• Benkei
    7.7k
    So I'm still not clear on what Peterson means with "growing up" but googling it seems to be about taking responsibility. I actually wrote a small article on that a few years ago and still stand behind its conclusions, so I thought I'd share it.

    Conflict resolution in modern societies through legal recourse inherently favours injustice over justice, in the long run. The belief that social justice is attained through a strong and independent court system is false, in the sense that it is incomplete, and there are various processes that cause this. The consequence is that, if a society as a whole considers social justice in its broadest sense, it must pursue more than a legal framework for conflict resolution. It also requires (affirmative) action by society at large, where we actively take responsibility for those injustices we did not commit and for which no legal remedy is (any more) available.

    Of the processes that cause injustices to be perpetuated, and sometimes even be aggravated, I will consider the following. First of all, law systems are increasingly unable to cope with the sheer amount of legal disputes. This has driven up costs, making court cases and the legal profession more expensive, due to high demand and a closed system of accreditation (requiring patronage, membership to the bar and similar barriers), and consequently inaccessible to many. It therefore favours the rich and corporations, where the latter even receives a tax benefit as it is calculated as a loss against profit before taxes.

    Statutes of limitation further limit which claims can be brought before court; we can only pursue a claim for a certain period of time. This means that for a variety of reasons, old claims no longer are legal claims but merely moral claims, which the State does not enforce. As just, moral claims are not resolved, injustice is perpetuated. That is not to say that statutes of limitation should be removed. They are important procedural rules to economise the court system and ensure a decent level of efficiency, without which the court system would quickly be flooded with impossibly old and difficult cases. Moreover, modern law is more concerned with effective conflict resolution than justice. The law has become an economic tool (e.g. effective regulation of market fundamentals, in particular property rights) instead of concerning itself with enforcing social justice. In other words legal solutions are not necessarily just solutions as effectiveness of enforcement or protection of particular economic interests has become an important driving factor.

    And, finally, changing concepts of social justice may mean that actions in the past are considered injustices by today's standards. By these modern standards, these past injustices were not adequately compensated. Most prominent examples thereof would be slavery, misogyny and colonisation.
    These ideas led at one time or another to a near total socio-economic disenfranchisement of blacks, women and indigenous people. Not only was their loss another's gain; these losses and gains have been perpetuated through a legal system that understandably does not criminalise acts with retroactive effect. Moreover, although inheritance law recognises the transfer of legally recognised (monetary) claims offset against the benefits, it does not recognise the transfer of moral claims. These morally wronged people had no recourse but neither do their descendants, while those who (by modern standards of social justice) unjustifiably benefitted from the wrong and their descendants continue to benefit.

    If we then remember the adagium "it takes money to make money", it is clear that a basic inequality sets in where, within a given State, blacks and women (and other minorities) continue to be at a socio-economic disadvantage; simply because they are not afforded the same opportunities as dictated in large part by their socio-economic background. Contrary to popular belief, the most influential predictor of socio-economic mobility is not a person's education level. Instead, the strongest correlation between a person's life chances in society and economic mobility is how economic status and inheritance are transmitted across generations. The children of well-off parents simply tend to receive better schooling and benefit from material, cultural and genetic inheritances as researched by Bowles and Gintin in The inheritance of inequality.

    On average minorities and other generally socially disadvantaged groups receive less inheritance and wealth and thus more often rent homes, live in poorer neighbourhoods and achieve lower educational levels compared with people from better socio-economic backgrounds. Moreover, due to the stratification of social classes, the rich intermarry with other rich and the poor with other poor. In other words, there is a division along social class in which wealth is protected and transmitted across generations through inheritance, reinforcing and perpetuating socio-economic privilege for the rich.1

    As becomes clear, inheritance inequality, together with past social injustices, is the cause of continued socio-economic disenfranchisement of minorities and, when considered at the international level, even entire countries and regions. Despite this, there is a tendency in the West to consider that we have made much progress socially, politically and morally in the past 60 years but the reality is, we only pay justice lip-service. In the West we agree that discrimination is wrong but we do not put our money where our mouth is. We stopped slave trading, we stopped colonisation, we accepted women as equals on paper but then make no effort to undo past wrongs. We did not relinquish the considerable profits we made from the exploitation of others and then puff our chests in self-righteousness and expect minorities to be grateful for our magnanimity.2

