People tend to act to help themselves. Sometimes that is good, and sometimes it is bad. We economists distinguish situations where such acts on net 1) help others, 2) hurt others less than they help oneself, and 3) hurt others more they help oneself. We see only type #3 acts as bad, and the others as good.
Which is all I was saying in the first place - except for psychopaths or desperation, people have different politics because they have different morals.
I don't think people have different politics primarily because of different morals. It's more like they have different implicit sociological theories. Different world views more than different values.
It's unlikely that David and Charles Koch are directly motivated by personal interest in their libertarianism. It's more likely that they're motivated by personal interest in downplaying the risk of carbon. (In Dave's words, it's "closer to home.")
The closer to home the issue, the more we are Homo hypocritus.
If we're talking about whether to put the city dump in my backyard or yours, we will both reach for moral arguments that support the outcome of the dump being far from our home.
When we talk about abstract ideology, we're driven by morals.
That said, morals themselves are subject to evolutionary forces. Those cultures who have self-destructive morals tend to disappear, while those whose morals promote flourishing tend to expand.
So in that sense our morals are selfish - they reflect ideas of right and wrong that have tended in the past to aid survival of those moral ideas.
But we're rarely consciously aware of having selfish morals. We just have ideas about how things should be that seem right to us.
And we adopt political ideologies based on those moral ideas, not on narrow calculations of self-interest (except in exceptional circumstances).
Which is all I was saying in the first place - except for psychopaths or desperation, people have different politics because they have different morals. Accusations that an opponent's ideology is "fake" or promoted by "shills" are usually wrong.
Everyone presents their views as moral, but no one is primarily driven in politics by morality - except maybe a few utopian anarchists on the far right and on the ultra-far left. Homo hypocritus lives - even if momentarily set back by Robin's work on ems.
I'm curious as to why anyone would want to allow uncontrollable entities with a history of taking the #2 type of action. Even with no such history, such entities should worry us greatly, hence FOOM being a problem by default.
That said, I think it's important to distinguish between power that flows from capabilities and power that flows from threats. In general, I think it's safer to have fairly unaccountable powerful people around if their power flows from the ability to do things than if their power flows from their ability to threaten others and make the others do things. On this account, hackers are less scary than equally powerful politicians. There appear to be people with the opposite set of intuitions, and I find that such people very unsympathetic.
As Dave notes, the Koch brothers are unlikely to be motivated by personal, interest ... but group interest us another matter, and what politics is largely about.
I don't claim that interests have no effect on morals.
Only that political viewpoints are driven by morals in most people.
Those morals sometimes indirectly serve self-interest (that's how morals evolve in the long run).
But political arguments are not normally made based directly based on self-interested motives. They're based on sincerely held ideas of right and wrong.
Your opponent's are arguing from base motives by your definitions, and you are by theirs. An ethical Babel isn't a situation where everyone is objectively moral, it's a situation where there is no objective standard.
Different political views are driven by different ethical outlooks, but not all ethical outlooks are utterly selfless. There is usually group interest involved somewhere.
This isn't about "sides", this is about incentives. Wealth concentration today is strong enough to afford positive feedback loops through spending money on political influence, which helps their business even at a cost to others.
I do not assume to know what the Koch brothers really believe, but I would be flabbergasted if they, and most other rich people, didn't use their money to make more money when the option is open to them.
You're fundamentally mistaken. It's a common mistake - to assume your own side has the moral high ground, and that others are arguing from baser motives.
The Koch brothers sincerely believe in what they're pushing, and that if we all did as they recommend, society would be better off.
They may be WRONG but they're not insincere.
The same is true for for almost everyone. I'm certain even Hitler thought he was fighting the good fight, for the right reasons.
Only the very rare genuine psychopaths are exceptions, and they don't have ideological fellow-travelers.
This is just human nature. If you genuinely want to promote the values YOU believe in (rather than just make yourself feel better), you'll be more successful if you correctly understand your opponent's psychology.
Yes Dave, and all the companies who run consumer ads do so only because they believe in the products, not for profit.
People like the Koch brothers would never spend money on downplaying the social cost of carbon, or buying political influence for a net gain.
In a just world like ours, all rich people will simply work against their financial incentives all the time. After all, that's how they got rich, by not caring about money.
Which is all I was saying in the first place - except for psychopaths or desperation, people have different politics because they have different morals.
I don't think people have different politics primarily because of different morals. It's more like they have different implicit sociological theories. Different world views more than different values.
It's unlikely that David and Charles Koch are directly motivated by personal interest in their libertarianism. It's more likely that they're motivated by personal interest in downplaying the risk of carbon. (In Dave's words, it's "closer to home.")
