The Left's False Narrative

[Adrian II]

Modern Britain is better.
I can decide because I am a moral being.

The first sentence of that statement couldn't be more true. The second sentence, however, made me laugh out loud. And that contradiction made me think. I believe the second sentence exposes a major weakness in your position.

Western civilization can boast of unique accomplishments that we should cherish and defend with our lives, not ignore, debase or sell out to the first (or second) president or terrorist who comes along. The West is superior (or rather: has been superior until now) in the various ways that you state.

The West is superior. Three simple examples: the advent of democracy, the creation of science, the rise of civil liberties.

And Isabelle Adjani, I would add. All those who have watched that scene where she rises naked from a bathtub will immediately understand her inclusion in a list of Western civilizational achievements.

But here's the rub: the fact that the West produced these superior institutions does not mean that westerners are superior human beings. The West has changed the world, but it has not managed to change human nature. And I don't think we ever will, at least not in our lifetime, unless by crude genetic and pharmaceutical means with very uncertain outcomes.

I agree with Victor Davis Hanson's position that sees..

.. human nature as unchanging and history as therefore replete with a rich heritage of tragic lessons.

Which gives rise to the following question: how could these superior institutions have evolved in the face of immutable human nature? Why are they successful? My answer would be that they are superior responses to the 'tragic lessons' mentioned (I guess that, in a way, I am betraying my Dutch calvinist roots here).

As fas as democracy is concerned, I think that it is successful not because it reflects a superior human nature or moral position of people in the West, but because democracy is better than other, previous political systems at containing human nature and channeling its aspirations and energies in productive ways. It is the best system for humans to mutually check and balance their ambitions, to their mutual advantage. In other words, democracy is the best palliative for the disease called 'society'. This rhetorical short-cut is not meant to devalue democracy in any way, but this is a Internet forum post, not a Ph.D. thesis.

In a similar way, science is a superior response to eternal human curiosity and civil liberties are a superior response to the eternal human yearning to be socially and intellectually free. Of course these three major civilizational accomplishments have deep historic roots; so has human nature. Of course they can be traced back to Antiquity and the dawn of written sources; so can human nature. Of course they have roots and precursors in any historical civilization and in the remotest corners of the world: so has human nature. And of course, for that very same reason, they appeal to the large majority of mankind.

Pindar may well be right that these institutions could evolve more easily in Europe as a consequence of European historic fragmentation and competition between neighbouring political systems, competing religions and rival ideologies. We will never now because we can not experiment with history, turn back clocks or change historical outcomes.

And Pindar is certainly right that Asian cultures have no hang-ups about their superiority. Ask any Japanese, Chinese or Indian what they think of their civilization, and nine out of ten will shamelessly vaunt its superiority and (in the case of Japan) its superior uniqueness as well. Westerners, on the other hand, have always displayed and cultivated a great curiosity about other civilizations. Remember who invented anthropology.

On a side-note I would say that socialism is, in my view, a fourth major accomplishment of Western civilization, 'invented' in nineteenth century Germany and spreading across the world ever since. Arguments that socialism runs counter to human nature don't cut it with me. So does democracy, and look how we embraced that system after its numerous failures and in spite of lingering (and oft justified) doubts about its outcomes.

Now back to my initial question: what justifies our judgment that modern Britain is superior to Aztek society? I think it is justified by the knowledge that we have drawn from the aforementioned 'tragic lessons' of human failure and conflict. We know that our way of life is superior, we know that there are no Gods who demand human sacrifice, we know that dictatorship and slavery are both unproductive and unjust. As individuals we may not all be morally superior to an Aztek high priest, but our institutions are.

PS Superior topic, Pindar!

[bmolsson]

Now back to my initial question: what justifies our judgment that modern Britain is superior to Aztek society? I think it is justified by the knowledge that we have drawn from the aforementioned 'tragic lessons' of human failure and conflict. We know that our way of life is superior, we know that there are no Gods who demand human sacrifice, we know that dictatorship and slavery are both unproductive and unjust. As individuals we may not all be morally superior to an Aztek high priest, but our institutions are.

You don't know how the Aztek institution would have looked like today, if they would have been allowed to develop.
Warfare isn't a measurement on superiority, neither is resistance to small pox. Most western culture did have human sacrifice in their history.

Further more, ther is nothing that says that dictatorship and slavery are both unproductive and unjust. Look at China today......

