If this were simply a father simply extending mercy to a drug addict son, I would agree that this would make sense. I also agree that obligations to family are not the same as those to strangers, contra Singer, but there's more here, isn't there?
Hunter's actions also benefited the father, probably to a very considerable sum, and thus this isn't merely a father acting like one. It's a father pursuing his own self interest and likely concealing influence peddling to which he was a beneficiary. Nothing noble in that.
I think the students lied. Or to.be more charitable their stated preferences and the social utility of them outweighs a mere hypothetical consideration of a situation that would bring to light revealed preferences.
I agree, but qualifiedly. I think some lied, performatively. But others would really do it, because they're young and (being social sciences undergrads in current America??!!) probably deeply immerse in a certain "moral purity" culture, maybe ideological zeal to maintain said purity. The way some Komsomol youth would rat out their friends and family, and not to negligible consequences, but at the minimum a need to undergo a struggle session, and potentially expulsion, or even a trip to Kolyma one way.
As someone reading from a non-WEIRD country, I completely agree with Joseph Henrich. Ours is a society organized and operated along hierarchies and pockets of loyalties - starting with family, kin, tribe, religion, and then class.
It's a privilege for you to be able to argue for the value of prioritizing your personal constituency without having to grapple with the many ways in which this instinct, when left to run amok rather than being aggressively checked, can make any society (usually of multiple coalitions and loyalties) ungovernable. The rule of law becomes an alien idea on a fancy piece of paper and the apparatus of justice is activated and mobilized only in response to personal insults felt by powerful and well-resourced people. And because resources are expected to be allocated primarily along loyalty lines, corruption and misallocation are the norm.
Yes, it's true that we value family and friends and "our people" in my part of the world (Africa), but I think the overall benefits of this social moral system is weak when assessed in terms of the effectiveness and efficiency it affords in managing a conglomerate of people rather than just your own constituent.
I'm a bit surprised about Cornell students! But I actually suspect they were being dishonest rather than disloyal - like most survey respondents, they answered the "what would you do?" question as "what should you do?", and that weren't imagining actual friends whose life they'd be screwing up.
It would be odd if there is such a generational gap...
I'd help any of my close friends to dispose of a body, no questions asked.
I don't think it was completely about "favoring those we love". I think it was about the GOP hunting for something to charge Hunter with - because he was Biden's son. Maybe the question should be: should one political party go after the other political party's family?
The non-WEIRD countries that favour nepotism have a worse standard of living for a reason. I live in such a society, and it cannot develop beyond a certain point, because base instincts (like nepotism) are favoured over reasoning and merit. I personally would (and have) confront(ed) colleagues whom I quite like for trying to bend rules. It wasn't tampering with data, but rather, them trying to get someone else to do their work for them. They took heed after they got a hard veto from me when they told me. Had they not taken heed, and had their actions resulted in cheating, I would have reported them. That's in part out of my personal ethics, but also because I am not about to risk having someone dig for dirt on me in the future and find such a scourge à la Claudine Gay, and ruin my reputation. The ethics account for me not getting caught. The potential to get caught reinforces the ethics. I have to trust myself. Maybe when I become a mum, I would feel differently, but I've been oriented this way since I was 11.
Biden may have done it because "why not"? It could be a tit for tat because a certain leader will evade all charges and consequences of his own crimes. Why not do what you can because there is nothing to lose? Why respect the justice system when the rule of law is breaking down?
Biden is not just an ordinary father, he is the President, doesn't he have the moral obligation to be impartial, not to be biased by social, political or personal status of the person he pardons?
I find this topic so interesting because for example, although I want to comfort friends who have done wrong and are now paying for it, I find it extremely conflicting if it goes against my own morals. If a friend was to cheat on their husband and then seek reassurance for feeling so guilty, I would want to comfort them but i would find it difficult because it would go against my own deep rooted morals/beliefs. How does one navigate that!? I find it confusing, how does one balance empathy and morality
Confusion analects 13:18 The Duke of Sheh told Confucius: "In my land, there are righteous men. If a father steals a sheep, the son will testify against him." Confucius said, "The righteous men in my land are different from this. The father conceals the wrongs of his son, and the son conceals the wrongs of his father. Virtue is to be found in this.”