    Having established that social injustices occur and/or exist for which the law not only fails to provide recourse but even reinforces them, we must turn to politics as the broadest arena in which power and social relationships are shaped. When doing so, we are immediately confronted with the obvious counter argument that current generations cannot be held responsible for crimes committed by past generations, because they are in no sense guilty and that the guilty themselves are long dead. This is true when we accept a narrow definition of responsibility but it is my contention that we already accept, in many areas, a broader concept of responsibility and that there are no good arguments to deny them in this area.

    There exist a variety of social injustices today in which others than those who caused the injustice, take responsibility. We do this constantly, in fact. We do this for the weakest of society through monetary support but also with, for instance, orphans. When a neglectful family abandons a child, this is not through action or inaction by society. Society at large cannot be considered guilty. Yet we do not abandon these orphans. As a society we take responsibility for such an injustice through orphanages and adoptions.

    When one person commits a crime towards another, or intends to, society at large has no responsibility either. The crime is that of the criminal. Yet through police action we take responsibility for the situation and try to defend the victim from injustice. Society is mobilised to help the victim find, judge and punish the criminal. As it is, we continually take responsibility for social injustices for which others should (have) be(en) held responsible. Aside from a broader concept of responsibility, there is also an asymmetry to the counter argument; why accept all the benefits through inheritance as a moral entitlement but not accept moral obligation towards moral claims from the past? In other words, from a moral standpoint to believe entitlements exists but obligations do not, when they stem from the same occurence, is entirely arbitrary.

    When we return to Bowles and Gintin's research we see that the inequality affects a wide variety of aspects, such as but not limited to education, housing, job security and health. Similar to the meta-ethical distinction between negative and positive freedom, it is not sufficient to merely remove the shackles (as we have done in the past) but also to offer opportunity by providing good education, housing and healthcare for minorities. The men or women, who do not have a choice due to lack of opportunities, are no freer than when we would forcibly restrain them. Taking responsibility then means creating opportunities and that implies affirmative action in a variety of areas to improve the socio-economic mobility of citizens and ultimately increase their freedom of choice.
    ------------
    *1 It also leads to a more general form of income inequality which strongly correlates with health expectancy as well; more so than actual levels of poverty.
    *2 There's another philosophical point there that the white man "gave" these rights; they granted the right to freedom, they granted the right to independence and, to a lesser extent, granted the right to vote. The power relations have not changed much since the end of slavery and women's suffrage.
  • BC
    13.6k
    In his book, The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America, Richard Rothstein takes the view that individual acts of injustice performed in the past can not be compensated, theoretically or practically. Compensation is possible and practical however, when an injustice has been performed by governments against distinct classes of people. His history concerns the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) which was created in the mid 1930s, and concludes in the present.

    While the formal period of explicit discrimination in Federal housing policy has been over for 50 years, discrimination has continued.

    Blacks were largely excluded from the post WWII economic boom and explicitly excluded from the post-war suburban housing boom. FHA lending rules explicitly excluded racially integrated areas, and forbade creating new integrated communities. Over time, new suburban housing appreciated in value, financially benefitting at least the first and second generation of occupants, Segregated housing became segregated education. Communities created as segregated have remained segregated and are protected from integration by simple economics. Those who didn't enjoy post war affluence, and were excluded from the new housing boom long since became incapable of qualifying as buyers in neighborhoods where good housing is too expensive.

    How all of this came about, and which agencies were in charge is well understood. Similarly, it is well understood how banks and real estate agencies, and city/county governments continued segregation policies into the present. Individuals (the home buyers) are not at fault here. The legal and moral fault lies with the authors of Federal legislation (Congress) and agency-administrators who wrote and carried out policies.

    The past can't be undone, but we can clearly identify the class who suffered the consequences of policy: the 3 or 4 generations of urban blacks who were selectively excluded from a critical opportunity to enhance the material well being of themselves and their children. What would compensation look like?

