That's fair, you did.

Anyway, I don't think Kazuma is coming back. Too bad.

I meant that you didn't appear to understand what I said. But since you seem to be satisfied that you understand all you need to about the topic and just need to get a logic joust in so you can use the suffering of dead slaves to make yourself feel superior... I don't guess I really need to explain it.

as thornongil and emptyheady have, cant possibly poke a hole in the argument of someone with accolades — csalisbury

That's not what I'm doing and nor something I would ever wish to do. If you're done conversing in this thread, fine, but you're not getting away with spreading falsehoods about me.

Also, have you noticed that your grammar goes out the window the grumpier you get? You can't even spell my username correctly!

That you clarify this now, albeit on page 6 of this thread, is most welcome.

I'm sincerely (sincerely sincerely, not just rhetorically sincerely) surprised people thought that I thought that anyone was defending slavery. I would have clarified earlier otherwise. I thought un's initial posts, making reference to slavery, poked a very serious hole in the OP's argument, but it would never have struck me that he was suggesting the OP (or the person the OP was drawing from) supported slavery.

That isn't clear.

Marquez says we shouldn't abandon the institutions we owe epistemic deference to unless we already have a firm understanding of a system to replace it, which would better deal with the 'problems' the old institution responded to. And we didn't, at all, have a firm understanding of what new institutions the south would have to create to deal with the vacuum caused by emancipation. The civil war alone would have made the shift unpalatable to someone who internalized the essay's points.

According to Marquez? You're playing a crafty game here, which you must realize.

According to my own understanding of 'basic institutions' and Marquez's.

Read the OP.

5. The evidence that long-lasting institutions have avoided producing normatively intolerable outcomes in many kinds of unknown past circumstances is also evidence that they may avoid producing such outcomes in unknown future circumstances. — Kazuma

Slavery did not avoid producing normatively intolerable outcomes. 600,000 Americans died. What caused the American Civil War? My guess is you have no clue.

This discussion has become a mess.

I don't know. There's definitely a lot of animosity. But there's also a clear argument in the OP, and a clear rebuttal in Un's post. It's not so messy, after all. What do you think?

Slavery did not avoid producing normatively intolerable outcomes. 600,000 Americans died. What caused the American Civil War? My guess is you have no clue.

Yes, but, how do we decide on what's normatively intolerable? Marquez (and the OP) provide an answer. Do you disagree with their answer? Is 600,000 Americans dying a priori normatively intolerable? I suppose it depends on the circumstances they die in, what they die due to. But if they don't die due to natural causes, if 600,0000 die due to the system they live in, yeah, that's a problem, I'd say. But what does the OP say, what does Marquez say? What do they say?

So this is where I'm at. I'm frustrated that people don't understand the OP, the essay it draws from, or Un's response. I want to debate it, and I'm open to real debate, but no one seems to understand the ideas they're debating. There's a lot of posturing, mostly machismo, but no one, besides Un, seems to actually grasp the ideas and argumentation involved. I'll duck out until an actual response materializes.

What do you think? — csalisbury

I don't know why Kazuma was so taken by the text which he quoted. No, I didn't read the paper to which there was a link. I don't like it when people pull a few paragraphs out of a long text, and let that be the start of a discussion. I have a backlog of reading already. It doesn't seem like anything earth-shaking was proposed. I didn't like the way Unenlightened stated his view:

Needed by whom? The helpless are unable to change things, by definition. Therefore they tolerate even their annihilation. Those who are able to change things are those who must find things 'tolerable', and that is all that factual legitimacy amounts to. — unenlightened

I don't disagree with the upshot of his statement, just didn't like its construction--in response to which anybody might mutter "too bad".

But so what? It doesn't seem like anybody was arguing in favor of slavery. Probably the level of hostility is so high because so little is at stake. Having nothing substantive about which to quarrel, we turn on each other.

It seems that there has been more 'testiness' around here lately. Some people have extended their sensitive feelers all the way across the room and squawk every time somebody touches them. Probably fallout from Brexit, Trump, LaPen, et al. Change is in the air, but we can't quite tell from which direction the next disaster will come. Makes people nervous.

