Errors in moral reasoning

[MaxPC]

Thanks for attempting to focus this thread on the original post, Max. I hope you succeed.

You're welcome. I found your analysis open to the idea that ALL have sinned, that hyper emotional reactions to injustice can be just as heinous as the injustice itself. No one is innocent if they don't choose the high road of Christ's teaching.

My thoughts: We are washed in the blood of the Lamb for our salvation. It follows logically that we should seek to follow Christ and bring the good news of that salvation to others instead of immersing ourselves daily in the headlines of secular violence and politics. Living out a separated life from secularism and politics allows us to better focus on serving Christ and and minister to others in gratitude for our own salvation.

[haithabu]

Whataboutism is a variation of the zero sum error if you think about it.

So your point is that some people might perceive that Trump's purpose in referencing "many sides" as an attempt at minimizing the evil of Nazi views? Fair enough, if they want to believe that of him. But like the young virgin, in that case nothing he says will make any difference to these people.

But Trump doesn't actually say that.

[Bootstrap]

Whataboutism is a variation of the zero sum error if you think about it.

So your point is that some people might perceive that Trump's purpose in referencing "many sides" as an attempt at minimizing the evil of Nazi views? Fair enough, if they want to believe that of him. But like the young virgin, in that case nothing he says will make any difference to these people.

But Trump doesn't actually say that.

Actually, it would be very easy for Trump to say the kind of thing that most presidents would say in this situation, and that would make a huge difference. He could easily find the script just by looking at what other presidents have said in violent, conflict-ridden situations.

This is not hard. He should clearly denounce white extremism, the KKK, neo-Nazis, say that we must not use symbols of hate to terrorize citizens, and tell people that we will not allow violence on either side. He should say that making blacks and Jews feel safe in their home towns is essential. He should make plans for future rallies, and tell us what those plans are. He should tell us that the supremacists are lying, their program is not his program, he is against what they stand for, they are not his base, he doesn't need them or want them. The solution to whataboutism is to directly address the first moral wrong, and also directly address the second moral wrong if it is relevant (sometimes it is just a fig leaf, Antifa is relevant).

That would have made a huge difference. If a bunch of guys claim they slept with a young woman, it's probably better for her to say "they are lying, I didn't sleep with them, and I would not". It's much worse to say "you have no right to ask me that, I am offended by your question" or "I'm sure all of us are sinners, let's talk about people who take drugs".

Instead of "Trump doesn't actually say that", I'd like to be able to say, "actually, Trump took a very clear stand against that and is promising to do something".

[haithabu]

Whataboutism is a variation of the zero sum error if you think about it.

So your point is that some people might perceive that Trump's purpose in referencing "many sides" as an attempt at minimizing the evil of Nazi views? Fair enough, if they want to believe that of him. But like the young virgin, in that case nothing he says will make any difference to these people.

But Trump doesn't actually say that.

Actually, it would be very easy for Trump to say the kind of thing that most presidents would say in this situation, and that would make a huge difference. He could easily find the script just by looking at what other presidents have said in violent, conflict-ridden situations.

This is not hard. He should clearly denounce white extremism, the KKK, neo-Nazis, say that we must not use symbols of hate to terrorize citizens, and tell people that we will not allow violence on either side. He should say that making blacks and Jews feel safe in their home towns is essential. He should make plans for future rallies, and tell us what those plans are. He should tell us that the supremacists are lying, their program is not his program, he is against what they stand for, they are not his base, he doesn't need them or want them. The solution to whataboutism is to directly address the first moral wrong, and also directly address the second moral wrong if it is relevant (sometimes it is just a fig leaf, Antifa is relevant).

That would have made a huge difference. If a bunch of guys claim they slept with a young woman, it's probably better for her to say "they are lying, I didn't sleep with them, and I would not". It's much worse to say "you have no right to ask me that, I am offended by your question" or "I'm sure all of us are sinners, let's talk about people who take drugs".

Instead of "Trump doesn't actually say that", I'd like to be able to say, "actually, Trump took a very clear stand against that and is promising to do something".