    1. the provision of as high a level of quality education as is provided by prosperous white communities
    2. a substantial subsidy to enable working black families to move into high-quality housing
    3. a substantial effort to provide vocational education for black adults who lack hirable skills
    4. a cash grant to black children completing high school, post high school vocational or college education
  • BC
    13.6k
    One of the risks of addressing the wrongs of the past is adding to the level of antagonism felt by people who do not think themselves responsible for a given past wrong, but are asked to contribute (indirectly, of course) to a reparation scheme.

    Many white people, for instance, are not beneficiaries of recent FHA programs, and neither were their forebears. The FHA programs were designed primarily for urban populations, and there was a minimal requirement of income and ability to repay the mortgage; the post-WW2 FHA mortgages may have been racially discriminatory, but they weren't handed out on the basis of white skin alone. A working class white family of a working man, his wife, and 4 children would probably have not qualified for the mortgage. People living in rural areas and small towns were also not beneficiaries.
  • Youseeff
    11
    Thanks for this platitude Benkei.

    Positive freedom (or liberty) is such a leftist joke, I am not sure how people can morally defend this incoherent twaddle. The conservative Roger Scruton also fell for this. Inequality is not a problem, and even if it is, capitalism has made the world more equal according to the HDI, which actually include your silly 'positive liberty' measurement, contributed by Amartya Sen en Nussbaum. It is basically entitlement to other's resources, but packed in intellectual nipple massaging gestures. It is greed intellectualised.

    Anyway, you have not addressed Peterson's point regarding 'taking responsibility' (or 'growing up'). Which means, that if you have any moral responsibility at all, it is to improve yourself (whatever that may mean) and take charge of your own life and its direct surroundings -- hence his remark of 'cleaning thy room'. It is basically Aristotelian Viritue ethics in modern clothes. If you want to change the world, start by changing yourself. Reflect on your own characteristics.

    I am not even a fan of Peterson, I just have watched some videos.

    Thank God that intellectuals have little to no power.
  • Akanthinos
    1k
    Anyway, you have not addressed Peterson's point regarding 'taking responsibility' (or 'growing up'). Which means, that if you have any moral responsibility at all, it is to improve yourself (whatever that may mean) and take charge of your own life and its direct surroundings -- hence his remark of 'cleaning thy room'. It is basically Aristotelian Viritue ethics in modern clothes.Youseeff

    And yet you accuse others of speaking platitudes. :vomit:
  • gurugeorge
    514
    social justiceBenkei

    Social justice is not a thing, it's pretty much an oxymoronic concept that means "injustice." Any analysis that uses the concept instantly marks itself as being of little account.

    It would be far better, and more honest, to simply say one wants to steal from the rich to give to the poor because one feels more sympathy for the poor than the rich. That's actually the plain intuition behind the concept. But the attempt to dress up theft as a species of justice by using a qualifier that effectively reverses the meaning of "justice" is just a silly Motte & Bailey tactic. Nobody is fooled (except, apparently, the people who use the concept in all seriousness).

    That said, of course there's a level at which people generally do agree that some measure of equalization of opportunity is in order, and are willing to pay for it, and the amount of it that's necessary is always a live topic for discussion (partly because circumstances are always shifting as a result of changing technology, partly because any measure designed to equalize opportunity bumps up against the depressing fact that there's a lot of variance in natural capacities and inclinations, both across individuals and across races and ethnic groups).

    But that is charity, not justice.
  • Benkei
    7.7k
    Thank you for your comments BC. I agree that the risk you highlight is very real. In a clear historic perspective and clarifying the personal effects I think support can be garnered up to a point. The whole enterprise also assumes a certain level of financial well-being and stability of a society at large before they can even attempt to right past wrongs, not because they must (legal enforcement) but because they want to (responsibility).

    For example, the expropriation of Dutch bonds owned by Jews in WWII are still resolved by the Dutch State even though the statutory limitation for such a claim would be 5 years. We are now nearing the 75 year mark. That expropriation was performed by the Germans and nazi-symphatizers but now resolved by Dutch society at large as a matter of standing policy in the absence of a legal obligation to do so. I actually argued for a change of the policy as we had transferred a sum to a Jewish foundation that paid out on moral claims, which equalled the maximum amount that could've been attributed to expropriation. Unfortunately, due to bad recording of the grounds of that payment, it was very hard to prove this was the reason. At the same time it is currently still political suicide to repeal the policy.
  • Benkei
    7.7k
    Educate yourself.