So this is where I'm at. I'm frustrated that people don't understand the OP, the essay it draws from, or Un's response. I want to debate it, and I'm open to real debate, but no one seems to understand the ideas they're debating. There's a lot of posturing, mostly machismo, but no one, besides Un, seems to actually grasp the idea and argumentation involved. — csalisbury

Yea.. I wrote out a long essay and then deleted it. I'm also frustrated because this is an interesting topic to me. Repeatedly, though, I find that I can't invest in talking to you.

Peace out FJ.

Repeatedly, though, I find that I can't invest in talking to you. — Mongrel

A good example of what I was talking about.

I don't like it when people pull a few paragraphs out of a long text, and let that be the start of a discussion.

I think Kazuma chose to pull this section out of the text, because the author of the text states/signals that this is the main argument, the meat. Normally, I'd agree with you, there's something suspicious about excising one bit, setting it out, outside the rest. But it makes sense here. The author himself says this is the meat. And it is.

As to the rest, no one has been arguing in favor of slavery (or arguing that others are in favor of slavery), from the beginning. Maybe the testiness is due to anxiety around the ascendancy of populist movements, who knows, but, much as I agree that real, in the moment feelings, seep into forum convos, I can't see any good way to tie that into the convo.

Yea.. I wrote out a long essay and then deleted it. I'm also frustrated because this is an interesting topic to me. Repeatedly, though, I find that I can't invest in talking to you

I've been fair to both sides. I'll entertain any rational - or even persuasive - argument. I talked with you for a while. I understand - I really do! - if you don't find any benefit in talking to me. But I don't understand - I really don't - if you think what I'm saying doesn't fairly and earnestly address the OP.

For what's worth, your analysis stuck me more as a strawman of Un's point than anything else. What's at stake here is not "victimhood," but a description of the actions of others on people. People are never helpless. In most cases (depending on the restrictions placed on their body), they can resist, make the best of their circumstances, kill themselves, attempt to run away, etc.,etc., but Un didn't mean people couldn't do any of those things when he said they were "helpless." He was talking about how people are "helpless" in the face of the freedom of others.

No matter how much the individual resists, accepts or even thrives in a circumstance, they helpless in the face of other's freedom. If someone makes the choice to shoot you dead and does it, you're dead. If a society and government (a group of people making free decisions), decree that you are to be owned and passed around as the property of others, there's nothing you can do about it. Until they stop using their freedom in such a way, you're stuck as a slave. The point is not the people are merely objects that are helpless victims, but rather we are all at the mercy of the freedom of others. If we live with others, we are stuck with what they decide to do with us.

So in society, anyone is helpless before another or an institution, for it amounts to being subject to the freedom of other people. For someone to avoid being "helpless" in this situation, they would have to have absolute control over everyone else, to the point where no other person had a decision of how to act.

I'm sincerely (sincerely sincerely, not just rhetorically sincerely) surprised people thought that I thought that anyone was defending slavery. — csalisbury

Alright, I'll take you at your word. And just for the record, let me say that I never intended to defend the argument in question, so it doesn't matter to me whether it succeeds or fails, and I would certainly not base my own conservatism upon it. However, I wanted to make clear that it doesn't fail due to (again, I trust) what I wrongly perceived to be the criticisms of it in this thread.

And we didn't, at all, have a firm understanding of what new institutions the south would have to create to deal with the vacuum caused by emancipation. — csalisbury

Nonsense. The south today is based on the same damn principles and institutions as the north at that time: free trade, non-slave labor in the agricultural industry, etc, so there was always a firm understanding of what it would become. There was no other alternative.

According to my own understanding of 'basic institutions' and Marquez's. — csalisbury

Explain.

So this is where I'm at. — csalisbury

This is where you are. The "at" is not needed in this sentence. Pet peeve, sorry.

This discussion has become a mess. — Bitter Crank

I blame Anatoly Lobsterman.

It seems that there has been more 'testiness' around here lately. Some people have extended their sensitive feelers all the way across the room and squawk every time somebody touches them. Probably fallout from Brexit, Trump, LaPen, et al. Change is in the air, but we can't quite tell from which direction the next disaster will come. Makes people nervous. — Bitter Crank

An utterly breathtaking connection you've attempted to make here. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

I recommend laughter.