Heh -- of course, any tendency to non-hypocrisy is strongly selected against.
The closer to home the issue, the more we are Homo hypocritus.
If we're talking about whether to put the city dump in my backyard or yours, we will both reach for moral arguments that support the outcome of the dump being far from our home.
When we talk about abstract ideology, we're driven by morals.
That said, morals themselves are subject to evolutionary forces. Those cultures who have self-destructive morals tend to disappear, while those whose morals promote flourishing tend to expand.
So in that sense our morals are selfish - they reflect ideas of right and wrong that have tended in the past to aid survival of those moral ideas.
But we're rarely consciously aware of having selfish morals. We just have ideas about how things should be that seem right to us.
And we adopt political ideologies based on those moral ideas, not on narrow calculations of self-interest (except in exceptional circumstances).
Which is all I was saying in the first place - except for psychopaths or desperation, people have different politics because they have different morals. Accusations that an opponent's ideology is "fake" or promoted by "shills" are usually wrong.
Everyone presents their views as moral, but no one is primarily driven in politics by morality - except maybe a few utopian anarchists on the far right and on the ultra-far left. Homo hypocritus lives - even if momentarily set back by Robin's work on ems.
I'm curious as to why anyone would want to allow uncontrollable entities with a history of taking the #2 type of action. Even with no such history, such entities should worry us greatly, hence FOOM being a problem by default.
That said, I think it's important to distinguish between power that flows from capabilities and power that flows from threats. In general, I think it's safer to have fairly unaccountable powerful people around if their power flows from the ability to do things than if their power flows from their ability to threaten others and make the others do things. On this account, hackers are less scary than equally powerful politicians. There appear to be people with the opposite set of intuitions, and I find that such people very unsympathetic.
As Dave notes, the Koch brothers are unlikely to be motivated by personal, interest ... but group interest us another matter, and what politics is largely about.
Of course - that's what it means to have different moral views.
By definition anyone who disagrees with my moral viewpoint, has base motives (in my view).
And vice-versa - I have base motives in their view.
Because a moral viewpoint isn't base, and anything that diverges from a moral viewpoint is base.
My point is only that the situation is symmetrical - both sides see the other, incorrectly, as arguing from base motives.
Overcoming Bayes thinks otherwise - that her side is specially privileged morally.
One side may well be wrong, but that's not the same as being driven by base motives.
I don't claim that interests have no effect on morals.
Only that political viewpoints are driven by morals in most people.
Those morals sometimes indirectly serve self-interest (that's how morals evolve in the long run).
But political arguments are not normally made based directly based on self-interested motives. They're based on sincerely held ideas of right and wrong.
Your opponent's are arguing from base motives by your definitions, and you are by theirs. An ethical Babel isn't a situation where everyone is objectively moral, it's a situation where there is no objective standard.
Different political views are driven by different ethical outlooks, but not all ethical outlooks are utterly selfless. There is usually group interest involved somewhere.
Obviously I haven't convinced you; I won't try further.
But consider that the Koch brothers are very old, and very wealthy.
If their wealth increased by a factor of 10 tomorrow, how much would that affect their lifestyle?
It's a common mistake - to assume your own side has the moral high ground, and that others are arguing from baser motives.
As in "Inequality talk is about grabbing"? ( http://www.overcomingbias.c... )
This isn't about "sides", this is about incentives. Wealth concentration today is strong enough to afford positive feedback loops through spending money on political influence, which helps their business even at a cost to others.
I do not assume to know what the Koch brothers really believe, but I would be flabbergasted if they, and most other rich people, didn't use their money to make more money when the option is open to them.
You're fundamentally mistaken. It's a common mistake - to assume your own side has the moral high ground, and that others are arguing from baser motives.
The Koch brothers sincerely believe in what they're pushing, and that if we all did as they recommend, society would be better off.
They may be WRONG but they're not insincere.
The same is true for for almost everyone. I'm certain even Hitler thought he was fighting the good fight, for the right reasons.
Only the very rare genuine psychopaths are exceptions, and they don't have ideological fellow-travelers.
This is just human nature. If you genuinely want to promote the values YOU believe in (rather than just make yourself feel better), you'll be more successful if you correctly understand your opponent's psychology.
Yes Dave, and all the companies who run consumer ads do so only because they believe in the products, not for profit.
People like the Koch brothers would never spend money on downplaying the social cost of carbon, or buying political influence for a net gain.
In a just world like ours, all rich people will simply work against their financial incentives all the time. After all, that's how they got rich, by not caring about money.