[Adrian II]

Further more, ther is nothing that says that dictatorship and slavery are both unproductive and unjust. Look at China today......

I suppose this is a joke, but with BMolsson you never know..

So I'll answer your point anyway. Yes, slavery is unjust because nothing that we know of justifies the legal ownership of one race by another, or one group of people by another.

And we know that slavery is unproductive (or rather; less productive than free labour) as well. Slaves do not work any harder than they have to in order to survive and prevent being sanctioned by their masters. Therefore every nation will try to develop beyond that stage as soon as it can, to cut bond labour and child labour, to introduce minimum wages and to set about modernising its economy and social system.

[Tribesman]

Yes, slavery is unjust because nothing that we know of justifies the legal ownership of one race by another, or one group of people by another.
Rubbish , slavery is right and slavery is just , it says so in the bible

[Franconicus]

...On a side-note I would say that socialism is, in my view, a fourth major accomplishment of Western civilization, 'invented' in nineteenth century Germany and spreading across the world ever since. ...

Adrian, this is too much honor.
German philosophers did their share. But do not forget the British socialists (like Morris) or even the French (Proudhon). We owe them a lot. Even the British capitalists. They were always a source of inspiration for socialism.

[Adrian II]

Adrian, this is too much honor.
German philosophers did their share. But do not forget the British socialists (like Morris) or even the French (Proudhon). We owe them a lot. Even the British capitalists. They were always a source of inspiration for socialism.

Franconicus, you are a gentleman. As is the case with the other achievements, the roots of socialism can be traced far back in history, from Plato's Republic to the oldest African village economy. In the Middle East they can already be found in the Sermon on the Mount. Through the ages some of the world's major religions, both Western and non-Western, have been the bearers of socialist notions of social justice and collective responsibility, as well as laboratories for the practice of these ideas. Socialism was baptized by the French revolutionary Gracchus Babeuf somewhere around 1790, but its main tenets go back as far as mankind's known history for the same reaons I mentioned in connection with the other civilizational achievements.

[Franconicus]

Franconicus, you are a gentleman. As is the case with the other achievements, the roots of socialism can be traced far back in history, from Plato's Republic to the oldest African village economy. In the Middle East they can already be found in the Sermon on the Mount. Through the ages some of the world's major religions, both Western and non-Western, have been the bearers of socialist notions of social justice and collective responsibility, as well as laboratories for the practice of these ideas. Socialism was baptized by the French revolutionary Gracchus Babeuf somewhere around 1790, but its main tenets go back as far as mankind's known history for the same reaons I mentioned in connection with the other civilizational achievements.

Adrian, your knowledge is beyond comparison!
It is great to have a person with your wisdom and politeness back in the org

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Hypocrisy objections are interesting. If there is a nation say the U.S. that claims: all men are created equal and yet possesses slaves and another society, say a Muslim state where slavery is an age old practice that has no conceptual or legal challenge the argument seems to be moral equivalence. There are a couple ways to respond to this. For example, if popular sovereignty is recognized as a good then one could argue that to the degree it exists, to that same degree there is a manifestation of that good. From this simple perspective it would seem that a state that has some liberty vs. a state that does not is superior. This would apply even to an imperfect model.

I am tempted to say; so what?

There are two points that bother me here:
- being just merely slightly better is probably not enough to lecture other country how they shall rule themselves; there is an attitude behaviour problem with lecturing people when you hardly do any better. In your example, if we take Pre civil war US and any other non western country with slaves, I can probably agree that some freedom is better than no freedom at all, however, however I would find it very rich for Pre Civil war US to lecture that non western state about slavery, because at least in the US, there is some notion of freedom. Got a pretty big piece of wood in your face.
- I also think that case would be far more convincing if the West and other countries had been completly separated. Too bad, they had not. To go back to slavery, not only we had slaves, (just like the non western), but we help spread it all other the world, and actively discourage other countries to move away from it... Triangular trade for slave is a western invention too, and slavery on Africa West Coast would never has reached that extent without our interference.
It's not about superior in an imperfect model; it's us keeping them low on purpose and at our convenience...

There is also the expansion model. Popular sovereignty from inception forward seems to have worked off of a growing recognized circle of participants. The root is typically citizens. Citizens have often been qualified say: male, possessing certain wealth or property, being of a certain age etc. Now the history of the concept has shown this growth to include an ever increasing profile of recognized participants: all men, all races, both genders etc. Now if one wishes to argue that no single point along that process is democratic because it does not include all possibles then the concept loses meaning. I think a more prudent approach is to center the idea around the core concept: popular sovereignty. This means if rule is determined by the citizenry and is amenable to the same (even if that citizenry is not all inclusive) then the label can be applied. As it is applied it can also be justifed and jusification is a moral label.