Good. I'm better at that.

Nonsense. The south today is based on the same damn principles and institutions as the north at that time: free trade, non-slave labor in the agricultural industry, etc, so there was always a firm understanding of what it would become. There was no other alternative.

Yeah? So if the USSR said the US should become communist, the US claiming its own economic system couldn't - or shouldn't - transition into a communist system would be irrelevant? (note, please, this isn't a defense of communism. It's saying that you can't use the Northern attitude to the south without allowing that the validity of communist attitudes to a capitalist country. And if you want to make the point of 'well it worked, in the end, didn't it?', that line of argument doesn't jive with Marquez' in the least.)

Explain. — thorongil

Explain my understanding of basic institutions or the understanding of Marquez? (my understanding is more or less his, so it amounts to the same thing. But I also don't know what you're asking me to explain.?)

This is where you are. The "at" is not needed in this sentence. Pet peeve, sorry.

That's just not digging idiomatic usage, and idiomatic usage don't care. Sorry! All of American English is idiomatic usage, so it seems you've just cottoned to the way people talk in a certain time and place. I don't a give a pig's brisket what you think of it, it works, and that's all it needs to do.

Yeah? So if the USSR said the US should become communist, the US couldn't claim its own economic system couldn't transition into a communist system? — csalisbury

Not trying to dodge it, but I honestly don't understand what you're getting at with this question.

Explain my understanding of basic institutions or the understanding of Marquez? — csalisbury

The latter, of course.

I don't a give a pig's brisket (made that up) what you think of it. — csalisbury

And nor do I care what you think about what I think of it. I merely had to point it out. It's like a reflex for me, and I would be greatly annoyed if I just let it slide.

So in society, anyone is helpless before another or an institution, for it amounts to being subject to the freedom of other people. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I'll take your word for it.

I think the OP is about this question: what principles guide us in making changes to social institutions?

Fundamentally, a liberal is guided by pure, simple morality. A conservative is guided by practicality.

ideally, society partakes of the expertise and wisdom of both. The OP lays out some thoughts that underpin the conservative approach. Some of it is just straight common sense.

I can see how some might be inclined to sniff out the dark side of conservatism and accuse it of amorality that's easily co-opted by the corrupt. It's when the attempt is made to paint all of conservatism with the ugly brush that the bullshit starts flowing.

Liberalism also has a dark side. But that's another story.

It's like a reflex for me, such that I would be greatly annoyed if I just let it slide. — Thorongil

Like people who can't stand prepositions at the end of sentences? As Winston Churchill said, in defense of the sentence ending preposition, "Prepositions at the end of sentences are something that I will not up with put!"

Not trying to dodge it, but I honestly don't understand what you're getting at with this question.

If the USSR won some global economic war it could also claim, as you did, that the US today (in the 'today' where the US is communist) is based on the same damn principles and institutions as the USSR at 'that time' (i.e before the US became communist). 'There was always a firm understanding of what the US would become' the USSR intelligentsia would say, 'there was no other alternative.'

The latter, of course.

Ok, I'll draw from his essay.

We have reason to conserve certain basic institutions (systems of property or political rights, family structures, etc.) not because these are intrinsically valuable, but because we have little knowledge about both the actual consequences of existing basic institutions and the potential consequences of alternatives. — Marquez

It's quite clear that he considers systems of property or political rights to be 'institutions.' And I think it would be very hard to argue that the plantation/slave system of the south wasn't a system of property or political rights

Nonsense. The south today is based on the same damn principles and institutions as the north at that time: free trade, non-slave labor in the agricultural industry, etc, so there was always a firm understanding of what it would become. There was no other alternative. — Thorongil

Yeah? So if the USSR... — csalisbury

The USSR? wtf? Back to Thorongil.

Of course. Had the Confederacy won the war, things would have been different. But the south lost, and the Union intended to force more changes in the southern economy than it actually accomplished in the mid-19th Century.

