguments to be made for it. It may be pro-EU in general but I am not convinced that it is ruthlessly so.
Thirdly I am not sure why being in favour of multiculturalism is so bad or serious. Not to mention aware of the benefits, in a globalised world, of being open to and decent towards people the vast majority of the human race of non-British origin. Perhaps some progressives might think some working class voters to be mistaken in their political views and reasoning but they still want, surely, to put in place policies that are designed to promote their interests. Of course you are entitled to be friends with whomsoever you choose.
However, the underlying argument of this post certain views are hateful, the people who hold them are therefore hateful and should be denied a platform for their views has I think been extended recently beyond fascists, racists and so on where it is reasonable, and to a whole host of legal, and fairly reasonable views. Ultimately I think this undermines freedom of speech and academic freedom. This has been noted in academia in particular where policies originally planned to prevent people from being subject to racist, homophobic or other extremist views are being used to deny a platform for people who have legal, non-extremist views that others disagree with there are some examples of this in Shulewitz in NYT on this recently.
In and out of academia, people are just shouted down- social media is a good place to do this, for example, A miss world contestant who said she would encourage other women to join her in learning self defence was shouted down as being victim blaming in a string of social media. Academics have been sacked for expressing their legal, mainstream political views on social media.
Jon Ronson has written about the public shaming that has risen in social media and what you propose seems to be a part of that. Ultimately, people have views that are irrational, come from fear, insecurity, misinformation or lazy thinking. Others hold views that come from a desire to signal their status or superiority. I know that though I try and think rationally, I have all of those kind of views, and I expect you do too. It is hard to recognise them in oneself. To mock Nigel Farage, fine.
But to use your education and comparative power in the world not to understand what is behind their dissatisfaction eg you might, like me find their racist views abhorrent.
However, I would have thought if they felt that they had job security, fulfilled lives and good services a lot of it would go away- what a surprise that following prolonged economic hardship this party has sprung up but instead to humiliate them and shut them up. Finally, I am not sure there is any political party that one could vote for with a clean conscience. Take Labour: what, you want to support a Government who lied and plagiarised to start an illegal war? Or, in the US. What, Obama? The President who authorised drone strikes on a country he is not at war with, killing unarmed civilians, in what Amnesty International has called war crimes?
You really think the Murdoch owned press can influence vast swathes of the British population? Firstly, Murdoch is loathed by the majority of the population including most Conservatives , and secondly the Left controls Channel 4 News, many if not most Newspapers; the overwhelming majority of movies, television, literature, actors, comedians etc, the vast majority of social media, and almost all academic institutions. It seems to me it is right, not the left, has a much harder time getting its message across. And I say all this as someone who was politically neutral in this election.
It is the right, who are more open-minded to alternative views. Can it not be possible to be a perfectly decent human-being, and to have a civil disagreement with you? BBC News is left wing, senior executives have admitted there is a clear left wing bias. As for modern drama, beyond question the BBC and most other British broadcasters lean to the left. How likely would that be to happen? Not a chance. Exactly right. They think their policies are not a simple matter of mistreating the poor, but essential measures to maintain the economy.
Lots of examples — no doubt some of them arguable. Most of this is very odd indeed. Can right-wing people not publish books in Britain any more?
Must all novels include references to evil tycoons and scenes in which people pray to statues of Marx or something? Do comedians have to get their jokes vetted in case they might be too right wing? Surely a more plausible explanation might be that many writers, actors etc. Of course, others are right-leaning — Julian Fellowes of Downton Abbey fame etc. Secondly, how can social media be controlled? At least with the exception of China where social media is controlled through censorship and intimidation of those that cause trouble for the Party. Thirdly, your claim with regard to newspapers is complete nonsense.
Exactly how many newspapers endorsed the Labour Party or the Greens in the last election?? As far as I am aware, of the major national newspapers, only two, the Mirror and the Guardian. Left-wingers are in denial about this. This can easily influence what is commissioned and broadcast: they choose material and writers who they find to have the correct ideological position. Those are a few bits of evidence of BBC leftwing bias. I have to say this post makes me wonder how people get positions in the philosophy faculty these days.
These were men of outstanding intellectual ability. Just watching them debate taught me a great deal. Instead we have the lazy, very political supposition that these are bad things, with no qualification. I think philosophers should be able to use logic, and should question the assumptions people hold dear, or at least provide strong arguments, not parrot lazy Guardian-reader assumptions — or else there is no use for philosophers.
After reading this post I linked it to a small group of friends I have — more real than Facebook. We often meet up with each other and have long discussions on issues we think are of importance: politics, philosophy, ethics, law, art. Come the election our debates became more entrenched and naturally sides were taken. What was most noticeable and regrettable though was that as the election day got closer the dissenting Conservative voice got quieter, and the bravado of those of us on the left got louder.
Louder, probably, in the confidence that we would only be judged — at our worst — as economically incompetent. The same luxury was not afforded to the rest of the group. They unfortunately face the ire and hate displayed here. So reading this, and knowing that some of them would have fallen foul of your friendship test, I felt compelled to remind them that first and foremost I appreciate them for their thoughtfulness and their sincerity, regardless or where this may direct their political views.
I also reminded them that I thought it is not through agreement that our friendship is strengthened, but mutual respect and humour in disagreement. I enjoy our group, I call them friends, and believe in our friendship because I think it runs deeper than the toxins of politics. This blog also reminded me of a BBC article I read a while ago: Roger Scruton spoke thoughtfully and compassionately about what he thought democracy is, and what keeps it together. In one episode — which I have linked below — he likened democracy to family.