“everyone should value their own children more than they value everybody else”
I think one can go further:
“everyone should value specifics more than generics”
(Notice that this statement is itself generic)
This is because generics depend upon specifics - if you’ve never encountered a child then your knowledge of Children is going to be relatively impoverished. If we were to collectively lose sight of this fact, Children would eventually become a static nexus of words, definitions, images, symbols, and narratives - and any child which didn’t perfectly conform to those expectations would be discarded. That is to say, all children would be discarded (and eventually also the concept of Children, if anybody was still around to conceive it).
By contrast, attending to specifics enriches generics. For example, attending to the peculiarities of specific children may reveal characteristics previously hidden in the generic Child - a certain stubbornness, strong moral convictions, an ontology which is inclusive of the imaginal, resilience to falling over, a tendency to catch a cold, and so forth. This leads to my next point…
The desire to see something grow is agape - the highest form of love. Only by valuing specific children higher than the generic Child can we allow the generic Child to truly grow. By valuing the specific above the generic, we are loving the generic to the utmost. So in reality it’s not one verses the other, but a misunderstanding of precedence.
Are there any generics which should be valued above specifics? Consider the generic Generic. The generic Generic is what affords us the capacity to conceptually differentiate generics (eg. the concept of Children) from specifics (eg. the concept of a specific child). This differentiation is what gives meaning to the concept “everyone should value specifics more than generics”. Therefore one could make the case that the Generic is more valuable than any specific (although I’m not sure if I would want to make that case or not). The Generic might actually be considered an aspect of God, but I don’t know enough theology to say any more on the matter.
Finally, I suspect Biden is right to pardon his son because it demonstrates valuation of a specific above a generic - and it also does this publicly. His role as a president is to value the generic American, but his role as a father is to value a specific human being, and - as I’ve tried to make the case - it’s this latter act which ultimately gives the former meaning.
That’s quite a jumble of thoughts - curious if they resonate with anyone.
I "think" I will not kill anybody tonprolong my child's life. I, of course, wish I never find out if this image of myself is accurate. However, if I had to spend money that could save a thousand strangers children to save my own child, I would definitely do it. Heck, I would spend the money that can save a million children just on my own, if it can save her.
Surely it was because the graduate students probably didn't have children, that they took the sterner line. They did have mothers and fathers but maybe the child-parent relationship is asymetrical.
PS my children are adopted so no genes in play, but I would 100% pardon them (as I already have done many times!).
1. I made some"mana"-points on manifold today, as I took bets: Will Joe pardon Hunter - and I bet: yes, he will. When this was given a likelihood of ca. 20% even after the election (so nothing to lose for ol' Joe)! So, yeah, people seemed confused. Turned out, they were.
2. I am a foreigner, my only relevant info was that blogs mentioned, Joe loves his son. I can imagine not loving a son, who went bad - but if I did love him, sure I would do as Joe did. The only bad thing is, that Joe lied about not to use the pardon. But then, he is a politician, right?
3. That is why for us European this US-system of "pardoning" seems so strangely monarchistic and archaic. Law rulez. Kick out that option - or make it much less direct.
4. I assume, those hyper-correct students just lied. To you, to the audience and possibly to themselves.
5. The blood of my child is no more red than the blood of others (Jewish teaching), but would I press the button "get a new heart for my kid" knowing it would 'kill some other kid somewhere', but no one would ever know? Yes, I would. Would I have Steven Pinker, Tyler Cowen or Scott Alexander killed to make me/my family live much longer? No, I would not. (Pinker and Cowen are older and have no kids ... and they mostly did their thing ... so I am tempted in their case... . Any archbishop worth saving would refuse to be saved prior to others. As would Scott, I am afraid.)
If this were simply a father simply extending mercy to a drug addict son, I would agree that this would make sense. I also agree that obligations to family are not the same as those to strangers, contra Singer, but there's more here, isn't there?
Hunter's actions also benefited the father, probably to a very considerable sum, and thus this isn't merely a father acting like one. It's a father pursuing his own self interest and likely concealing influence peddling to which he was a beneficiary. Nothing noble in that.
