Denna diskussion är för närvarande "vilande"—det sista inlägget är mer än 90 dagar gammalt. Du kan återstarta det genom att svara på inlägget.
1barney67
http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/104721
Indeed, there may be a perception in many key areas of contemporary life—law, business, politics, among others—that expecting honesty on a regular basis is a naïve and foolish attitude, a “loser’s” way of operating. Such a perception is practically a mandate for personal dishonesty and a concession to interpersonal distrust. When we no longer assume that those who communicate with us are at least trying to tell the truth, we give up on them as trustworthy persons and deal with them only in a strictly instrumental manner. The bounds of mutual moral obligation dissolve, and the laws of the jungle reemerge.
Our serious problem today is not simply that many people routinely tell lies. As I have noted, people have departed from the truth for one reason or another all throughout human history. The problem now is that we seem to be reaching a dysfunctional tipping point in which an essential commitment to truthfulness no longer seems to be assumed in our society. If this is indeed the case, the danger is that the bonds of trust important in any society, and essential for a free and democratic one, will dissolve so that the kinds of discourse required to self-govern will become impossible.
What are the signs of this in contemporary society? In professional and business circles, a now-familiar complaint is, “It used to be your word was good, but those days are gone.” In print, broadcast, and online news coverage, journalism has lost credibility with much of the public for its perceived biases in representing the facts. In civic affairs, political discourse is no longer considered to be a source of genuine information. Rather, it is assumed that leaders make statements merely to posture for effect, and not to engage in discussion or debate. In such an environment, facts may be manipulated or made up in service of a predetermined interest, not presented accurately and then examined in good faith. This is troubling, because civic leaders set the tone for communications throughout the public sphere.
Most troubling of all is that honesty is no longer a priority in many of the settings where young people are educated. The future of every society depends upon the character development of its young. It is in the early years of life—the first two decades especially—when basic virtues that shape character are acquired. Although people can learn, grow, and reform themselves at any age, this kind of learning becomes increasingly difficult as habits solidify over time. Honesty is a prime example of a virtue that becomes habitual over the years if practiced consistently—and the same can be said about dishonesty.
Indeed, there may be a perception in many key areas of contemporary life—law, business, politics, among others—that expecting honesty on a regular basis is a naïve and foolish attitude, a “loser’s” way of operating. Such a perception is practically a mandate for personal dishonesty and a concession to interpersonal distrust. When we no longer assume that those who communicate with us are at least trying to tell the truth, we give up on them as trustworthy persons and deal with them only in a strictly instrumental manner. The bounds of mutual moral obligation dissolve, and the laws of the jungle reemerge.
Our serious problem today is not simply that many people routinely tell lies. As I have noted, people have departed from the truth for one reason or another all throughout human history. The problem now is that we seem to be reaching a dysfunctional tipping point in which an essential commitment to truthfulness no longer seems to be assumed in our society. If this is indeed the case, the danger is that the bonds of trust important in any society, and essential for a free and democratic one, will dissolve so that the kinds of discourse required to self-govern will become impossible.
What are the signs of this in contemporary society? In professional and business circles, a now-familiar complaint is, “It used to be your word was good, but those days are gone.” In print, broadcast, and online news coverage, journalism has lost credibility with much of the public for its perceived biases in representing the facts. In civic affairs, political discourse is no longer considered to be a source of genuine information. Rather, it is assumed that leaders make statements merely to posture for effect, and not to engage in discussion or debate. In such an environment, facts may be manipulated or made up in service of a predetermined interest, not presented accurately and then examined in good faith. This is troubling, because civic leaders set the tone for communications throughout the public sphere.
Most troubling of all is that honesty is no longer a priority in many of the settings where young people are educated. The future of every society depends upon the character development of its young. It is in the early years of life—the first two decades especially—when basic virtues that shape character are acquired. Although people can learn, grow, and reform themselves at any age, this kind of learning becomes increasingly difficult as habits solidify over time. Honesty is a prime example of a virtue that becomes habitual over the years if practiced consistently—and the same can be said about dishonesty.
2Jesse_wiedinmyer
Bump.
3lawecon
~1
I know that this is going to be futile, but I'm going to try anyway.
Deniro, one of our very first encounters in this Group and in Librarything generally was your reaction to my explanation of why I described myself as a "conservative." That explanation referred to Barry Goldwater, my growing up in Arizona, and Goldwater's conception of conservatism. Your reaction was that interest in or emulating Goldwater was ridiculous because "he was a loser." My response was that he was an example of principles, not of expediency. You took that as an insult, and given what you had been maintaining, that is exactly what it was.
Now you author this piece.
What is your possible explanation of the obvious discordance of your views in these two instances?
I know that this is going to be futile, but I'm going to try anyway.
Deniro, one of our very first encounters in this Group and in Librarything generally was your reaction to my explanation of why I described myself as a "conservative." That explanation referred to Barry Goldwater, my growing up in Arizona, and Goldwater's conception of conservatism. Your reaction was that interest in or emulating Goldwater was ridiculous because "he was a loser." My response was that he was an example of principles, not of expediency. You took that as an insult, and given what you had been maintaining, that is exactly what it was.
Now you author this piece.
What is your possible explanation of the obvious discordance of your views in these two instances?
4Jesse_wiedinmyer
Did he author that piece or is he just linking to it?
5lawecon
Well, good point. I'm sure he just decided to link to and go on and on about an essay he totally disagrees with. I should have thought of that. I suspect Barbara was doing the same thing......
6Jesse_wiedinmyer
Well, authoring a piece and agreeing with the contents of the piece are not the same thing.
7lawecon
How do they differ for purposes of this discussion? If I author a contemporary Mein Kampf or if I, alternatively, recommend that everyone read and consider the profound insights in and quote extensively from a contemporary Mein Kampf, what is the difference in my position and intent? Would you have reason to doubt my consistency and virtue if I then claimed that those who engage in antisemitic propaganda are immoral?
8Jesse_wiedinmyer
For someone who recently bemoaned the inability of others to get their facts straight...
9Jesse_wiedinmyer
Principle?
Expediency.
Expediency.
10lawecon
Yept, facts matter. Sometimes certain facts matter critically. Sometimes certain facts matter marginally. If a guy walks by with a swastika on his arm and I say "Look, a brown shirt." I may have it wrong. Perhaps he was an SS member, rather than an SA member. Wrong fact, right classification. Right conclusion.
Care to try it again, or are you still trying to deflect this conversation away from Deniro and the hypocrisy of a Kirkian conservative or neoconservative going on and on about the immorality of expediency? Not that I'm surprised.
Care to try it again, or are you still trying to deflect this conversation away from Deniro and the hypocrisy of a Kirkian conservative or neoconservative going on and on about the immorality of expediency? Not that I'm surprised.
11Jesse_wiedinmyer
Ah, lawecon displays his lightning intellect and razor-keen insight once again.
12lawecon
Yes. Thank you for the deserved recognition.
But I see you still are engaged in this little diversion of yours. Not very convincing to the more sober among us.
But I see you still are engaged in this little diversion of yours. Not very convincing to the more sober among us.
13Jesse_wiedinmyer
Ah, yes. Yet another personal attack.
14lawecon
Amusing. After authoring a half dozen posts of personal attacks, Jesse complains about personal attacks. ROTFL
15richardbsmith
Is honest really the lost virtue, more so that than others which might have been lost?
18Jesse_wiedinmyer
If #11 is a personal attack, what does that make this?
19Arctic-Stranger
I have noticed that certain people can sidetrack, derail, or kill discussions before they leave the station.