Funny how we move away from the three basic notion you mentionned before...

Again, for a topic whose title is "the left false narrative" that is a funny statement... Given that the left is, in most countries, the force that pushed for the extension of that circle.

And you are still reharsing the same argument. But that does not counter the hypocrisy argument the slightest... Apply the label all you want, that does not change the fact we were actively denying to others...

Was the US a democracy before the civil war? Sure it was, I am not denying that label under the pretexte that it was not all inclusive. Would that allow the US to parade around lecturing others how better they are? Certainly not.

The Althing does appear democratic. I also think one could argue the Vikings had moved beyond simple tribal organization. From my understanding of Icelandic history the Island was not able to maintain its independence. It fell under foreign sovereignty and control from the 13th Cen. Regardless, the 10th Cen. innovation of the Althing is not older than the Athenian model. Therefore the Greeks still get their due. Also, I don't think the Althing had any impact outside of Iceland. The thinkers who were exposed to the idea of democracy looked to recovered Greek texts not Iceland. The critical point however, is the rational tradition of the Greeks was thoroughly a part of Western European culture and consequently the notion of democracy could be appraised afresh in light of the conditions of the time. I think this is exactly what happened in the 17th Cen. when thinkers were working against the Divine Right of Kings model.

The "thing" institution also existed in other Nordic countries.... Sweden, Norway...

Whether Athenians were first or not does not really matters, we're talking about living democracy, and the Greek one was long dead. Not so for Iceland and other Nordic countries (although, at some point it was only living at a local level).

Thinkers had looked at Greece and Rome. But living democracy in "modern" Western Europe came before those thinkers.
You also seem to think that people who took la Bastille on July 14th had all read Montesquieu... Chances are they did not. That's "post fact rationalization". Bastille day and the French Revolution would have happened with or without Athens, and with or without l'esprit des lois. You overstate the importance of Enlightement thinkers on the Revolution. For the French craftmen living in Paris, the revolution was more about royal scandal, unfair tax burden and bankruptucy than about Greek ideals.

Louis,

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

And Isabelle Adjani, I would add. All those who have watched that scene where she rises naked from a bathtub will immediately understand her inclusion in a list of Western civilizational achievements.

She is Algerian


Sir, your argumentation, although proved false, would have been better served with Monica Belluci anyway.

Louis,

PS: unless the major achievement was the bathtub, in which case, I'd like to apologize for my misunderstanding...

[Don Corleone]

What move does Isabelle Adjani get nekkid in???

[Louis VI the Fat]

And Isabelle Adjani, I would add. All those who have watched that scene where she rises naked from a bathtub will immediately understand her inclusion in a list of Western civilizational achievements.

She is Algerian

Sir, your argumentation, although proved false, would have been better served with Monica Belluci anyway.

Louis,

PS: unless the major achievement was the bathtub, in which case, I'd like to apologize for my misunderstanding...

The 'her' in Adrian's post can in English, unlike in French, only refer to living beings, not things. The unimaginative Anglosaxon mind does not think of a bathtub as a metaphysical female entity.

[Hurin_Rules]

If bad is a moral judgment then I'm not really sure why the semantic distinction save perhaps to say that torturing children doesn't really meet the maximal condemnation. If bad is not a moral charge then I don't know how you are using the word.

I'm using the distinction Nietzsche first elucidated in his Genealogy of Morals. Yes, it is a moral charge. I define things as good and bad, rather than Good and Evil. Good and Evil imply that morality is absolute and unchanging, that what is Good now will always be good for all people. Good and bad imply a relativistic morality. When I make the charge that something is bad I am simply saying bad from my perspective, recognizing that others may disagree.

Depends on the definition of torture. I don't consider panties on someone's head or dog collars torture. If we are talking about cutting off limbs or beating to death then I would say yes.

Where then do you stand on chaining people in stress positions for 20 hours at a time, jumping on their naked bodies, grinding their hands into concrete with combat boots, ordering your dogs to bite them, sodomizing them with flashlights and beating them to death in interrogations?