    History of positive and negative liberty.

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

    On inequality:

    https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf

    Anyway, you have not addressed Peterson's point regarding 'taking responsibility' (or 'growing up'). Which means, that if you have any moral responsibility at all, it is to improve yourself (whatever that may mean) and take charge of your own life and its direct surroundings -- hence his remark of 'cleaning thy room'. It is basically Aristotelian Viritue ethics in modern clothes. If you want to change the world, start by changing yourself. Reflect on your own characteristics.Youseeff

    I was quite clear I don't know Peterson's position. It just reminded me of an earlier article I wrote that I thought to share.

    Finally, I haven't seen any argument from you what is incoherent about my post except the exclamation that it is. So before accusing me of that, maybe you should "clean your own post".
  • Benkei
    7.7k
    Social justice is not a thing, it's pretty much an oxymoronic concept that means "injustice." Any analysis that uses the concept instantly marks itself as being of little account.gurugeorge

    Book 5 of Aristotles Ethics. Start there. Social justice is a subspecies of justice, e.g. the proper and proportionate distribution of common assets. Reasonable people can disagree on what people should be due because they hold different values but to think social justice means injustice and is oxymoronic doesn't make sense in light of the history of political philosophy.

    The rest of your post confuses activism with the philosophical idea of social justice.
  • Pseudonym
    1.2k
    It would be far better, and more honest, to simply say one wants to steal from the rich to give to the poorgurugeorge

    OK, so what constitutes 'theft', what marks it out exactly? Does marching into a place with guns and declaring that the entire country and all it's assets belongs to you count as theft? Because that's how literally all property ownership came about, which is the basis of wealth.

    You seem OK with theft when it was perpetrated by violence a few hundred years ago and fine with a proportion of the population living fat off the benefits of it, but when a section of the population try to do the same by activism and non-violent protest, they're apparently acting immorally?
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    Well that's what you get for mentioning 'he whose name I am fed up of hearing'.

    But perhaps one does not need to identify the socio-economic disadvantaged beyond noting that they are disadvantaged, and thus one can avoid the whole argument about positive discrimination, intersectionality and the rest.

    There is already a widely accepted redistributive system in place consisting of progressive taxation, inheritance tax on the one side, and government social support on the other. It should not be beyond the wit of wealthy nations to extend this internationally, at least to largely peaceful and open nations.

    Those who cannot see that all their wealth comes from others, will not be convinced by any argument, and history counts for nothing when possession is ten points of the law. Exorcism of some sort must be applied to dispossess them.
  • Pierre-Normand
    2.4k
    Book 5 of Aristotles Ethics. Start there. Social justice is a subspecies of justice, e.g. the proper and proportionate distribution of common assets. Reasonable people can disagree on what people should be due because they hold different values but to think social justice means injustice and is oxymoronic doesn't make sense in light of the history of political philosophy.Benkei

    Agreed. Since there has been such a revival of Aristotelian virtue ethics in contemporary analytic philosophy, thanks in part to Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, John McDowell and Martha Nussbaum, this seems to have overshadowed some of Aristotle's equally deep reflections on the concept of justice. In his remarkable book Ethics: Twelve Lectures on the Philosophy of Morality, David Wiggins (who possibly is my second favorite analytic philosopher, second only to John McDowell) neatly restores the balance between those two strands of though borrowed from Aristotle's ethical thinking (while linking them to Hume, Kant, Jouvenel and others).
  • gurugeorge
    514
    Social justice is a subspecies of justice, e.g. the proper and proportionate distribution of common assets.Benkei

    "Common" begs the question.
  • Benkei
    7.7k
    Take it up with Aristotle. Before you do so, I propose you read it first before jumping the gun with useless one-liners.
  • gurugeorge
    514
    Take it up with Aristotle.Benkei

    What the hell are you talking about? Aristotle says nothing about social justice, the concept was invented in the 19th century.
  • Pseudonym
    1.2k
    "Common" begs the question.gurugeorge

    No it doesn't. Land, water, air, natural resources are all either "common" assets or taken by force. Unless you are advocating taking possession of things by force, then there are such things as common assets.
  • Benkei
    7.7k
    Ok, great, so now you're going to pretend you're clueless? Just because a term hasn't been used before, doesn't mean people didn't talk about it before the term was coined. We don't have a problem with describing Plato as an idealist (although up for debate; see Platonic realism). The word "idealist" didn't enter the English language until the 18th century.

