Some Links On Endless Activism And The Latest Moral Cause

Via Michael Moynihan:

Oh boy:

‘As Grossman began describing her experience with Hindu chanting, the students began to ask her questions on her appropriation of Hindu culture. “How does your whiteness impact how you engage with these cultures?” one student asked.”

Well, we’ve passed Silliness Point and seem headed for the Island Of the Absurd…

Reward the activists, and pretty much expect a repeated loop of endless activism and protest as the logic is continually followed to new/similar conclusions.  As each new group tries to out-activate the previous group, perhaps no group is safe from becoming the target of new rounds of activism.

Of course, universities, political parties, and other places where there are pots of money and the necessity of shared purpose; these become natural draws.

There’s no shortage of injustice and unfairness in life…

As previously posted:  If you find yourself advocating for ‘pure democracy’ and or the ‘Will Of The People,’ then perhaps you have yet to address vital problems between the liberty of individuals (yourself included), and the group or supposed universal ideal for which you are currently agitating, especially if it involves gaining immediate political power and enacting the latest cause into law.

From Kelley Ross, who takes a step back from moral relativism and good ‘ol American Pragmatism:

‘It is characteristic of all forms of relativism that they wish to preserve for themselves the very principles that they seek to deny to others. Thus, relativism basically presents itself as a true doctrine, which means that it will logically exclude its opposites (absolutism or objectivism), but what it actually says is that no doctrines can logically exclude their opposites. It wants for itself the very thing (objectivity) that it denies exists. Logically this is called “self-referential inconsistency,” which means that you are inconsistent when it comes to considering what you are actually doing yourself. More familiarly, that is called wanting to “have your cake and eat it too.” Someone who advocates relativism, then, may just have a problem recognizing how their doctrine applies to themselves’

In fact, he’s been highlighting some of the clear dead-ends and unworkable ideologies that have come out of the Enlightenment, and which have crushed individuals underfoot but still generate loyal sympathies and continue living on in various forms, finding some traction in the modern/postmodern malaise:

‘In addition to these legal and institutional usurpations of liberty, the attacks on individualism itself by socialism and communism have continued under the guise of “communitarianism,” and trendy thinkers now like to say that only as much freedom as “possible” should be allowed given the fundamental priority of the state, of “society as a collective unit” (they know that they will sound like Nazis if they start talking about “the state,” so they say “society” instead). It is not, indeed, that freedom must never be abridged, but it is a very different matter to see this as a choice by necessity in a moral dilemma rather than as an unproblematic pursuit of a fundamental “collective” good. If the abstract entity (the “state,” “society,” or the “collective”) has the moral priority, then the even permanent abridgment of any amount of freedom is no moral wrong. What the state giveth, the state taketh away.’

Something I like to keep in mind:  Many people, in fact, most people, haven’t really thought through the consequences of what changing a particular rule and/or law will have beyond their own narrower interests.  It’s rare that a particular injustice, the facts on the ground, and some moral and presumed universal claim align, thus requiring very important change.

In the public square and the marketplace, too, simple ignorance is often the rule, not the exception.  Genuine truths usually come bundled with self-interest, financial interest, and groups of people often reinforcing their own pre-held beliefs, opinions, convictions and let’s not forget:  A required common enemy to define themselves against.  There’s a lot of preening and in-group/out-group issues constantly going on.

Leave a Reply