To do what? Suspend the First Amendment? (I'd be curious to see what Trump's opponents would make of that!) Introduce protocols to reduce violence at rallies? Those protocols already exist, but inexplicably were not followed at Charlottesville by the local and state authorities whose responsibility it was. Basically what you're talking about is optics and symbolism which, fair enough, is part of the President's job, but let's not pretend that anything substantive is involved.

If I were making a Presidential statement, I would spoken first on the death of the young woman, given her family my condolences, and gone on to describe it as a tragedy growing out of the violence. I would have zeroed in on the polarization behind the events in Charlottesville as the underlying issue. I would have mentioned the growing normalization of political violence. The willingness to attack someone for their views and the willingness to kill for the same reason are part of the same continuum. I would have mentioned the Antifa by name. I would have denounced white supremacism (though not majored in it), said that their views are not shared by many people at all and counselled everyone to take a deep breath. No one is going to be allowed to intimidate or assault anyone because of their race in America or to directly incite the same. There are laws against that and those laws will be enforced.

I would probably not talked about some "fine fellows on the other side". I may be contrarian but I'm not that dumb.

But I still probably would have been criticized as fiercely as Trump for not caring enough about Nazism, for deflecting from it, etc.

[Bootstrap]

Instead of "Trump doesn't actually say that", I'd like to be able to say, "actually, Trump took a very clear stand against that and is promising to do something".

To do what? Suspend the First Amendment? (I'd be curious to see what Trump's opponents would make of that!) Introduce protocols to reduce violence at rallies? Those protocols already exist, but inexplicably were not followed at Charlottesville by the local and state authorities whose responsibility it was.

To say that he is working with the governors and national guard to make plans to keep people safe in the event of future rallies of this kind, while preserving First Amendment rights.

Basically what you're talking about is optics and symbolism which, fair enough, is part of the President's job, but let's not pretend that anything substantive is involved.

Moral leadership means clearly speaking out against evil. Some of that is really just speaking out. But also making plans, in public, together with the governors and national guard, being very clear that the safety and security of all people is a priority. And yes, let's review existing protocols, make sure we know how to put them in place, make changes if necessary. We want you to know that we are taking this very seriously, and this is what we plan to do. I am the president. I am working to protect you. The buck stops here.

James Murdoch, CEO of Fox, put it this way:

These events remind us all why vigilance against hate and bigotry is an eternal obligation — a necessary discipline for the preservation of our way of life and our ideals. The presence of hate in our society was appallingly laid bare as we watched swastikas brandished on the streets of Charlottesville and acts of brutal terrorism and violence perpetrated by a racist mob. I can’t even believe I have to write this: standing up to Nazis is essential; there are no good Nazis. Or Klansmen, or terrorists. Democrats, Republicans, and others must all agree on this, and it compromises nothing for them to do so.

When you sit down in a restaurant, you expect someone to bring a menu. If they don't, you wonder what that means. When Nazis, Klansmen, and terrorists stage a rally in a town, you expect a president to speak out loudly and clearly against it, and to try to manage future occurrences. If he doesn't, you wonder what that means. The easiest way to stop people from wondering is to speak clearly. Like just about any other president would.

[haithabu]

The argument about who is more reprehensible I believe is based on flawed moral reasoning. Part of it is that it arises out of zero sum thinking. The other part is that it means that people are treating it as a matter of moral aesthetics - as if we were judging a reverse beauty contest.

I am approaching the question from a systems point of view: I look at the dynamics of what is going on rather than the personalities or ideologies and ask, where is the greatest social danger? In the same way, though I view the rattlesnake as much more aesthetically "reprehensible" than the grizzly, it's not the rattlesnake which I look out for in the back country. And I don't waste my time denouncing rattlesnakes. Everyone already hates them.

I believe that the probability of white supremacism taking hold in the US is not non-zero but it is definitely below the threshold of measurement. The real danger lies in the opposite direction from where everyone is looking and the moral panic which I and others are being invited to share, rather than a solution is actually at risk of becoming part of the problem. I "map" the situation in terms of threat, and on that map the neo-Nazis and the Antifa are not on opposing sides but are on the same side. They're both working actively to foster increasing polarization.

There are some who would call that an attempt to create moral equivalency, but that's because they thinking in beauty contest terms where the question of equivalency is important. To me it's not.