    Aristotle did talk about social justice and Aristotlean social justice was "the proper and proportionate distribution of common assets". Nothing oxymoronic or orwellian about it.
  • gurugeorge
    514
    OK, so what constitutes 'theft', what marks it out exactly?Pseudonym

    Theft is taking control of something away from someone without their consent and without justification on the basis that they were doing harm. Property is a social rule based on the observation of the natural relationship that people have to matter, of controlling its disposition, or using it, in various ways. The social rule says (something like): "let people keep control of whatever they control, until and unless they're doing harm." It's so simple even a child can understand it. Not some deep thinkers though, apparently.

    Does marching into a place with guns and declaring that the entire country and all it's assets belongs to you count as theft?

    Yes.

    Because that's how literally all property ownership came about,

    No it's not. Some property (land mostly) has historically been stolen, true, but most property comes via inheritance and exchange, and if you trace it back to its origins, it's some form of original acquisition out of the state of nature.

    which is the basis of wealth.Pseudonym

    Partly, but wealth mostly comes either from the fiat creation of currency (which is basically a kind of legalized Ponzi scheme) or by people transforming things from less preferred to more preferred uses (which is the normal process of capitalism).
  • Pseudonym
    1.2k
    if you trace it back to its origins, it's some form of original acquisition out of the state of nature.gurugeorge

    No, the whole of America was stolen from the Native Americans, so every single non-native (and many natives) is trading in stolen property.

    The entire industrial revolution was financed by resources stolen from the colonies, so all major industries are benefitting from the proceeds of crime.

    wealth mostly comes either from the fiat creation of currency (which is basically a kind of legalized Ponzi scheme) or by people transforming things from less preferred to more preferred uses (which is the normal process of capitalism).gurugeorge

    No, if that were the case then artisans would be the wealthiest class. Wealth, in a capitalist system, comes from the investment of capital (the clue is in the name), capital is obtained by the ownership of property and the resources the rings.
  • gurugeorge
    514
    Aristotlean social justice was "the proper and proportionate distribution of common assets".Benkei

    I don't know where you're getting this nonsense from. Aristotle talks mostly about what is now called "procedural" justice (Aristotle's "rectification"), not "distributive" justice in the modern "social justice" sense.

    His use of "distribution" is mostly in the abstract, and only pertains to actual distribution (such as would be engaged in by a modern state) in a few cases (distribution of honors by the state, distribution of property held in common, e.g. by a partnership).
  • gurugeorge
    514
    No, the whole of America was stolen from the Native Americans, so every single non-native (and many natives) is trading in stolen property.

    The entire industrial revolution was financed by resources stolen from the colonies, so all major industries are benefitting from the proceeds of crime.
    Pseudonym

    Oh for crying out loud, this is just PC cult indoctrination. Put down your Howard Zinn and step back from the bong.

    No, if that were the case then artisans would be the wealthiest class. Wealth, in a capitalist system, comes from the investment of capital (the clue is in the name), capital is obtained by the ownership of property and the resources the rings.Pseudonym

    You can invest capital and lose it - in fact most investments of capital fail, it's just that the ones that succeed pay for the failures, and more.
  • Pseudonym
    1.2k
    Oh for crying out loud, this is just PC cult indoctrination.gurugeorge

    Right, so did the Native Americans generously hand over the land and then voluntarily wipe out three quarters of their own population?

