< 1 2
 
   
 

Does mutual dependency rationally entail reciprocal obligations consistent with self-interest?

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
22 May 2019 05:04
 
burt - 21 May 2019 07:20 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 21 May 2019 04:40 PM
burt - 21 May 2019 07:44 AM

Am reading a book that relates to this theme, Becoming Human by Michael Tomasello. The book summarizes years of research on human and ape development in the context of the question of why humans are able to cooperate together in large groups and how human ontogeny makes this possible.

I have that book, and it’s on my short list for reading.

Do share when you get done!

This is a quote, relating to “how to talk to Trump supporters and rednecks.” He’s been discussing two aspects of fairness, the first being equity in sharing which even very young children get into, so long as they have not actually possessed the things first (in other words, they will share found stuff but not their own stuff as much). The other side he calls “procedural fairness,” which shows up when resources are to be divided by some established procedure which may be seen as fair or unfair. If the procedure is seen as fair, a child will accept a lesser share than another. If not fair, they will protest and try to change the rules.

“The most natural interpretation is that children’s attitudes and evaluations in such situations are not driven by the resources themselves. The determinative issue is that they do not want to get less than others because this shows them disrespect—they are being treated as less than equal—whereas they do not mind getting less than others if they feel that they have been treated with respect, as equal to others. The issue is not the resources themselves; the issue is being treated as one deserves to be treated: with equal respect.”

I think I see how this might tie into rednecks and Trump supporters, but I’d be interested in your take before connecting the dots myself.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15955
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
22 May 2019 08:26
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 22 May 2019 05:04 AM
burt - 21 May 2019 07:20 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 21 May 2019 04:40 PM
burt - 21 May 2019 07:44 AM

Am reading a book that relates to this theme, Becoming Human by Michael Tomasello. The book summarizes years of research on human and ape development in the context of the question of why humans are able to cooperate together in large groups and how human ontogeny makes this possible.

I have that book, and it’s on my short list for reading.

Do share when you get done!

This is a quote, relating to “how to talk to Trump supporters and rednecks.” He’s been discussing two aspects of fairness, the first being equity in sharing which even very young children get into, so long as they have not actually possessed the things first (in other words, they will share found stuff but not their own stuff as much). The other side he calls “procedural fairness,” which shows up when resources are to be divided by some established procedure which may be seen as fair or unfair. If the procedure is seen as fair, a child will accept a lesser share than another. If not fair, they will protest and try to change the rules.

“The most natural interpretation is that children’s attitudes and evaluations in such situations are not driven by the resources themselves. The determinative issue is that they do not want to get less than others because this shows them disrespect—they are being treated as less than equal—whereas they do not mind getting less than others if they feel that they have been treated with respect, as equal to others. The issue is not the resources themselves; the issue is being treated as one deserves to be treated: with equal respect.”

I think I see how this might tie into rednecks and Trump supporters, but I’d be interested in your take before connecting the dots myself.

My take is that many Trump supporters have seen their social conditions worsen, while feeling that they are being belittled by “east coast elites.” Clinton’s unfortunate “basket of deplorables” is a good example. They’ve started to feel that the deck is stacked against them, both economically and socially. Trump comes across as somebody who treats them with “respect” (“there are some fine people on both sides”) and who will fix the unfair system. (This doesn’t relate to whether or not the system actually is unfair, or disadvantages them.)

Some takes from that: A possible reason that Trump see Biden as a threat? Why it was a mistake for Warren to refuse to go on Fox. A problem for Sanders?

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1006
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
22 May 2019 08:36
 
burt - 22 May 2019 08:26 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 22 May 2019 05:04 AM
burt - 21 May 2019 07:20 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 21 May 2019 04:40 PM
burt - 21 May 2019 07:44 AM

Am reading a book that relates to this theme, Becoming Human by Michael Tomasello. The book summarizes years of research on human and ape development in the context of the question of why humans are able to cooperate together in large groups and how human ontogeny makes this possible.

I have that book, and it’s on my short list for reading.

Do share when you get done!

This is a quote, relating to “how to talk to Trump supporters and rednecks.” He’s been discussing two aspects of fairness, the first being equity in sharing which even very young children get into, so long as they have not actually possessed the things first (in other words, they will share found stuff but not their own stuff as much). The other side he calls “procedural fairness,” which shows up when resources are to be divided by some established procedure which may be seen as fair or unfair. If the procedure is seen as fair, a child will accept a lesser share than another. If not fair, they will protest and try to change the rules.

“The most natural interpretation is that children’s attitudes and evaluations in such situations are not driven by the resources themselves. The determinative issue is that they do not want to get less than others because this shows them disrespect—they are being treated as less than equal—whereas they do not mind getting less than others if they feel that they have been treated with respect, as equal to others. The issue is not the resources themselves; the issue is being treated as one deserves to be treated: with equal respect.”

I think I see how this might tie into rednecks and Trump supporters, but I’d be interested in your take before connecting the dots myself.

My take is that many Trump supporters have seen their social conditions worsen, while feeling that they are being belittled by “east coast elites.” Clinton’s unfortunate “basket of deplorables” is a good example. They’ve started to feel that the deck is stacked against them, both economically and socially. Trump comes across as somebody who treats them with “respect” (“there are some fine people on both sides”) and who will fix the unfair system. (This doesn’t relate to whether or not the system actually is unfair, or disadvantages them.)

Some takes from that: A possible reason that Trump see Biden as a threat? Why it was a mistake for Warren to refuse to go on Fox. A problem for Sanders?

Ok, that’s along the lines of what I had in mind too. 

Yes, I think Biden could be a real threat to this dynamic that has propelled Trump.  He comes across (at least to me) as an ordinary decent guy who happens to be in politics (not an elite), and he’s clearly on the side of those very people who (mistakenly) place their hope in Trump.  As for Warren, yes, that is a mistake, I think.  It is a dismissal of anyone who likes Fox News for whatever reason, and dismissing entirely whole categories of people promotes, I think, a bad image in politics (look at what Romney’s ‘50% taker loser Obama supporters’ comment cost him; he really looked like a dismissive ass).  In any case, part of fairness is giving everyone their shot, and excluding them apriori for some partisan reason on its face indicates the deck is stacked, since one is in effect displaying a preferred stacking.

 

 

[ Edited: 22 May 2019 08:42 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
 < 1 2