Anyway, you've said that those that beat prisoners to death were evil. I've just never found Evil a productive explanation for human behavior. It seems like a cop out to me, no offense. Why did Hitler hate the Jews? Oh, he was just evil. Why did terrorists attack on 9/11? Oh, they're just evil. But note how facile and divisive this is: it could be applied to anything. Why do Americans support Mubarak and Musharraf? Oh, theyr'e just evil. It avoids actually having to look at the facts of the matter. It promotes division and intolerance. It is a metaphysical rather than a scientific explanation.

I don't want to sidetrack this thread, expecially since it has sprung to life anew, and inevitably a discussion between you and me about the nature of evil would do precisely this. However, to return to the matter at hand: The problem with Hanson's idea of the 'left's false narrative' is not only its historical inaccuracies, but the fact that it obviates any serious understanding of why the terrorists are doing what they are doing. Simply saying 'they are Evil' is very comforting, I am sure; but it tells us nothing about the facts of the matter.

[Adrian II]

She is Algerian

She is French. Check for yourself, you self-deflating excuse for a soufflé.

Isabelle Yasmine Adjani est née à Paris 17ème le 27 juin 1955. Elle a un frère de quelques années plus jeune, Eric, célèbre photographe. C'est en 1969, au lycée de Courbevoie, que la découvre l'assistant du réalisateur Bernard Toublanc-Michel qui lui propose le rôle principal de son film Le petit Bougnat. Etc. etc.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Since when is anyone checking anything here ? I thought it was the place to discuss stupid generalisation, and put forward lie as truth! I want my money back!

Ok, her parents are algerian

Louis,

PS: by the way being born somewhere does not mean she is not of whatever citizenship am only nitpicking
Although, being born in France means being a French citizen, she may very well have both citizenship if she so wishes.

[Adrian II]

Although, being born in France means being a French citizen (..)

Aha, yes. Now, I don't want to nit-pick either, but here we touch upon one of the superior characteristics of French immigration policy. It does not attribute nationality according to 'blood and soil' principles, but according to those of Ernest Renan: all individuals who support and respect a nation's institutions are considered part of that nation.

Adjani is a French institution.

Nuff said.

[Pindar]

The first sentence of that statement couldn't be more true. The second sentence, however, made me laugh out loud. And that contradiction made me think. I believe the second sentence exposes a major weakness in your position.

Hello AdrianII,

Nice to here from you. I actually listened to I believe a colleague of yours the other day. I can't recall his name, but I think the fellow's name was something like De Veers. He has taken over the column that used to be handled by the murdered Van Goth. My guess is the position he was arguing is not very popular in your homeland.

Anyway, back to the matter at hand: I agree with most of your post. I only have a few minor comments. The first refers to the above quote: I don't believe there is any contradiction in a moral position making moral conclusions. I don't think it is a weakness either.

I don't think any one is arguing Western people are superior. People are people regardless of time or place. The focus, or rather my focus, was on civilizational mores.

I'll leave socialism aside for another time.

Now, to your major failing. Western Civilization's greatest achievement is not Isabelle Adjani , but Monica Bellucci. This should be a self evident truth. Go and sin no more.

[Pindar]

- being just merely slightly better is probably not enough to lecture...

Perhaps, but slightly better is still, well better.

Was the US a democracy before the civil war? Sure it was, I am not denying that label under the pretexte that it was not all inclusive. Would that allow the US to parade around lecturing others how better they are? Certainly not.

A state with popular sovereignty is superior to an autocratic state. If a democratic nation wishes to use that truth as a rhetorical point, bully for them.

The "thing" institution also existed in other Nordic countries.... Sweden, Norway...

Whether Athenians were first or not does not really matters, we're talking about living democracy, and the Greek one was long dead. Not so for Iceland and other Nordic countries (although, at some point it was only living at a local level).

A polity that recognizes a monarch who has real power to determine legal dicta is not a democracy.

You also seem to think that people who took la Bastille on July 14th had all read Montesquieu... Chances are they did not. That's "post fact rationalization". Bastille day and the French Revolution would have happened with or without Athens, and with or without l'esprit des lois. You overstate the importance of Enlightement thinkers on the Revolution. For the French craftmen living in Paris, the revolution was more about royal scandal, unfair tax burden and bankruptucy than about Greek ideals.

I have made no reference to the French Revolution. That revolution failed. I have referenced the American Revolution which did not fail and whose framers did make explicit appeal to Enlightenment Thinkers.