    If you've actually got an argument, then make it, your own incredulity does not count as evidence.

    in fact most investments of capital fail,gurugeorge

    Really? Is that why most stock brokers and investment bankers are poor, whilst all those people who actually make things are billionaires.
  • Benkei
    7.7k
    I don't know where you're getting this nonsense from. Aristotle talks mostly about what is now called "procedural" justice (Aristotle's "rectification"), not "distributive" justice in the modern "social justice" sense.

    His use of "distribution" is mostly in the abstract, and only pertains to actual distribution (such as would be engaged in by a modern state) in a few cases (distribution of honors by the state, distribution of property held in common, e.g. by a partnership).
    gurugeorge

    Always funny to be told I'm talking nonsense by someone who's only just started googling on Aristotle's Ethics and doesn't know how that connects to his Politics. I said you should start with Ethics. You shouldn't stop there. The above is incomplete at best and you're again confusing social justice activism with the philosophical concept. Aristotle distinguishes between distributive (dianemetikos), rectificatory (diorthontikos) and reciprocal (antipeponthos) justice.

    His distributive justice is about people getting their fair share; e.g. unequal shares for equal people and equal shares for unequal people are unjust. In other words, it's justice as equality. This goes well beyond reducing this to mere partnerships if only because a lot of enterprises (mining, grain trade) were communal back then.

    But it extends into the political as well. From his Politics: justice to Aristotole is proportional and communally relative to the political status/merit of indviduals along the lines of the predominant culture and its institutions. Injustice violates this proportionality. Aristotle likens this form of justice to the manner of redistribution of the common funds found in an economic partnership.

    The second form of justice, rectificatory/corrective justice concerns itself with equality as well, including redistribution resulting from injustice.

    The third form of justice, reciprocal justice is about the natural fairness within economic exchange. This is where it gets really interesting as in his view both grace and friendship ought to be the ethical norms that ought to institutionalise economic exchange. Exchange is not to be based on market prices, profit, supply and demand, desires or utility. No, economics is simply a means to maintain the all-important solidarity for its common objective in its pursuit of happiness/flourishing.

    In any case, whatever your views on what Aristotle meant exactly, we are firmly on the grounds of philosophical social justice, which illustrates that your original comment was nothing more than a silly emotional outburst.
  • gurugeorge
    514
    unequal shares for equal people and equal shares for unequal people are unjust. In other words, it's justice as equalityBenkei

    I think you should really look more closely at what you've said here. The operative principle is proportionality (suum cuique tribuere) not equality, they are not the same thing at all. The "equality" is between varied individuals (for Aristotle, varying in virtue) and their several deserts (small to small, large to large), not between individuals. So it's got absolutely nothing to do with "social justice" as that's conceived in modern philosophy and politics, which is based on a myth of equality.

    In fact you have to break proportionality, i.e. you have to act unjustly, in order to attain equality of outcome (as illustrated in the myth of Procrustes).
  • gurugeorge
    514
    If you've actually got an argument, then make it,Pseudonym

    I already made it: yes, violence is part of the story, but a relatively minor part. The decimation of Native Americans was a result of diseases accidentally brought from the Old World, they weren't murdered by Whitey. The historical record is always mixed: sometimes there were agreements, sometimes agreements were broken, sometimes by Native Americans, sometimes by the settlers; just as the record was mixed before the settlers arrived (it's not as if all the Native Americans were gentle hippies living at one with the Universe before the nasty settlers arrived).

    Basically, since we're all benefiting from some elements of stolen goods in the past (and that would include the "minorities"), it all pretty much cancels out (and where it doesn't, where there's a major imbalance - e.g. blacks and slavery - then of course some specific course of action might be required to level the playing field to some extent, that's all arguable): the point is to ensure that we act justly now and in the future. That is not an aim best served by taking stuff now from people who themselves did nothing wrong but just happen to be of the same race/class as people who did wrong in the past.

    Really? Is that why most stock brokers and investment bankers are poor, whilst all those people who actually make things are billionaires.Pseudonym

    Read what I wrote again, the whole passage; most enterprises fail, but the ones that succeed pay for the failures. The average businessman will try several things and fail several times, but if they persist they'll either break even in the long run and make enough to sustain themselves in comfort, or they'll hit the jackpot and all the failures will have been worthwhile.

