Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Good and bad is in the eye of the beholder and what you value." - Now put your hand on a hot stove and say that again. Nature forces some values. (quote from apoverton but the principle, vs Hume, applies to many other comments here.)
The fact that some values are forced by nature tells us very little about how to prioritize those which are not. For example, what is the best color? Many people have strong color preferences, but the question doesn't admit of a single objective answer.
In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values
171–180 of 235 posts
Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good and bad is in the eye of the beholder and what you value. Is American culture (a loaded term because American culture is the product of numerous sub-cultures) better than all other cultures because of our economic strength? If not, then what are the objective measures that define a "good" culture. I'm very glad slavery doesn't exist, because I value equality and freedom. Yet still, I'd ask who is the authority t…
That's called moral relativism. It does't get you very far, because it is a belief system with no values, and therefore nothing to aim at. There are some tools for objectively judging morality aka "good and bad". One is the principle of universality. So an outcome is moral if you can reasonably state that you would be equally happy to be on either side of the table. Slavery generally fails this test, since most peopl…
The tool you mentioned makes a lot of sense for issues that have a clear preference e.g. slavery or not, but I suspect it would show cracks if we start looking at more subjective issues (which I imagine dominate nowadays).
Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values
#173I don't think there's inherently anything wrong with the original author's thesis: not all cultures are created equal. But the author does make a critical conservative assumption by implying that economic output is a proxy for "value". This is honestly the critical point: our culture defines how we value things. Some cultures are not bothered by things like social welfare or socialist policies because the base unit o…
>Cultures like this may value things like "familial harmony" more than "individual prosperity". In the article, it was stated that there is a relationship here. Children are much more likely to be successful in live if their parents were married. >the author [..] would attribute everything bad in society to the decline in things she holds valuable. It's part of the definition. No, that's just a strawman.
Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values
#174If 'all cultures are not equal' is a false statement then we're stating 'all cultures are equal' which I interpret as saying there is no metric by which we can measure the 'goodness' or 'effectiveness' of a culture. So let's accept the statement 'all cultures are equal' at face value: all cultures are equal and therefore there exists no metric for measuring 'goodness' or 'effectiveness.' If C(now) captures my current…
Not necessarily. There is a system of logic where a double negation doesn't yield the same result. (e.g. if A = True, then !A == false, but !!A == true is not necessarily true)
#Pedantic #ImProbablyWrong
Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems like an extremely ignorant comment to me. There is a ton of black culture in the South that is uniquely American.
Yes, which is black culture , which I literally just said existed in the USA. So what exactly are you disagreeing with?
Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values
#176If 'all cultures are not equal' is a false statement then we're stating 'all cultures are equal' which I interpret as saying there is no metric by which we can measure the 'goodness' or 'effectiveness' of a culture. So let's accept the statement 'all cultures are equal' at face value: all cultures are equal and therefore there exists no metric for measuring 'goodness' or 'effectiveness.' If C(now) captures my current…
You have a good point, but the next sentence clearly states the metric: "Or at least they are not equal in preparing people to be productive in an advanced economy." It's not a statement about the artistic or spritual value of cultures, only their ability to create economically productive individuals, which is easy to measure.
As a parent, I can vouch for the fact it’s difficult to successfully raise children but there are many other possible ways to support the young in becoming net contributors to society because there are clearly many viable cultural alternatives to the nuclear family that could thrive under a system other than the kleptocratic oligarchy of late US neoliberal globalist vulture techno-capitalism.
Wax argues competently but is guilty of a slight lack of imagination as most conservative thinkers are; the preference to move backwards towards a solution based on a mythical idealised point in the past, letting their preferred outcome dull their analysis of their cognitive biases.
Unfortunately shutting down debate seems to be the favoured approach of those who are over-engaged with identity politics at the current time. It’s almost as if the left have been infiltrated by self-loathing alt-right 4chan agent provocateur trolls who are so scared of choice and diversity that they want to speed a “return” to a totalitarian hegemonic monoculture by getting the left to do their work for them. I think that the actual situation is maybe more prosaic, a case of undergraduate courses teaching critical theory without first teaching the fundamentals of critical thinking (with social media is turning the heat up across the board).
It is clear that cultures can be valued against one another only when metrics can be agreed. Wax seems to unsafely assume that there is a consensus on metrics and I think there is a need for more science and philosophy in that area before real progress can be made.
There is such a thing as legitimate authority based on domain knowledge but cultural legitimacy doesn’t seem to quite work in the same way. New generations will experiment with solutions to the problems (and privilege) they are faced with in their time. The debate has become more shrill as the web has accelerated change and revitalised sub-cultures, and conservatism will act, as it always has, as a speed brake on change.
Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values
#177Here is a follow-up article written by one of the 33 members of the University of Pennsylvania Law School faculty to sign a letter criticizing Amy Wax: Don’t Care if Amy Wax Is Politically Incorrect; I Do Care that She’s Empirically Incorrect https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/09/03/i-dont-care-if-amy-w...
What hypocrisy. All they care is that she is "Politically Incorrect" -- they could not care less about the facts. Not to mention that when someone is wrong about facts you correct them, you don't fire them or ask for their condemnation. Professors are not supposed to be correct, just to probe for what's correct. In fact they should be encouraged to be boldly inquisitive and incorrect in that pursuit, and use dialog t…
It is strange and disturbing to see academia joining the alt-right in its attempt to resurrect a pre-enlightenment age of dogma and allegations of heresy. For academia, it is a losing proposition.
Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values
#178I have not read Amy Wax's original letter but my understand is that she made the claim that people in the lower social-economic classes have been rejecting the "Bourgeois" culture. She then went on to say that this rejection has and will have negative affects on those groups. Would someone be willing to point out how that claim is offensive? Or is it how she made the claim that is the issue?
Some people translate "bourgeois culture" as "white culture" and thus interpret her conclusion as "if you don't act white your kids will be doomed". That's offensive to people who believe that diversity and multiculturalism are superior.
Part of me feels like the idea "white culture is harmful" is harmful. I think it would be much better if we could split it along economic lines "lower vs upper class" instead of racial lines "black vs white" that would help us draw parallels between the plight of rural Tennessee with inner city Detroit. But it feels like if I started talking about class people would accuse me of using class as a mask for being racist. Which just so happens to be the case here.
Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
My sister taught in Memphis for 3 years. The kids she taught were of raise significantly differently than we were raised. I will grant you that not all black people living in the inner city have the same values but I think it is factually incorrect to say that low income African Americans living in the inner-city do not have a common culture and common values. My phrasing might be racist, if that is the case, can you…
I'm not sure how to answer that, because I still don't believe what you're saying is correct. Living and teaching in Memphis for three years certainly gives one more perspective than not doing so, but a school-district-sized parcel of Memphis likely doesn't even speak for Memphis as a whole, let alone all US cities. I do expect that all low-income black people living in cities share some values, but that can be appli…
Re: In Defense of Amy Wax’s Defense of Bourgeois Values
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But the author does make a critical conservative assumption by implying that economic output is a proxy for "value". I think she made a critical assumption that "ability to create economic output" is a proxy for "ability to lift people out of poverty". I consider that statement to be much more reasonable than its negation.
I don't think that's a great proxy. Just because a group has high economic output and an ability to lift people out of poverty, it doesn't mean they will. The rising income inequality in the US (without a desire to increase social welfare programs) coupled with the fact that the US's economy is still growing would seem like a counterexample.
I'm not claiming that it will do better at taking care of the poor. I'm claiming that poor members of that culture will be better able to help themselves.