Part of being a family he says is having a common purpose and identity and accepting that whether we agree or disagree with one another we have to coexist: we have to agree to disagree. Whether you agree or disagree with his thoughts, I think questions he answers are about precisely the things this blog and its comments has perhaps failed to understand or overlook.
People can argue all day on here about the Conservatives and their policies, but the fault to this blog is its deeper misconception of what we are all here for, and what kind of political sentiments we should hold towards one another. I am quite shocked that a post such as this was posted to this blog.
Based on that, I think it an outrage that someone is so overtly biased against a mainstream political party on this blog. If the author wishes to express such views, I do not think it appropriate that she uses this blog to do so. Utilising the link from her Twitter account that is provided above, it seems that she has her own website and her own blog. I think there would be a far more suitable place to publish such a post than here.
Return on marginal outrage low or negligible. Presumably Rebecca now regrets posting this in the heat of the moment. She could — of course — apologise if she wanted the outrage to stop. At this point backing off is more likely to give her the space to concede what is troublesome about her attitude. The only thing I admire about this post is her courage to say what many only think — even though I disagree deeply with what she thinks. Beyond outrage, I think there is an issue whether this is an appropriate attitude for someone who teaches philosophy students I just looked at some of the stated values of her employer and in my eyes she has other goals.
This post is an outlier. This pretty much sums up the problem with political debate in Britain. This blog post is liberal lunacy in a nutshell. Day by Day these people make me ashamed of identifying as a liberal. Only libertarian websites seem to represent my cultural views atm. Sadly not economically. Also, how has this got on the blog? Many of the commentators have already pointed out various problems with the argument here and the very troubling implications it entails for philosophical debate in academia.
To focus on just one aspect of the post. However, we can consider two individuals A and B. A cares about poor people and thinks that welfare cuts are harmful and ultimately hurt poor people in both the long run. B cares about poor people as much as A does. However, he is persuaded by social science research that some elements of the welfare state harm poor people in the long-run. Therefore B is persuaded on balance that welfare cuts will benefit poor in the long-run.
B therefore supports a party that cuts welfare. Of course B could be wrong. The research he read that persuaded him could be bogus. Nevertheless, from a point of view of judging moral values A and B are identical yet one will support conservative policies and one leftwing policies.
It is not clear that B should be morally condemned. Should A defriend or disengage with B? Given the difference between them is empirical it seems especially important they both be open to debate and to studying the evidence. Anyone committed to liberal values should extremely worried about creating political silos in which left and right do not engage in discussion with one another. Does this actually correlate to reality? Obviously most excludes many, and some of those many articulate a position as or more enlightened than my own.
All that being so, I disagree that we can reduce these political conflicts to disagreements as to empirical fact, rather than underlying values. That is right. Most political disagreement is not based on empirical evidence. My point was simply that one cannot morally judge some one on the basis of the party they vote for certainly within the range of mainstream democratic political parties.
Excluding someone on the basis of voting Tory is categorically different and much more problematic than excluding them because they express racist views. My comment was a specific response to the sloppiness of the original argument. Conservatives often hold sloppy views about deserts. But most non-philosophers do not find the Rawlsian or Dworkian view of desert persuasive either. The issue may be that different political groups use different language to discuss very similar concerns.
They may be using dessert as a linguistic stand-in for concerns that excessive redistribution will lead to laziness and lower incomes overall. The illocutionary force in the use of a given concept is not some incidental factor, but the determinative factor. We should take people to mean exactly what they took themselves to mean, to do otherwise is simply an invitation to read into utterances what is amenable to ourselves.
Are you, for example, a consequentialist? But many of them will regard an unfair arrangement as undesirable only, or mostly, because it leads to harmful behaviour — namely it discourages people from working when they could. My personal experience is that most conservatives will give practical justifications of this kind if pressed. The former seems to draw a much too sharp line. If someone votes for a party which abrogates the basic tenets of your value-orientation, and we can reduce that vote to an affirmation of those aspects of the party, then how would one not draw a moral judgement about that person?
I think that the depth of welfare cuts authored by the Coalition government are too severe; I know some people who quite explicitly disagree, and voted for the Conservatives on the basis of, among other things, that disagreement; I find that morally objectionable. Suffice to say he outlines an argument whereby it can make sense to say that someone may deserve i.
This category is permeable and will vary from person to person. Does that mean that Schmidtz has succeeded where Nozick failed and formulated a compelling theory of initial acquisition? It would be quite some achievement were he able to salvage the concept. You certainly are not enhancing their education or the reputation of the Oxford degree. PhD in ? I thought she was about 16 based on this post. The mistake you claim the author makes is actually not what the author writes. As already pointed out in the comments above. As already pointed out in the comments above..
As one commentator put it:. Also conveniently ignored are his other writings depicting the evils of imperialism, the inherent unfairness of privilege and the inefficiency and self-interest of capitalism. Actually that is a seriously weird, to say the least, attempt to bring Animal farm into the topic here. Even as Republicans in Congress have fallen in line to defend Trump at every turn, a surprising number of conservative lawyers have broken ranks and are condemning the president for abuses of power and denouncing his blanket claims of executive privilege. Last week, John Yoo, the former Justice Department official who drafted a notorious memo justifying the torture of detainees under President George W.
Bush, warned that Trump had gone too far in asserting unbridled presidential power. Conway urged Congress to remove Trump from office. They urged the House to continue its investigations, but stopped short of endorsing impeachment. Donald B. Ayer, told me. In addition, more than former federal prosecutors, many of them Republicans, signed a statement declaring that the report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, far from exonerating Trump, showed that he deserved to be indicted for obstruction of justice.
The Senate did not convict, and Clinton served out his term. There aren't many institutions in Washington that have resisted the descent into tribalism.