Why Liberals Can’t Think: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Why Liberals Can’t Think » Why Liberals Can’t Think

Why Liberals Can’t Think
Or, why it’s incoherent to be a liberal

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Why Liberals Can’t Think

itinerant
reluctant marxist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 06, 2006

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 259

Posted 10/21/09 - 03:34 PM: Subject: Why Liberals Can’t Think	#1
Recently, I’ve noticed a perverse reasoning pattern among the political left (but, as will become clear later, not the radical left). It goes something like this: 1) There are problems with the socioeconomic system. 2) The solution to 1) is for individuals to make better choices. To give a specific example of reasoning a lá 1) & 2), consider the movie Food, Inc. In its case, the specific reasoning is: 1’) There are problems with the food industry – it is dominated by a few large companies seeking to maximize profit, resulting in food that is often unhealthy (think of meat from pigs raised in cages so small they never learn to walk properly) and sometimes downright unsafe (think of recent cases of E. coli contamination in both meat and vegetables). 2’) The solution to 1’) is for consumers to make better choices, like buying organic foods or growing their own vegetables. Now, reasoning from 1) to 2) is deeply incoherent if we accept the following, seemingly obvious premise: 3) Solutions to problems should match the structural level at which they occur. That is, problems faced by individuals should be solved by individuals, problems faced by communities should be solved by communities, etc. In the case of 1’) and 2’), their conjunction is incoherent if we accept 3’), “The solution to problems in the food industry should match the structural level at which they occur.” Combining 1') and 3'), we'd get: the problems are systemic, so the solution should be systemic, too. From the above, it may already be clear why neither conservatives nor the radical left fall prey to such incoherent reasoning. Put simply, conservatives deny 1) and accept 2): the system is fine, so individuals just need to make better choices. This is consistent with 3), just as is the radical left’s acceptance of 1) and denial of 2): the system has problems, so the solution is to change the system in a way that prevents them from reoccurring. So I guess my point is this: it’s incoherent to be a liberal. The only consistent options are to be a conservative and dogmatically reject any socioeconomic research that shows potential problems with the socioeconomic system, or be a radical leftist and argue that the system needs to be fixed if systemic problems are to be fixed. Have a nice day.
Philosophy should be more than an apology for capitalism

inquirer
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 08, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 21

Posted 10/21/09 - 03:38 PM:	#2
Would you mind explaining how you're defining "liberal"?

itinerant
reluctant marxist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 06, 2006

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 259

Posted 10/21/09 - 05:17 PM:	#3
Would you mind explaining how you're defining "liberal"? Yes.
Philosophy should be more than an apology for capitalism

jambaugh
Philosophizer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 20, 2009
Location: Georgia

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 26

Posted 10/21/09 - 05:48 PM:	#4
It was the socialists who invented the "Left vs Right" false dichotomy in what is a multi-variable structure of political beliefs. The terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" are so twisted in their current usage in the political arena that one can hardly tell who is who. Here are some definitions. 1Liberal in the contrast of Liberal vs. Conservative: Liberal = progressive i.e. "We can make it better!" vs Conservative = "If it ain't broke don't fix it". (Note current "Conservatives" are quite liberal in this senses as they seek drastic change in the current def-3 "Liberal" trend of current western politics.) 2Liberal in the contrast of Liberal vs. Authoritarian (often referred to as "Classic Liberal"). Liberal = supporting individual civil liberties vs. Authoritarian supporting power of the State. 3.Liberal in the current usage often qualified as "Welfare Liberal". Liberal = Socialist, believing in using the authority of the State to coercively redistribute wealth on the basis of need. They are thus "Conservative" when in power, and "Authoritarian" when advocating means and thus very "Un-Liberal" in the other senses of the word. (Note to those who object to equating this policy with Socialism = State ownership of capital or of means of production. Ownership is a matter of control. If the State puts no boundary between itself and your wealth then they own it and permit you to have use of it. Welfare Liberals = advocates for no sacrosanct individual property rights = Socialists. Sorry but no matter how you "liberals" dislike it the shoe fits.).
James "Hmmmm.... toughy!" --Deep Thought (from the Hitchhiker's Guide Trilogy)

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 431

Posted 10/21/09 - 05:50 PM:	#5
Conservatism = "Everything's good for me and mine, so why do we need to change anything?"
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

jaoman
On the Road...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 13, 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Total Topics: 82
Total Posts: 1413

