me: >> It's useful to remember that not everyone agrees with you. A lot of people in the US see keeping promises (including paying debts) as a moral good. That's an important force that legitimates the system. Of course, the 1% exploits this legitimacy to feather its own nests, e.g., by imposing austerity on others.
>> Of course, there's often a big difference between morality in theory (e.g., Kant or the golden rule) and morality in practice (e.g., under capitalism). In abstract Kantian morality, paying debts is something one wants others to do (if they owe you money) so one should do it too. But in practice, as the Kuttner article explains, it's _only_ the politically-powerful (mostly capitalists, though it depends on the era and the country) who are protected by bankruptcy laws (getting to enjoy a pragmatic interpretation of the abstract morality). The hard-core morality is imposed on the "out" groups. << Ian: > I fully expect people to disagree with me about moral theory in the same way they would disagree with me and each other about theology. Yet, there's not a shred of evidence that making promises are capable of being ensnared in the moral/immoral binary, especially for those who hold that moral discourse is founded upon mistakes. Are people who think moral discourse rests on mistakes immoral for thinking so? Where's the evidence?< It doesn't matter whether most people in this society are either logically or empirically correct (i.e., agree with your opinions or ethics). My point was and is that many people believe (wrongly or rightly) that paying off one's debts has a moral backing. Similarly, I believe that the concept of "biological races" does not apply to _homo sapiens_ (and to use this concept to apply in this way can easily be racist), but the vast majority of people seem to disagree with me. Just because they're wrong does not mean that their belief is irrelevant to our understanding of the social reality. I know that the positive/normative distinction is very hard to make, but my point that people attach moral value to the idea of paying off debts was a positive (empirically descriptive) one rather than a normative (ethically prescriptive) one. > Legitimacy is a political concept. Are theocracies legitimate? Plutocracies? Just what makes any aspects of contemporary political systems legitimate at all?< You seem to be saying that legitimacy is a _moral_ concept, not a political one. _We_ (justly) dislike plutocracies or theocracies, so morally speaking they aren't legitimate. But sociologically and politically speaking, "legitimacy" simply means that people are willing to accept the _status quo_ (whatever it is) for reasons beyond the fact that the plutocrats or the theocrats have the coercive power of the state on their side. A regime can be "legitimate" simply because people think "there is no alternative" (even though you and I disagree with them). It's commonplace among political economists that the capitalist system's stability and survival depends not only on force but also its legitimacy in the minds of the populace. Max Weber famously defined the "state" as “a human community that (successfully) claims the *monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force*within a given territory." Most sociologists who read this do not interpret his use of the word "legitimate" as saying that he _morally agreed_ with the state's monopoly on the use of coercion. He should have been more careful in his use of language, however The word "legitimacy" seems to be a tightly-wound bundle of normative and positive conceptions. > I would assert we ought to be damned careful and acerbically skeptical when economists, economists I tell you!, start throwing the term morality about because it's not too long before we're in the realm of theology. Talk about disciplinary imperialism. < Is it usual for people of your academic discipline to use blanket generalizations, asserting that _all_ people of some social category (here, "economists") are bad in some way? Is it usual for you to forget the distinction between pen-l economists (or rather political economists of a radical or Marxian persuasion) who study more than one social-"scientific" discipline and try to integrate them, on the one hand, and the non-pen-l economists (who veer toward pure NC economics) on the other? is it usual to ignore that some individual economists differ from the crowd? That's the road to prejudice! > To cite one recent example; does Paul K. have any evidence that fiscal policy is a moral issue? Does he cite any famous moral theorists anywhere to back up this claim? < If I remember correctly, he is saying that _others_ attach moral values -- or moralistic emotions -- to issues of fiscal policy. It's a positive, not a normative, statement. >> And then he turns around in a different column and denounces his political opponents for turning the public debt/austerity issue into a morality play. << Again if I remember correctly, he's saying that _others_ attach moralistic emotions to fiscal