    And who "actually makes" things? The reality is that all the factors contribute to "actually making" things - capital, ideas, labour, etc. And ideally, they all get paid compensation for the relative non-redundancy of their contribution to the final value of the product. (No labour, no widget, true; but no management, no labour, no widget either. And no factory, no management or labour, no widget; and no idea, no factory, no management/labour, no widget.)
  • Wayfarer
    22.4k
    So I'm still not clear on what Peterson means with "growing up" but googling it seems to be about taking responsibility.Benkei

    And the problem with that is....?

    Peterson came to my attention last Christmas, when my two young nephews, both somewhat lost boys (IMO) whispered his name in conspiratorial way as 'someone really important'. So I read a few synopses, listened to a few talks, and overall found him fairly congenial to my outlook. And I can't see anything wrong with his advice, if what he means is 'owning your experience' or being responsible for yourself.

    As to the fact that there is social inequality' - is this an argument about not taking responsibility for yourself, or that somehow 'taking responsibility for yourself' is a cause of inequality?
  • Pseudonym
    1.2k
    The decimation of Native Americans was a result of diseases accidentally brought from the Old World, they weren't murdered by Whitey.gurugeorge

    Racist bullshit.

    Out of our regard to them we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect. — William Trent, William Trent's Journal at Fort Pitt

    INVOICE for 1763 June
    Levy, Trent and Company: Account against the Crown, Aug. 13, 1763[15]
    "To Sundries got to Replace in kind those which were taken from people in the Hospital to Convey the Smallpox to the Indians Vizt:
    2 Blankets @ 20/ £299 099 0
    1 Silk Handkerchef 10/
    & 1 linnen do: 3/6 099 1399 6

    General Amherst, July 8: "Could it not be contrived to Send the Small Pox among those Disaffected Tribes of Indians? We must, on this occasion, Use Every Stratagem in our power to Reduce them."

    Colonel Bouquet, July 13: "I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself."

    Amherst, July 16: "You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execreble Race."

    Bouquet, July 19: "all your Directions will be observed."
    Papers of Col. Henry Bouquet, ed. Stevens and Kent, ser. 21634, p. 161.

    Francis Parkman, the first to research these events, described "the shameful plan of infecting the Indians" as "detestable".

    The Indian wars under the government of the United States have been more than 40 in number. They have cost the lives of about 19,000 white men, women and children, including those killed in individual combats, and the lives of about 30,000 Indians. The actual number of killed and wounded Indians must be very much higher than the number given... Fifty percent additional would be a safe estimate. — Census Bureau 1894

    Basically, since we're all benefiting from some elements of stolen goods in the past (and that would include the "minorities"), it all pretty much cancels outgurugeorge

    So what mechanism do you imagine generously transfers property, mineral rights and resources from the people who conquered the land to those who were conquered. Did they just change their minds and give it back?

    The reality is that all the factors contribute to "actually making" things - capital, ideas, labour, etc. And ideally, they all get paid compensation for the relative non-redundancy of their contribution to the final value of the product.gurugeorge

    Yes, exactly, and large amounts of capital are the most non-redundant contribution, which is why the investors in a business reap most rewards from it. This is incontrovertible fact, investors are richer than workers. So those with enough capital to invest get richer, capital to invest comes ultimately from the ownership of land and resources, which come ultimately from violent conflict.

    If you like that system then go live in a poor neighbourhood and join in the gun battles, me I prefer a system where we resolve our conflicts over resources by political pressure of the type socialist thinkers advance.
  • gurugeorge
    514
    Racist bullshit.Pseudonym

    I was wondering when you'd drop the passive aggressive stance and trot this out. ;)

    Francis Parkman, the first to research these events, described "the shameful plan of infecting the Indians" as "detestable".Pseudonym

    A shameful plan which was an aberration and not in fact responsible for more than a tiny fraction of the decimation of the Native Americans by foreign diseases.

    And Native Americans gave as good as they got in terms of murderous horribility - unless you think the Indian wars were all initiated by the settlers and the government.

    So what mechanism do you imagine generously transfers property, mineral rights and resources from the people who conquered the land to those who were conquered. Did they just change their minds and give it back?Pseudonym

    What transfer of property are you talking about? What "did" happen?