I think the students lied. Or to.be more charitable their stated preferences and the social utility of them outweighs a mere hypothetical consideration of a situation that would bring to light revealed preferences.
I agree, but qualifiedly. I think some lied, performatively. But others would really do it, because they're young and (being social sciences undergrads in current America??!!) probably deeply immerse in a certain "moral purity" culture, maybe ideological zeal to maintain said purity. The way some Komsomol youth would rat out their friends and family, and not to negligible consequences, but at the minimum a need to undergo a struggle session, and potentially expulsion, or even a trip to Kolyma one way.
yep. aspirational self vs. real self.
As someone reading from a non-WEIRD country, I completely agree with Joseph Henrich. Ours is a society organized and operated along hierarchies and pockets of loyalties - starting with family, kin, tribe, religion, and then class.
It's a privilege for you to be able to argue for the value of prioritizing your personal constituency without having to grapple with the many ways in which this instinct, when left to run amok rather than being aggressively checked, can make any society (usually of multiple coalitions and loyalties) ungovernable. The rule of law becomes an alien idea on a fancy piece of paper and the apparatus of justice is activated and mobilized only in response to personal insults felt by powerful and well-resourced people. And because resources are expected to be allocated primarily along loyalty lines, corruption and misallocation are the norm.
Yes, it's true that we value family and friends and "our people" in my part of the world (Africa), but I think the overall benefits of this social moral system is weak when assessed in terms of the effectiveness and efficiency it affords in managing a conglomerate of people rather than just your own constituent.
I'm a bit surprised about Cornell students! But I actually suspect they were being dishonest rather than disloyal - like most survey respondents, they answered the "what would you do?" question as "what should you do?", and that weren't imagining actual friends whose life they'd be screwing up.
It would be odd if there is such a generational gap...
I'd help any of my close friends to dispose of a body, no questions asked.
I don't think it was completely about "favoring those we love". I think it was about the GOP hunting for something to charge Hunter with - because he was Biden's son. Maybe the question should be: should one political party go after the other political party's family?
The non-WEIRD countries that favour nepotism have a worse standard of living for a reason. I live in such a society, and it cannot develop beyond a certain point, because base instincts (like nepotism) are favoured over reasoning and merit. I personally would (and have) confront(ed) colleagues whom I quite like for trying to bend rules. It wasn't tampering with data, but rather, them trying to get someone else to do their work for them. They took heed after they got a hard veto from me when they told me. Had they not taken heed, and had their actions resulted in cheating, I would have reported them. That's in part out of my personal ethics, but also because I am not about to risk having someone dig for dirt on me in the future and find such a scourge à la Claudine Gay, and ruin my reputation. The ethics account for me not getting caught. The potential to get caught reinforces the ethics. I have to trust myself. Maybe when I become a mum, I would feel differently, but I've been oriented this way since I was 11.
Biden may have done it because "why not"? It could be a tit for tat because a certain leader will evade all charges and consequences of his own crimes. Why not do what you can because there is nothing to lose? Why respect the justice system when the rule of law is breaking down?
amazing
Biden is not just an ordinary father, he is the President, doesn't he have the moral obligation to be impartial, not to be biased by social, political or personal status of the person he pardons?
I find this topic so interesting because for example, although I want to comfort friends who have done wrong and are now paying for it, I find it extremely conflicting if it goes against my own morals. If a friend was to cheat on their husband and then seek reassurance for feeling so guilty, I would want to comfort them but i would find it difficult because it would go against my own deep rooted morals/beliefs. How does one navigate that!? I find it confusing, how does one balance empathy and morality
Reflecting on this further and realising my empathy for someone close seems to depend on the level of harm caused
Confusion analects 13:18 The Duke of Sheh told Confucius: "In my land, there are righteous men. If a father steals a sheep, the son will testify against him." Confucius said, "The righteous men in my land are different from this. The father conceals the wrongs of his son, and the son conceals the wrongs of his father. Virtue is to be found in this.”