Posted 10/21/09 - 06:23 PM:	#6
itinerant wrote: Recently, I’ve noticed a perverse reasoning pattern among the political left (but, as will become clear later, not the radical left). It goes something like this: 1) There are problems with the socioeconomic system. 2) The solution to 1) is for individuals to make better choices. To give a specific example of reasoning a lá 1) & 2), consider the movie Food, Inc. In its case, the specific reasoning is: 1’) There are problems with the food industry – it is dominated by a few large companies seeking to maximize profit, resulting in food that is often unhealthy (think of meat from pigs raised in cages so small they never learn to walk properly) and sometimes downright unsafe (think of recent cases of E. coli contamination in both meat and vegetables). 2’) The solution to 1’) is for consumers to make better choices, like buying organic foods or growing their own vegetables. Now, reasoning from 1) to 2) is deeply incoherent if we accept the following, seemingly obvious premise: 3) Solutions to problems should match the structural level at which they occur. That is, problems faced by individuals should be solved by individuals, problems faced by communities should be solved by communities, etc. In the case of 1’) and 2’), their conjunction is incoherent if we accept 3’), “The solution to problems in the food industry should match the structural level at which they occur.” Combining 1') and 3'), we'd get: the problems are systemic, so the solution should be systemic, too. I don't see your reasoning. You are misrepresenting 1). In the case of your example, 1) argues that the individual is eating unhealthy food. The movie goes to a great length to prove this. Once proven, 2) naturally follows: eat better food. If we look at the argument like that, 1) and 2) and entirely consistent with 3). jambaugh wrote: 3.Liberal in the current usage often qualified as "Welfare Liberal". Liberal = Socialist, believing in using the authority of the State to coercively redistribute wealth on the basis of need.They are thus "Conservative" when in power, and "Authoritarian" when advocating means and thus very "Un-Liberal" in the other senses of the word. First of all, the Conservative contradicts your own definition. If liberals seek to redistribute wealth, clearly they're thinking that something does need fixing. So, the “don't fix it if it ain't broke label” isn't really applicable. As for Liberals in power being Authoritarian – every government is authoritarian to some degree. That's no condemnation. The question is to what degree and in what manner are they authoritarian. While I'm sure the people making the comparison between O'bama's Washington and Hitler's Berlin are quite sincere, I'm also very confident that don't have the dimmest clue what they are talking about. Making laws does not make one a dictator. It makes one a legislator. In the case of liberals in power, they are generally authoritarian with regards to wealth and other factors affecting the economy; on the other hand, they are much more lenient with regards to questions of morality inside the nation. Rather than stand on principle, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, they usually let it slide. jambaugh wrote: Note to those who object to equating this policy with Socialism = State ownership of capital or of means of production. Ownership is a matter of control. If the State puts no boundary between itself and your wealth then they own it and permit you to have use of it. Welfare Liberals = advocates for no sacrosanct individual property rights = Socialists. Sorry but no matter how you "liberals" dislike it the shoe fits. Where exactly are they advocating no sacrosanct individual property rights? I don't know all that much about theory, but in practice this is the first time I've heard of it. Raising taxes and (in theory) nationalizing banks is a far cry from kicking a man from his house.
"With no relation to class or social background, whether it suits them or not, people yearn for a dream. Sustained by a dream, hurt by a dream, revived by a dream, killed by a dream. And even after being abandoned by a dream, it continues to smolder from the bottom of one's heart... probably until the verge of death. A man should envision such a lifetime once. A life spent as a martyr to the god named "dream." - Kentaro Miura

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 10/21/09 - 06:37 PM:	#7
The terms Liberal and Conservative are definately not convuluted. It's like claiming that George's philosophy is convoluted if you name it Ryan's. When someone states "I am of the Conservative Government" What they really are saying is that some random title is their government.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3303

Posted 10/22/09 - 01:41 AM:	#8
Throwing out some more terms, the problem/choice argument sounds like it should warm the hearts of capitalists. If there is a problem, individuals can chose the solution. A "liberal", to me, would want the government to step in to regulate the problem away with stricter health regulations. The documentary makers sound like they lean more toward the "organic" crowd. It reminds me of an episode of "Bullshit!" on the subject of organic foods and how it is all a scam, (an attempt to exploit capitalism for private gain, which is good or bad depending on yet another viewpoint).
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

inquirer
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 08, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 21

Posted 10/22/09 - 05:24 AM:	#9
itinerant wrote: Yes. I'm specifically curious about your assertion that liberals believe there are problems with the socioeconomic system while conservatives do not. You don't even identify what socioeconomic system you're talking about, so how do you assume certain opinions thereof for liberals and conservatives?

itinerant
reluctant marxist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 06, 2006

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 259

Posted 10/22/09 - 06:59 AM:	#10
jambaugh wrote: Welfare Liberals = advocates for no sacrosanct individual property rights = Socialists. Sorry but no matter how you "liberals" dislike it the shoe fits.). I'll show you mine if you show me yours. jaoman wrote: You are misrepresenting 1). In the case of your example, 1) argues that the individual is eating unhealthy food. The movie goes to a great length to prove this. Once proven, 2) naturally follows: eat better food. If we look at the argument like that, 1) and 2) and entirely consistent with 3). Sorry, but the movie contradicts itself repeatedly. Here's why your interpretation of 1) is off: the movie shows a family who can't afford to buy fresh vegetables, but it concludes by saying, "Consumer power! Individuals can change the system just by buying organic!" This is deeply incoherent or even pathological reasoning. inquirer wrote: You don't even identify what socioeconomic system you're talking about This one.
Philosophy should be more than an apology for capitalism

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.