Victors dictate the terms of the post-war regime. Before WWII ended, the Economic War Group began planning the deconstruction of German cartels, which had involved quite a few US, British, and French companies, and companies elsewhere. Interessen-Gemeinschaft Farbenindustrie (I-G Farbin) et al had been suppressing production of critical war materials in the US through inter-corporate agreements since 1920. Getting rid of the cartels was necessary if the rest of Europe (and the world, for that matter) was to recover economically.

The Union project resumed in 1954 when the Supreme Court ruled that Separate But Equal was unconstitutional (largely because separate was equal in theory but was decidedly not equal in fact). Little Rock High School was integrated in 1957 with the assistance of Federal troops (during the Eisenhower administration). Troops forced other integrations, as well. Various federal actions were again forced on the south in the mid-20th Century--like the Voting Rights Act, which has been undermined of late.

It's that very question which is incoherent. When making a change (or not making a change), the principles that guide us aren't separate form the reason we are acting. Liberals are not guided purely by morality. Conservatives are not guided by practicality. Both are seeking to run society in an ethical way, to form particular social organisation, with particular division of labour, power, status, values etc, etc., to attain a society which functions in a particular way.

The virtue of acting "conservatively" is, for example, ethical. Avoiding destructive revolution which descends into a chaos of self-interested warlords battling over territory in the chaos isn't a merely "practical" consideration. It's an ethical one. Society is better if we don't burn it all down, only to have it replaced by something which has all the same problems and more. When we act conservatively, it's because we ought to.

The problem with the OP is that it has no means of doing this. What it offers not the virtue of acting conservatively, but straight out worship of what is already the case. "The basic institution" that works could be anything. Slavery. Death Camps. Dictators. Monarchs. All that matters is the traditions of society run as they have been doing. Moreover, any tradition tends to think it's working-- no matter how extreme or intolerable it has become. Those gulags in Siberia certainly worked to prevent political challenges in the USSR. It is nothing more than an apology for the present power, a rubber stamp to however institutions and people in power are exercising their freedom in the present, a politics not based on what's happening in society, but on the image that whatever power is practised now is successful.

It's quite clear that he considers systems of property or political rights to be 'institutions.' And I think it would be very hard to argue that the plantation/slave system of the south wasn't a system of property or political rights — csalisbury

Hi! I think I agree with your general criticism but as I understand what the author says when he's talking about slavery etc, he's not treating it as a basic institution, he sees it as less basic, which is subject to change through more basic institutions. It's more a matter of policy change rather than basic institution change. Not that this makes your criticism invalid. When such policies are far reaching and integral to basic institutions, even if they are not basic institutions themselves, the difference is not that great and probably the same argument could be be used as justification for not changing them. Also, what do you think about the criticism I provided earlier? I think that we are close, but I'm not sure!!

The USSR? wtf?

C'mon BC. Look at the posts that led up to this. Do you see the parallel? You can't just follow the details, the texture, the anecdotes. You have to see the line of thought.

Now I respect and admire figures like e.g. Joan Didion, people who say, like she does, that they are constitutionally averse to giving into the Hegelian impulse, to the need to see the universal in the concrete. People who say that they, instead, see the way things are, that they see the world in all its particular glory. I appreciate that (tho I think that people who say things like this are often more Hegelian than they're aware of) but that doesn't change the fact that you're on a philosophy forum, arguing philosophical points. You have to trace the argument itself.

It seems like strained comparison. It's not that I don't see the parallel, it's just that I think there are better parallels -- like the one I provided from WWII. Or North Vietnam's victory of the US in South Vietnam, and the reorganization of the southern Vietnamese economy. Or maybe what one Korea would do to the other Korea

What did you see as the parallels in those parallels though? I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing.

I think you're saying there comes a time when conservatism is useless. That's true, and it's the point I made in my response to Kazuma.

You kept bringing up Un's point, which is basically that there is no true legitimacy because of the existence of the helpless. So for instance: money is an institution that can be made of pure confidence. Per Un, this confidence is a lie because the average person has no power regarding it. Which is true... it's definitely collective confidence that makes the magic.

The fact that you allied yourself with a viewpoint that is profoundly antagonistic to civilization itself and then talked about situations that couldn't possibly exist without civilization (and its history of conservatism) made it a little difficult to follow you.

OK. I'm done.