    Yes, exactly, and large amounts of capital are the most non-redundant contribution, which is why the investors in a business reap most rewards from it.Pseudonym

    Only if they're successful, as I keep reminding you. Your fantasy is that capital is an automatic machine that churns out riches, that's simply not so. Capitalism is a profit-and-loss system, not just a profit system. The profits outweigh the losses over time for the investor class, and for society as a whole, as I said, and consistently good investors do well - but the losses also exist. "Rags to riches to rags" is a common enough story:-

    "By the 1970s, the [Vanderbilt] family held a reunion with 120 members attending, and there wasn't a millionaire among them" - CNNMoney article, 2014

    The socioeconomic class of "the rich" continues ever on, but very few people or family dynasties retain their wealth down the generations. Income mobility is huge, still huge in the USA today (which is what makes nonsense of all the "rich are getting richer" mythology).

    So those with enough capital to invest get richer, capital to invest comes ultimately from the ownership of land and resources, which come ultimately from violent conflict.Pseudonym

    Again, no: violent conflict is not the source of most property, and certainly not the source of the major fortunes of today. While we're on the subject of the Americas, look at the difference between North America and South America. South America was based directly on violent conquest (in search of gold) in a way that North America wasn't at all. Much good it did them.
  • Hanover
    12.9k
    First of all, law systems are increasingly unable to cope with the sheer amount of legal disputes. This has driven up costs, making court cases and the legal profession more expensive, due to high demand and a closed system of accreditation (requiring patronage, membership to the bar and similar barriers), and consequently inaccessible to many.Benkei

    In the US, the vast majority of tort cases are handled on a contingency, where the client pays nothing up front and the attorney receives usually 33% to 40% of the settlement. If there is no recovery, there is no payment. The court system is very accessible, probably too much so, where everyone sues everyone.
    Statutes of limitation further limit which claims can be brought before court; we can only pursue a claim for a certain period of time.Benkei

    I don't see this a serious limitation. The barrier you suggest to righting past wrongs isn't the statute of limitations but it's standing generally. I can't sue for my grandfather being deprived an education.
    If we then remember the adagium "it takes money to make money", it is clear that a basic inequality sets in where, within a given State, blacks and women (and other minorities) continue to be at a socio-economic disadvantage; simply because they are not afforded the same opportunities as dictated in large part by their socio-economic background. Contrary to popular belief, the most influential predictor of socio-economic mobility is not a person's education level. Instead, the strongest correlation between a person's life chances in society and economic mobility is how economic status and inheritance are transmitted across generations. The children of well-off parents simply tend to receive better schooling and benefit from material, cultural and genetic inheritances as researched by Bowles and Gintin in The inheritance of inequality.Benkei

    Although I really don't agree that affirmative action programs have been successful, and I do believe they impose injustice on a new set of innocent victims and provide benefit to those questionably deserving, I don't see this as much as a judicial system issue as a legislative one. That is, if there are public benefits that need to be disproportionately awarded due to past injustice, that seems a matter for our legislatures to address as opposed to individual judges through the court system.
    Aside from a broader concept of responsibility, there is also an asymmetry to the counter argument; why accept all the benefits through inheritance as a moral entitlement but not accept moral obligation towards moral claims from the past? In other words, from a moral standpoint to believe entitlements exists but obligations do not, when they stem from the same occurence, is entirely arbitrary.Benkei

    Obviously society does accept responsibility for its citizens by providing all sorts of welfare. The question I have is why it's so important for you to justify those benefits on the basis that they are owed for past violations. I would rather see societal benefits doled out based upon need alone than on requiring that some past injustice be found in order to justify it. That is, if Johnny is starving, I'd be in favor of giving him food regardless of whether he was a slave's great-grandson or whether he was the ne'er do well child of a Senator.
  • Maw
    2.7k
    Good article. Peterson's form of responsibility is individualistic. His is an introspective, self-improvement tool for guidance within a immutably unjust world, in which there is little or no potential to change or better. Which is why I find his project so useless given it's apoliticalness.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.