Boot and others, I hope that helps you understand where I am coming from. It's nice to be understood. Based on the FB reaction to my ideas, I imagine I know what Cassandra felt like when she was devoured by snakes for her trouble. Metaphorical internet snakes in my case.

[mike]

But I also see the white extremists doing a lot of terribly wrong things that Antifa did not do. I'm not sure if you see those things or not. I think Peter does. And I am not hearing a clear condemnation of those things from you or Robert or Mike. The overwhelming message seems to be, "well, it all balances out".

Here are things I have said about the white supremacists.

I have a hard time thinking of anybody who was carrying an instrument of violence as being my brother in Christ.

In terms of the OP I am angered but not surprised at white supremacy.

I know that white supremacists embrace an evil ideology, and we know that they had violent and some even murderous intent at Charlottesville.

I can guarantee you that Jesus would not have had part in any such thing.

I have said that they anger me, their ideology is evil, violent, and murderous, and that Jesus would have had no part in any such thing. And yet you say you hear no clear condemnation of those things from me. I have to agree with Robert:

Then you are reading with shaded eyes or are trying to read into what I posted instead of reading what I posted.

First you accused me of drawing false equivalency between the two sides when you did the very same thing. Now you are accusing me of not condemning white supremacy clearly enough. Re-read what I wrote and judge for yourself.

[MaxPC]

But I also see the white extremists doing a lot of terribly wrong things that Antifa did not do. I'm not sure if you see those things or not. I think Peter does. And I am not hearing a clear condemnation of those things from you or Robert or Mike. The overwhelming message seems to be, "well, it all balances out".

Here are things I have said about the white supremacists.

I have a hard time thinking of anybody who was carrying an instrument of violence as being my brother in Christ.

In terms of the OP I am angered but not surprised at white supremacy.

I know that white supremacists embrace an evil ideology, and we know that they had violent and some even murderous intent at Charlottesville.

I can guarantee you that Jesus would not have had part in any such thing.

I have said that they anger me, their ideology is evil, violent, and murderous, and that Jesus would have had no part in any such thing. And yet you say you hear no clear condemnation of those things from me. I have to agree with Robert:

Then you are reading with shaded eyes or are trying to read into what I posted instead of reading what I posted.

First you accused me of drawing false equivalency between the two sides when you did the very same thing. Now you are accusing me of not condemning white supremacy clearly enough. Re-read what I wrote and judge for yourself.

And another set of for this post:

The argument about who is more reprehensible I believe is based on flawed moral reasoning. Part of it is that it arises out of zero sum thinking. The other part is that it means that people are treating it as a matter of moral aesthetics - as if we were judging a reverse beauty contest.

I am approaching the question from a systems point of view: I look at the dynamics of what is going on rather than the personalities or ideologies and ask, where is the greatest social danger? In the same way, though I view the rattlesnake as much more aesthetically "reprehensible" than the grizzly, it's not the rattlesnake which I look out for in the back country. And I don't waste my time denouncing rattlesnakes. Everyone already hates them.

I believe that the probability of white supremacism taking hold in the US is not non-zero but it is definitely below the threshold of measurement. The real danger lies in the opposite direction from where everyone is looking and the moral panic which I and others are being invited to share, rather than a solution is actually at risk of becoming part of the problem. I "map" the situation in terms of threat, and on that map the neo-Nazis and the Antifa are not on opposing sides but are on the same side. They're both working actively to foster increasing polarization.

There are some who would call that an attempt to create moral equivalency, but that's because they thinking in beauty contest terms where the question of equivalency is important. To me it's not.

Boot and others, I hope that helps you understand where I am coming from. It's nice to be understood. Based on the FB reaction to my ideas, I imagine I know what Cassandra felt like when she was devoured by snakes for her trouble. Metaphorical internet snakes in my case.

[Bootstrap]

The argument about who is more reprehensible I believe is based on flawed moral reasoning.

I agree. It always winds up dwelling on the sins of "the other side".

I am approaching the question from a systems point of view: I look at the dynamics of what is going on rather than the personalities or ideologies and ask, where is the greatest social danger?

