Philosophy...

[Brian Peacock]

Teleological fallacy.

[Sean Hayden]

I was thinking about why the right’s inconstancies can feel so insane to people on the left, and I wonder if this is close to what’s actually happening.

It’s tempting to treat our opponents as mad or bad-faith actors, but they usually aren’t. Most people involved are at least as capable as those they oppose. The problem may be that their reasoning is used primarily to protect unexamined intuitions and identity, rather than to explore and test beliefs. There is too much motivated reasoning and not enough concern for what is true regardless of who one is.

In this light, a talking head may not be defending a killing because they believe it was the best possible response, but because accepting the alternative would require confronting the possibility that one’s identity and loyalties can produce horrific outcomes. This isn’t explicit--just reasoning in response to discomfort--and whatever alleviates that discomfort can feel “good enough.” In that state, it’s easy to miss inconsistencies with earlier positions. Over time, enough of these moves can leave a worldview full of holes.

[JimC]

To sum up, such political positions are a consequence of the downside of hominid tribalism (and the left is not always immune, given cancel culture and a rigid take on political correctness...). I must emphasise that I see this aspect of tribalism an emotional tendency (via natural selection of some parts of human psychology), not written in stone, but a tendency that is easily co-opted by political movements. Can be dispelled by critical thinking, but often is not...

[pErvinalia]

I don't think the left is immune to biased thinking. But we are better educated than the right, and in a better position to interrogate ours and others beliefs.

[Brian Peacock]

All political arguments are moral arguments, presented, as they are, in the form of propositions about how things should or should not be. But political philosophy only borrows the clothes of moral philosophy for convenience, chiefly distinguishing itself from purely ethical matters in the fact that its primary concern is with the acquisition, maintenance and/or exercising of power. The question therefore is not whether a political philosophy is morally, ethically or even factually correct, but who it grants power to; who it serves and benefits.

When looked at in that way political philosophies don't have to present arguments that are consistent from one day to the next, they only have to be consistent within the overall requirements of power - who gets it, holds it, uses it, and benefits from it.

The main difference between the political philosophies of the Right and the Left is that the Right takes a much narrower view on who should have access to and exercise power, and on whom it should ultimately serve and benefit, than the Left. In that sense the Right always tends to favour those who already have power, whereas the Left usually seeks to broaden or expand who has access to power along with who should, can or will benefit from it.

[JimC]

All political arguments are moral arguments, presented, as they are, in the form of propositions about how things should or should not be. But political philosophy only borrows the clothes of moral philosophy for convenience, chiefly distinguishing itself from purely ethical matters in the fact that its primary concern is with the acquisition, maintenance and/or exercising of power. The question therefore is not whether a political philosophy is morally, ethically or even factually correct, but who it grants power to; who it serves and benefits.

When looked at in that way political philosophies don't have to present arguments that are consistent from one day to the next, they only have to be consistent within the overall requirements of power - who gets it, holds it, uses it, and benefits from it.

The main difference between the political philosophies of the Right and the Left is that the Right takes a much narrower view on who should have access to and exercise power, and on whom it should ultimately serve and benefit, than the Left. In that sense the Right always tends to favour those who already have power, whereas the Left usually seeks to broaden or expand who has access to power along with who should, can or will benefit from it.

I agree to an extent, in that the "right" (a difficult grouping to specify) is usually more concerned with supporting existing power blocks and that the "left" (also heterogenous) is typically concerned with spreading power to previously suppressed groups (although the trajectory can shift to venerating the party line...). However, the point I was making, in response to Sean's post, was that political movements of any kind are always in danger of being subverted by aspects of our nature developed by millions of years of natural selection. In particular, our innate tendency to indulging in tribal group think leaves any political movement vulnerable to unthinking "us/them" dynamics. Again, I emphasise that these tendencies can be dealt with, but only (IMO) by recognising their insidious potential effects...

[pErvinalia]

Centrism is the solution to that!

