On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Nick Arnett wrote: > Perhaps that's what he meant, but the faultiness of the logic remains. It > is very, very dangerous to suggest that wealth is evidence of moral > superiority. I feel like I'm stating the obvious,
The reason you're stating and restating the obvious is that you're countering an argument that nobody made. Neither Friedman's essay nor Gautam nor I have argued that wealth is evidence of moral superiority. The claim is that there exists a set of secular moral values in open western societies that does not exist in the Islamic world, and that societies which embrace those secular values are more likely to be well-off than those who don't. To be sure, the western road to wealth is not the only one, and it has its unvirtuous components. But to argue that a certain set of virtues-- including openness, tolerance, freedom of speech and dissent, etc.--make it easier for a society to support itself does NOT imply that one is also arguing the converse, that wealth as such is evidence of moral superiority. Saying that A tends to lead to B is not the same as saying that B is sure evidence of A. but history is full of > evil people who managed to amass great wealth and power temporarily. > Perhaps more to the point, history is full of individuals and institutions > that failed to see how their core values applied to the world they had > transformed, or even worse, ultimately abandoned their morals as they > amassed wealth and power. The Church of Rome 500 years ago is a spectacular > example of what an institution can fool itself into believing. This is true--it is one of the complications of success. But although it's important, it doesn't contradict the basic sentiment expressed by Friedman's piece, or Gautam's expansion upon it. > The idea that one's wealth and power are a reward, rather than a blessing or > a gift to which you are charged with stewardship, is dangerous, morally > speaking. It can easily lead to a vicious circle in which immoral behavior > that results in wealth and power increasingly justifies increasingly immoral > behavior. That has been human nature for as long as there have been humans, > I'm sure. No doubt, and I'm happy to concede that amassing wealth has as much to do wth being in the right place at the right time, and with choosing the right career, and sometimes with compromising virtues rather than fulfilling them. BUT these points are an argument against a point OTHER than the one originally made. Arguing that A leads to B is not the same as arguing that B is proof of A. You're protesting the latter; I'm expressing the former. > I think the correlation between the virtues of liberty and wealth is valid > to a degree; the error is assuming that because a certain set of values led > to wealth and power in a society, then that society is therefore superior > forever. Christian values led to the creation of the Church of Rome, which > became incredibly corrupt. Christian values and imperial Roman political tactics, you mean. :-) I don't think anyone's arguing that the virtue of the US is secure and guaranteed forever. Just that our chief secular values are as worthwhile and rewarding as the purely religious ones by which Islamic terroists judge us, if not more so. Surely the founding fathers of the United States established a system based > on values that were superior, on the whole, to any other of their time and > for quite a while. But it is arrogant or foolish to assume that the system > that exists today is just what they had in mind, that we are presently > applying those values as well in today's world as they applied them in the > world of 1776. People keep saying that we live in a different world since > September 11, 2001. True, and it is also quite different from July 4, 1776. > So is our government. So is our economy. Our wealth and power today are > not just the result of our core values, they are also the result of > everything we have done to change the world, for better and for worse, since > this nation came into being. > > Our wealth and power are evidence of our righteousness to the extent that we > have continued to adhere to and develop our core values in the contexts of a > nation, society and world that have changed dramatically. That is a very, > very arguable premise. For myself, I believe that our very inventiveness > has transformed the world much faster than we have figured out how to evolve > the application of our core values. To mention my favorite example, how do > we apply the core value of free speech in a world where five huge > corporations own the overwhelming majority of the media? Technology created > this monster faster than we were able to figure out how to cope with it. > And that's the way it always is, for the most part. The only antidote is a > good dose of humility, which the universe always seems to be happy to supply > eventually. Humility's not enough. These systemic monsters created of our success are a great problem, I agree. But given that these problems exist, do you honestly think a solution can be found without resorting to the same values--freedom, openness, independence, free and loud speech, and so on--that helped spawn them? Yes, humility and generosity and restraint are important to, but these are virtues of humility and they aren't very useful for toppling media megaliths. The owners and managers of those corporations won't learn humility unless "little people" shed their own humility and find a way to shove the lesson down their throats. Marvin Long Austin, Texas "If you will not grant me victory, then grant me vengeance!" Conan the Barbarian "Blessed are the peacemakers." Jesus Christ
