Comments on: Pascal’s ethics? http://www.sellingwaves.com/2006/04/07/pascals-ethics/ A graduate student in mathematics and a modern languages major take on politics and culture with the following aspirational motto: ‘Deregulate your mind.’ Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:23:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: Curt http://www.sellingwaves.com/2006/04/07/pascals-ethics/#comment-3097 Curt Sat, 08 Apr 2006 20:45:38 +0000 http://www.sellingwaves.com/2006/04/07/pascals-ethics/#comment-3097 <p>I think, and I have tried to suggest, that it is a muddled perspective as well, though not the specifically left-wing component. I think that that element is wrong and somewhat disingenuous, but not incoherent. It is coherent if one assumes, as I do, that such dislike of liberal society is largely motivated by a visceral loathing of some people having more than others, as well as an often not unjustified concern that those with less are genuinely deprived. What I do find incoherent is the apparent belief that such a standard set of leftist ethical and political beliefs is not just compatible with but in fact dependent on dogmatic theism. Say what one will about the various "progressive" political movements in our society, they tend to be actuated by a sort of utilitarian ethical framework that coexists uneasily at best with the a priori moral rules that Christianity among other religions tends to favor. As for the metaphysics, I could see, as I said before, how believing, as Christians do, that eternal rewards or punishment await us based on our actions might tend to foster moral behavior, but on the other hand I don't see much evidence in the world that Christians are on the whole a more generous or virtuous lot than any other social or religious group. </p> I think, and I have tried to suggest, that it is a muddled perspective as well, though not the specifically left-wing component. I think that that element is wrong and somewhat disingenuous, but not incoherent. It is coherent if one assumes, as I do, that such dislike of liberal society is largely motivated by a visceral loathing of some people having more than others, as well as an often not unjustified concern that those with less are genuinely deprived. What I do find incoherent is the apparent belief that such a standard set of leftist ethical and political beliefs is not just compatible with but in fact dependent on dogmatic theism. Say what one will about the various “progressive” political movements in our society, they tend to be actuated by a sort of utilitarian ethical framework that coexists uneasily at best with the a priori moral rules that Christianity among other religions tends to favor. As for the metaphysics, I could see, as I said before, how believing, as Christians do, that eternal rewards or punishment await us based on our actions might tend to foster moral behavior, but on the other hand I don’t see much evidence in the world that Christians are on the whole a more generous or virtuous lot than any other social or religious group.

]]> By: Dave http://www.sellingwaves.com/2006/04/07/pascals-ethics/#comment-3095 Dave Sat, 08 Apr 2006 19:49:02 +0000 http://www.sellingwaves.com/2006/04/07/pascals-ethics/#comment-3095 <p>“In my mind it is a historical fact that the increasing prosperity of Western societies and attention to alleviating misfortune in this life correspond almost exactly to the recession of dogmatic religion from public life.” Curt</p> <p>Yea, I read the article. It was like watching Ping-Pong balls inside the plastic container they use to pick lotto numbers, about as coherent as Brownian movement. What are the real connections between the random verbal discharges coming from this man? As far as I can see the man entirely dances around what tactics are permissible or nonpermissible in order to achieve his vision of a just society. Oh, I guess he must be an intellectual. As Penn and Teller would ask, “Is it BS?”</p> <p>Toward the end he articulates the usual leftist dogmas without recognizing the paradox the left never is willing to face. Call it fascism, socialism or communism or fundamentalism, whenever collectivists get power in the name of helping the poor or not, they fail to help the poor but do eventually make everyone equally miserable, except themselves as they become kings and saviors. </p> <p>I ran across some quotes by Eric Hoffer, whom McCarraher implies is a creator of bogeymen such as the "true believer." I suppose he thinks these are not an undesirable personality types but like freedom fighters and patriots are interchangeable depending upon whose side they fight.</p> <p>“People unfit for freedom - who cannot do much with it - are hungry for power. The desire for freedom is an attribute of a "have" type of self. It says: leave me alone and I shall grow, learn, and realize my capacities. The desire for power is basically an attribute of a "have not" type of self. “ </p> <p>“The monstrous evils of the twentieth century have shown us that the greediest money grubbers are gentle doves compared with money-hating wolves like Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler,---- “ </p> <p>“Every era has a currency that buys souls. In some the currency is pride, in others it is hope, in still others it is a holy cause. There are of course times when hard cash will buy souls, and the remarkable thing is that such times are marked by civility, tolerance, and the smooth working of everyday life.” </p> <hr /> <p>Or as Samuel Johnson said “There are few ways in which a man can be more innocently employed than in getting money.”</p> “In my mind it is a historical fact that the increasing prosperity of Western societies and attention to alleviating misfortune in this life correspond almost exactly to the recession of dogmatic religion from public life.” Curt

Yea, I read the article. It was like watching Ping-Pong balls inside the plastic container they use to pick lotto numbers, about as coherent as Brownian movement. What are the real connections between the random verbal discharges coming from this man? As far as I can see the man entirely dances around what tactics are permissible or nonpermissible in order to achieve his vision of a just society. Oh, I guess he must be an intellectual. As Penn and Teller would ask, “Is it BS?”

Toward the end he articulates the usual leftist dogmas without recognizing the paradox the left never is willing to face. Call it fascism, socialism or communism or fundamentalism, whenever collectivists get power in the name of helping the poor or not, they fail to help the poor but do eventually make everyone equally miserable, except themselves as they become kings and saviors.

I ran across some quotes by Eric Hoffer, whom McCarraher implies is a creator of bogeymen such as the “true believer.” I suppose he thinks these are not an undesirable personality types but like freedom fighters and patriots are interchangeable depending upon whose side they fight.

“People unfit for freedom - who cannot do much with it - are hungry for power. The desire for freedom is an attribute of a “have” type of self. It says: leave me alone and I shall grow, learn, and realize my capacities. The desire for power is basically an attribute of a “have not” type of self. “

“The monstrous evils of the twentieth century have shown us that the greediest money grubbers are gentle doves compared with money-hating wolves like Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler,—- “

“Every era has a currency that buys souls. In some the currency is pride, in others it is hope, in still others it is a holy cause. There are of course times when hard cash will buy souls, and the remarkable thing is that such times are marked by civility, tolerance, and the smooth working of everyday life.”

Or as Samuel Johnson said “There are few ways in which a man can be more innocently employed than in getting money.”

]]>