[Brian Peacock]

All political arguments are moral arguments, presented, as they are, in the form of propositions about how things should or should not be. But political philosophy only borrows the clothes of moral philosophy for convenience, chiefly distinguishing itself from purely ethical matters in the fact that its primary concern is with the acquisition, maintenance and/or exercising of power. The question therefore is not whether a political philosophy is morally, ethically or even factually correct, but who it grants power to; who it serves and benefits.

When looked at in that way political philosophies don't have to present arguments that are consistent from one day to the next, they only have to be consistent within the overall requirements of power - who gets it, holds it, uses it, and benefits from it.

The main difference between the political philosophies of the Right and the Left is that the Right takes a much narrower view on who should have access to and exercise power, and on whom it should ultimately serve and benefit, than the Left. In that sense the Right always tends to favour those who already have power, whereas the Left usually seeks to broaden or expand who has access to power along with who should, can or will benefit from it.

I agree to an extent, in that the "right" (a difficult grouping to specify) is usually more concerned with supporting existing power blocks and that the "left" (also heterogenous) is typically concerned with spreading power to previously suppressed groups (although the trajectory can shift to venerating the party line...). However, the point I was making, in response to Sean's post, was that political movements of any kind are always in danger of being subverted by aspects of our nature developed by millions of years of natural selection. In particular, our innate tendency to indulging in tribal group think leaves any political movement vulnerable to unthinking "us/them" dynamics. Again, I emphasise that these tendencies can be dealt with, but only (IMO) by recognising their insidious potential effects...

This is a general reflection rather than a direct response Jim.

We are evolved and evolving beings. While I think evolutionary psychology arguments hint at tidy and comprehensible explanations, they are nonetheless arguments that tend towards a deterministic or fatalistic reinforcement of themselves - chiefly by their assumed ubiquity.

This is not to say that psychology does not play a part in political relations (for surely it plays a part in all human interactions with the world and the things in it), only that invoking it locates the discussion within the purview of the individual, paying little attention to the material facts of an individual's existence, the wider social-cultural, political and economic forces acting upon them, or the contingent historical legacy of such facts and forces. To me, that 'these tendencies can be dealt with ... by recognising their insidious potential effects' suggests that apparent "tendencies" towards particular kinds of extreme in/out group behaviour are not actually deep-rooted drives or evolved responses relentlessly pushing humanity into thinking about or acting within the world in specific, very tribal ways. Indeed, it seems to me that this idea just re-dresses the very arguments the Right regularly and reflexively rely on in justifying their ideas and actions: who we are (as the Right) and what we do is not simply how things should rightfully be, it is how things actually are - and therefore to stand against it is to stand against the reality of the Natural Order of things (and/or variously the will of God!) and to deny our fundamental human natures etc etc.

By my lights, that capacity for individuals (and thus societies) to 'recognise [the] insidious potential effects' of their responses, thoughts and actions actually speaks against deterministic explanations located in the evolved biological/neurological functions of individual human bodies, and instead speaks to more nebulous contingent concepts around the ideals and values individuals, and societies collectively, embody. How we functionally think and feel and do as humans may be the result of evolution, but what we think and feel and do is far more fluid, dynamic and consequential than can be encompassed by invoking evolution alone.

I'd admit that is quite a knotty distinction to make, and quite a lot to unpack, so perhaps rather than writing a book to qualify it all I'll just hang it out there and invite comments instead.

[pErvinalia]

Nature VS nurture. It's on!

[JimC]

Brian, I was at great pains to say that the aspects of our human nature that affect the way political groupings operate are not deterministic or inevitable. I deliberately used the word tendencies, which of course interact and mix with a plethora of other factors operating in any individual. To a large extent, I see the tendencies operating often as unconscious biases and emotional responses, which can be modified with ease once recognised. And of course the aspects of our evolved nature that come from our evolutionary past are not all potentially dangerous - cooperation within groups is one of the positive tendencies we all share.

Also, conservative thought might well try to pose human nature (often "god given") as inevitable and not to be fought against, but my take is the opposite - we can and should fight the temptation to indulge in "us vs them" emotionally driven actions.