Quote from John Freeman on July 22, 2023, 12:17 pm

Hello Kavalier,

thanks for your answer.

I think your reflection about values and asymmetries is great and I never heard it expressed like this. New insight, thanks.

Regarding feminism and power: to me any political ideology is about power as it is about setting norms that benefit or hinder certain groups. So it’s more of an observation to me. What I’m referring to is that whatever the ideology some people will try to hide their individual interests behind certain values/norm.

Regarding the biases of a certain field, same as above. I think that some people will use their professional knowledge as an authority argument to defend their personal beliefs and values.

After reading a couple articles from Lucio, I now think differently.

To me I don’t even think it’s about left or right. To me it’s about guilt-tripping and virtue-signaling/virtue competing (not lawyering here, linking to the articles that I’m referring to). So that’s basically my understanding of what lies beneath these political dynamics. If we go on the conservative side it’s the guy who says that god said that women must submit to men. It’s unverifiable (even if written in some book…. by a man) but it’s quite convenient for him.

I think all of this is unconscious as our quest for status is. Some ideologies have been deconstructed and shown for what they are: favouring a certain group of people.

So to me this is about our unconscious biases towards ourselves: we think/believe what we think/believe is good just because we think/believe it. We think/believe what we think/believe because it’s good/convenient for us (generally speaking). That's what I think. I now think even (real) altruism does not exist. Everything we do is to make us feel good in a way or another (helper’s high). Yes, some pursues are more pro-social and therefore more noble. And it’s good that they give status to those who pursue them. It’s good for us as a whole to be rewarded for caring for the group. What I think is not so nice is when we use it to covertly social climb on others using those morals. It’s like the person who says: “I’m proud to be humble”. It defeats the purpose of it in the first place I think.

So I think it’s clear to most people now that women deserve equal rights. There is still a debate about what “equal opportunity” really means (in the US) but either way now it’s quite clear in our western societies that no one must be discriminated. It’s the (new) moral standard. I don’t think there is a debate around that for most people.

To me, the root of this problem is competition for (limited) resources (of any kind) so these ideological debates are built-in in human nature and I don’t think this will change.

So what is of interest to me are the deeper motivations of people to espouse certain ideologies/beliefs/values. My current answer is: self-interest (and not superior morals). We might not always be aware of it but that’s how I think it is. Some people pursue higher morals in and for themselves but then don’t feel the need to virtue-signal/virtue compete. That’s the main difference between the « power-movey approach » and the « genuine » approach to morals as far as my understanding currently goes.

PS: .