“everyone should value their own children more than they value everybody else”
I think one can go further:
“everyone should value specifics more than generics”
(Notice that this statement is itself generic)
This is because generics depend upon specifics - if you’ve never encountered a child then your knowledge of Children is going to be relatively impoverished. If we were to collectively lose sight of this fact, Children would eventually become a static nexus of words, definitions, images, symbols, and narratives - and any child which didn’t perfectly conform to those expectations would be discarded. That is to say, all children would be discarded (and eventually also the concept of Children, if anybody was still around to conceive it).
By contrast, attending to specifics enriches generics. For example, attending to the peculiarities of specific children may reveal characteristics previously hidden in the generic Child - a certain stubbornness, strong moral convictions, an ontology which is inclusive of the imaginal, resilience to falling over, a tendency to catch a cold, and so forth. This leads to my next point…
The desire to see something grow is agape - the highest form of love. Only by valuing specific children higher than the generic Child can we allow the generic Child to truly grow. By valuing the specific above the generic, we are loving the generic to the utmost. So in reality it’s not one verses the other, but a misunderstanding of precedence.
Are there any generics which should be valued above specifics? Consider the generic Generic. The generic Generic is what affords us the capacity to conceptually differentiate generics (eg. the concept of Children) from specifics (eg. the concept of a specific child). This differentiation is what gives meaning to the concept “everyone should value specifics more than generics”. Therefore one could make the case that the Generic is more valuable than any specific (although I’m not sure if I would want to make that case or not). The Generic might actually be considered an aspect of God, but I don’t know enough theology to say any more on the matter.
Finally, I suspect Biden is right to pardon his son because it demonstrates valuation of a specific above a generic - and it also does this publicly. His role as a president is to value the generic American, but his role as a father is to value a specific human being, and - as I’ve tried to make the case - it’s this latter act which ultimately gives the former meaning.
That’s quite a jumble of thoughts - curious if they resonate with anyone.
Yeah I like that
I "think" I will not kill anybody tonprolong my child's life. I, of course, wish I never find out if this image of myself is accurate. However, if I had to spend money that could save a thousand strangers children to save my own child, I would definitely do it. Heck, I would spend the money that can save a million children just on my own, if it can save her.
Surely it was because the graduate students probably didn't have children, that they took the sterner line. They did have mothers and fathers but maybe the child-parent relationship is asymetrical.
PS my children are adopted so no genes in play, but I would 100% pardon them (as I already have done many times!).
1. I made some"mana"-points on manifold today, as I took bets: Will Joe pardon Hunter - and I bet: yes, he will. When this was given a likelihood of ca. 20% even after the election (so nothing to lose for ol' Joe)! So, yeah, people seemed confused. Turned out, they were.
2. I am a foreigner, my only relevant info was that blogs mentioned, Joe loves his son. I can imagine not loving a son, who went bad - but if I did love him, sure I would do as Joe did. The only bad thing is, that Joe lied about not to use the pardon. But then, he is a politician, right?
3. That is why for us European this US-system of "pardoning" seems so strangely monarchistic and archaic. Law rulez. Kick out that option - or make it much less direct.
4. I assume, those hyper-correct students just lied. To you, to the audience and possibly to themselves.
5. The blood of my child is no more red than the blood of others (Jewish teaching), but would I press the button "get a new heart for my kid" knowing it would 'kill some other kid somewhere', but no one would ever know? Yes, I would. Would I have Steven Pinker, Tyler Cowen or Scott Alexander killed to make me/my family live much longer? No, I would not. (Pinker and Cowen are older and have no kids ... and they mostly did their thing ... so I am tempted in their case... . Any archbishop worth saving would refuse to be saved prior to others. As would Scott, I am afraid.)
A few thoughts:
1. It's possible to love people.
2. The love we have for one person is likely not the same (quantitatively or qualitatively) as the love we have for another person.
3. It is usually easier to SHOW love to someone near than to someone far.
4. We lack the capacity to show more than superficial love to large numbers of people or to people who are distant from us.
5. Loving my children (which I do) is compatible with loving other children (which I do), though will normally look very different.
6. I am responsible for my own children (and others near to me) in ways I am not responsible for others.
7. I am also responsible TO my children - and to others.
8. As a Christian, I take myself to be responsible to God. Part of my responsibility to God entails love and responsibility for (and to) others.