[Pindar]

I'm using the distinction Nietzsche first elucidated in his Genealogy of Morals. Yes, it is a moral charge. I define things as good and bad, rather than Good and Evil. Good and Evil imply that morality is absolute and unchanging, that what is Good now will always be good for all people. Good and bad imply a relativistic morality. When I make the charge that something is bad I am simply saying bad from my perspective, recognizing that others may disagree.

Do you wish to argue a position based on The Genealogy?

Structurally, I don't see how the bad/evil distinction holds up. I don't know of anything that requires bad to suggest a 'to me' and evil cannot suggest 'to me'. This seems ad hoc. The use of good also seems problematic given in one formula it is supposed to be absolute while in the other it is not. This is an equivocation.

So you admit a moral charge is being made even if we substitute evil for bad. Using 'bad' demonstrates others may disagree. Why is this relevant? Does disagreement invalidate the moral charge? If so then moral judgments cannot be made. If not then the reference to possible disagreement serves no purpose.

Where then do you stand on chaining people in stress positions for 20 hours at a time, jumping on their naked bodies, grinding their hands into concrete with combat boots, ordering your dogs to bite them, sodomizing them with flashlights and beating them to death in interrogations?

Does it matter if morality is a personal preference?

I don't want to sidetrack this thread, expecially since it has sprung to life anew, and inevitably a discussion between you and me about the nature of evil would do precisely this. However, to return to the matter at hand: The problem with Hanson's idea of the 'left's false narrative' is not only its historical inaccuracies, but the fact that it obviates any serious understanding of why the terrorists are doing what they are doing. Simply saying 'they are Evil' is very comforting, I am sure; but it tells us nothing about the facts of the matter.

You have demonstrated no historical inaccuracies.
Hanson's essay isn't focused on why terrorists do what they do.

[Hurin_Rules]

Do you wish to argue a position based on The Genealogy?

Structurally, I don't see how the bad/evil distinction holds up. I don't know of anything that requires bad to suggest a 'to me' and evil cannot suggest 'to me'. This seems ad hoc. The use of good also seems problematic given in one formula it is supposed to be absolute while in the other it is not. This is an equivocation.

Please note the capitalization. It avoids equivocation.

So you admit a moral charge is being made even if we substitute evil for bad. Using 'bad' demonstrates others may disagree. Why is this relevant? Does disagreement invalidate the moral charge? If so then moral judgments cannot be made. If not then the reference to possible disagreement serves no purpose.

Moral judgements can only be made from moral perspectives. These are themselves multiple.

Does it matter if morality is a personal preference?

.

Yes. Because all moral perspectives, not just the ones I agree with, generate values. That is, in fact, their function.

[Pindar]

Please note the capitalization. It avoids equivocation.

You didn't answer the ad hoc element to your post.

As far as equivocation is concerned: if capitalization is all that is required, why can't I do the same with evil and Evil or bad and Bad? Further, this seems to prioritize written communication. There is no verbal capitalization. So if a subject says: "X is good" which is being referred to? The expression alone isn't clear.

So you admit a moral charge is being made even if we substitute evil for bad. Using 'bad' demonstrates others may disagree. Why is this relevant? Does disagreement invalidate the moral charge? If so then moral judgments cannot be made. If not then the reference to possible disagreement serves no purpose.

Moral judgments can only be made from moral perspectives. These are themselves multiple.

This reply doesn't respond to my comment. Recognizing a multiplicity of moral positions does not mean they are all equally justified. If all positions are equivalent then there is no need for the category. If an actual standard does exist then contrary opinion is irrelevant.

.

Yes. Because all moral perspectives, not just the ones I agree with, generate values. That is, in fact, their function.

Morality's function is to create a value? Most moral systems focus on content over and above structure. If morality is simply a perspective like preferring vanilla over chocolate: it doesn't matter.

[Adrian II]

Now, to your major failing. Western Civilization's greatest achievement is not Isabelle Adjani , but Monica Bellucci. This should be a self evident truth. Go and sin no more.

I'm afraid such blasphemy must lead to yet more heresy in one's Church. Watch, dear Pindar. Don't search your soul; just watch this image of pure delightsomeness and its truth will set you free.

For those who asked: the epochal bathtub scene was from the 1997 film L’Été Meurtrier (‘Murderous Summer’).

[Kanamori]

Does it have anthying to do with schnapps?

[Adrian II]

Does it have anthying to do with schnapps?

I couldn't answer that, Bourgeois, because I don't get the point. Please elaborate?