policy, seeing "balance the budget" as a slogan to paint on the flag used to lead a crusade (to screw the "common" people), whereas _he_ sees himself as being pragmatic, knowing that abstract moral principles may sound nice but can work out poorly in practice. On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Eubulides <[email protected]>wrote: > On 4/18/2013 6:40 PM, Jim Devine wrote: > > > It's useful to remember that not everyone agrees with you. A lot of > > people in the US see keeping promises (including paying debts) as a > > moral good. That's an important force that legitimates the system. Of > > course, the 1% exploits this legitimacy to feather its own nests, e.g., > > by imposing austerity on others. > > Of course, there's often a big difference between morality in theory > > (e.g., Kant or the golden rule) and morality in practice (e.g., under > > capitalism). In abstract Kantian morality, paying debts is something one > > wants others to do (if they owe you money) so one should do it too. But > > in practice, as the Kuttner article explains, it's _only_ the > > politically-powerful (mostly capitalists, though it depends on the era > > and the country) who are protected by bankruptcy laws (getting to enjoy > > a pragmatic interpretation of the abstract morality). The hard-core > > morality is imposed on the "out" groups. > > (I don't understand the reference to "an anarchist" or the "liberal art > > of separation." who and what are you talking about?) > > ================= > > I fully expect people to disagree with me about moral theory in the same > way they would disagree with me and each other about theology. Yet, > there's not a shred of evidence that making promises are capable of > being ensnared in the moral/immoral binary, especially for those who > hold that moral discourse is founded upon mistakes. Are people who think > moral discourse rests on mistakes immoral for thinking so? Where's the > evidence? > > Legitimacy is a political concept. Are theocracies legitimate? > Plutocracies? Just what makes any aspects of contemporary political > systems legitimate at all? > > I would assert we ought to be damned careful and acerbically skeptical > when economists, economists I tell you!, start throwing the term > morality about because it's not too long before we're in the realm of > theology. Talk about disciplinary imperialism. To cite one recent > example; does Paul K. have any evidence that fiscal policy is a moral > issue? Does he cite any famous moral theorists anywhere to back up this > claim? And then he turns around in a different column and denounces his > political opponents for turning the public debt/austerity issue into a > morality play. Where's the decision procedure for achieving consistency > for heaven's sake? And why no giving room, in what passes for policy > debate these days, to people who actually study moral theory as deeply > as he studies international trade and macroeconomics to discuss the > depth of problems have emerged in moral theory since, oh let's be > arbitrary, Nietzsche or G.E. Moore? You think there's no consensus in > macroeconomics, try moral theory, epistemology and the philosophy of > science :-) > > Dave Graeber considers himself an anarchist. > > > Ellen Wood, amongst others savaged the liberal art of separation: > > > http://newleftreview.org/I/127/ellen-meiksins-wood-the-separation-of-the-economic-and-the-political-in-capitalism > > > New Left Review I/127, May-June 1981 > > Ellen Meiksins Wood > The Separation of the Economic and the Political in Capitalism > > The intention of Marxism is to provide a theoretical foundation for > interpreting the world in order to change it. This is not an empty > slogan. It has—or ought to have—a very precise meaning. It means that > Marxism seeks a particular kind of knowledge, one which is uniquely > capable of illuminating the principles of historical movement and, at > least implicitly, the points at which political action can most > effectively intervene. This is not to say that the object of Marxist > theory is to discover a ‘scientific’ programme or technique of political > action. Rather, the purpose is to provide a mode of analysis especially > well equipped to explore the terrain on which political action must take > place. It can, however, be argued that Marxism since Marx has often lost > sight of his theoretical project and its quintessentially political > character. In particular, this is so to the extent that Marxists have, > in various forms, perpetuated the rigid conceptual separation of the > ‘economic’ and the ‘political’ which has served bourgeois ideology so > well ever since the classical economists discovered the ‘economy’ in the > abstract and began emptying capitalism of its social and political > content. [*] > > > "There's nothing worse than a philosopher who knows a little economics." > [James Tobin] > > "Except an economist who knows nothing of philosophy!" [Robert Nozick] > > Sleep tight, > > E > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