Here's where I see great moral danger:

These events remind us all why vigilance against hate and bigotry is an eternal obligation — a necessary discipline for the preservation of our way of life and our ideals. The presence of hate in our society was appallingly laid bare as we watched swastikas brandished on the streets of Charlottesville and acts of brutal terrorism and violence perpetrated by a racist mob. I can’t even believe I have to write this: standing up to Nazis is essential; there are no good Nazis. Or Klansmen, or terrorists. Democrats, Republicans, and others must all agree on this, and it compromises nothing for them to do so.

Look at this from a systems perspective. If you want to stop people from fighting back, stopping the initial attack is a good idea. If you want to convince people that they do not need to fight back with violence, telling them how the government will respond to keep them safe is important. If you focus your attention on the people who fought back, and don't face up to people planning similar rallies in the future, I don't think that is good systems thinking.

I believe that the probability of white supremacism taking hold in the US is not non-zero but it is definitely below the threshold of measurement. The real danger lies in the opposite direction from where everyone is looking and the moral panic which I and others are being invited to share, rather than a solution is actually at risk of becoming part of the problem.

I think the probability of future rallies like this is really quite high. Right now, I think there is a very real possibility that America might become more like 1920s Germany, with rival private militias roaming the streets, openly carrying weapons, and regular violence. So far, the right wing militias are much better organized and trained. Now we are seeing the rise of left wing militias. May God have mercy on us.

But I think we have to oppose both groups.

It's time for the politicians to put aside their differences and take a joint stand on this. That might need to be led by Congress, if Donald Trump doesn't do so.

I "map" the situation in terms of threat, and on that map the neo-Nazis and the Antifa are not on opposing sides but are on the same side. They're both working actively to foster increasing polarization.

If you read the Antifa thread, you'll see that I agree with this. And I think I've said so, clearly.

Here's one way to reduce polarization: Express empathy for the people who are threatened and vulnerable. Focus on what is good for the people of Charlottesville - and other towns where these kinds of rallies have been held and will be held in the future.

There are some who would call that an attempt to create moral equivalency, but that's because they thinking in beauty contest terms where the question of equivalency is important. To me it's not.

It's not to me either. Each side is responsible for their own behavior.

But that should make it easier to clearly denounce Nazis and Klansmen who stage rallies to intimidate people, not harder. And any plan to handle future rallies is going to have to look at them closely.

Boot and others, I hope that helps you understand where I am coming from. It's nice to be understood. Based on the FB reaction to my ideas, I imagine I know what Cassandra felt like when she was devoured by snakes for her trouble. Metaphorical internet snakes in my case.

I'm sorry that it feels that way. I have to say, I'm feeling a little baffled. I generally think of you as a clear thinker who has a solid take on biblical teaching and many moral questions.

Suppose I am a black Jewish student at the University of Charlottesville. Please explain what you are trying to say to me. I really don't understand. I'm baffled. I suspect that's what you are seeing on Facebook.

[PeterG]

The argument about who is more reprehensible I believe is based on flawed moral reasoning. Part of it is that it arises out of zero sum thinking.

I have argued that both sides are guilty of some things, and one side is guilty of additional things. In what sense is this zero-sum thinking?

I am approaching the question from a systems point of view: I look at the dynamics of what is going on rather than the personalities or ideologies and ask, where is the greatest social danger?
[snip]
I believe that the probability of white supremacism taking hold in the US is not non-zero but it is definitely below the threshold of measurement. The real danger lies in the opposite direction from where everyone is looking and the moral panic which I and others are being invited to share, rather than a solution is actually at risk of becoming part of the problem.

Whether white supremacism is a lesser danger than violent leftism is not at all clear to me. Perhaps it is; violent leftism is certainly not part of any solution. But it is abundantly clear to me that there is significant social danger in the failure of conservatives, especially conservative Christians, to forcefully and explicitly criticize white nationalism, etc. to a greater degree than you are doing. Your own experiences are examples of this. Many prominent conservatives and Christians seem to recognize this danger and have acted accordingly, as well documented on MN recently.

Aside from that, the only reason anyone would ask such a denunciation of me is to "prove" that I am on the right side, which contains an implication that I have something to prove. Which I would naturally resent.

I find it as offensive as any virtuous girl might if she were asked to declare her virginity "quite loudly".

I've often heard conservatives encourage others to let go of their resentments and cease the taking of offense, and this has generally struck me as sound advice.