Social Capital vs. Social Justice

It’s that time again: on this weekend Ruminant, Jonah finds himself dealing with more 2016 ...

By

It’s that time again: on this weekend Ruminant, Jonah finds himself dealing with more 2016 déjà vu, as once again the public conversation turns towards the “binary choice” between two men who have been accused of sexual assault. How did we get to a point where our standards stooped so low? Jonah has a few ideas about that, and they have to do with the cop-outs of the intellectual class and the erosion of social capital.


Show Notes:

–Linda Hirshman’s NYT op-ed

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (27)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    John Bowling

    I've been thinking about an argument that's somewhat similar to Hirshman's, from what you've described, but that (I think) avoids all the criticisms you've offered against her's. Instead of taking David Hume for its inspiration, this one takes William James, in his essay The Will to Believe. (It may sound ridiculous, prima facie, to say an argument inspired by James avoids your criticisms... but hear me out.)

    A brief sketch of the argument would look like this:

    1. When faced with genuine options, it's morally permissible to choose the genuine option that is the lesser-evil (or the greater good).

    2. The 2020 election presents American voters with genuine options of voting for Donald Trump or voting for Joe Biden.

    3. Either Joe Biden is better than Trump or Trump is better than Joe Biden.

    4. [Negation of one of the disjuncts in 3]

    5. It is morally permissible for American voters to vote for [Trump/Biden] in 2020.
    -----

    Now maybe it's impolite to leave too long a comment, but knowing how contentious this issue is, I would like to show how I think this argument can be defended against various objections. Specifically, I think it can be defended against the following objection: equivocation with James, Flight-93 mindset, utilitarianism/pragmatism, and false binary.

    To not be overly long, I'll simply give my responses to the first two objections here and anyone who wants to push the other objections (or more) can do so in reply.

    1. Equivocation. My use of "genuine option" in the argument doesn't fit with how James defines a "genuine option."

    My first response would be that it's okay if there isn't a 1-to-1 correlation between the terms, the concepts are similar enough such that, if James's idea is legitimate then this idea should be legitimate too.

    My second response would be that I think my argument does actually rely upon James's use of the terms (the three criterion) of what constitutes a genuine option. But I'm applying the concept to a different issue that requires analyzing them at a different level.

    To demonstrate this I would need to go through each criterion (live, forced, momentous) and explain James's use and my own. I won't bother fleshing all of that out here, but I'll give an example of how I would go about that when dealing with the next objection (would also apply to the false binary objection).

    2. Flight-93 objections. Since one of James's criterion of a genuine option is that it be momentous, isn't my argument just open to your criticisms of the Flight-93 mindset?

    No, because James doesn't define "momentous" so narrowly that it only includes deciding our eternal destiny or deciding among potentially society-ending alternatives. When James is explaining what he takes to be a "momentous" option, he chooses an expedition to the North Pole as his illustration - obviously not a matter of one's eternal destiny or a Flight-93 level of event.

    His definition of "momentous" is in contrast to the trivial: "the option is trivial when the opportunity is not unique, when the stake is insignificant, or when the decision is reversible if it later prove unwise." On this definition, all that the "momentous" criterion requires is that, say, you believe the 2020 election is sufficiently significant - though it could probably be shown to be relevantly unique and irreversible too.

    So my argument doesn't require a Flight-93 mindset for it to work.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Marian Cates

    Enjoyed the podcast. Tweeted it.

    Collapse
  3. Julia

    It would be great to do a 1619 Project podcast, with either one of its creators or its detractors.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    The Bell Tower

    This was a brilliant podast. It made me think of something that I'm sure nobody cares about. Jonah's point about government assuming powers in times of crisis traces at least as far back as the Roman fasces. Cincinnatus is the most famous apocryphal example of this and it was the tradition George Washington was keeping both when founding the Society of the Cincinnati and also when stepping down from the presidency after the second term. The Romans would grant all power to a single "dictator" in times of crisis to save the city with the recognition that the fasces (symbol of magistral power) would be returned to the people upon the elimination of the threat. We are arguably in such a crisis right now.

    Conservatism in America stand for diffusing power across the largest number of institutions possible to reduce the impact that arbitrary decisions can have on the lives of individuals. This makes us inefficient most of the time (thank goodness) because action requires consensus. When times of crisis arise, government must have the power to safeguard the people even at the expense of liberty, so long as those powers are temporary. While I agree with most of the lockdowns and the reasons behind them (so far), it is fair for Americans to wonder whether the current clown car of leadership in this country will be comfortable with returning the fasces to the people when it's all over. If they are not, I will quote another Roman favorite: Sic semper tyrannis.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Mark Wm L

    Regarding your closing comments on Mother's Day being a Hallmark established holiday: Mother's Day was established as a national holiday in 1914 (by your favorite president). According to Hallmark's website, it did not begin creating Mother's Day cards until the 1920's. Also, a bit of local pride, the first efforts to have a Mother's Day holiday were initiated in my home state of Kentucky. Link to Hallmark's website on Mother's Day: https://corporate.hallmark.com/holidays-occasions/mothers-day/ About the Kentucky connection: https://kyforky.com/blogs/journal/mothers-day-invented-in-kentucky?fbclid=IwAR2MX0cbRmas8pdtPu8TyNQdfMHqPxEt88c23QMy_klkv2_gdfOs_uFk40M

    Collapse
    1. Photo of Jonah Goldbergcircle-angle-nib
      Jonah Goldberg vertical-nib Author

      Fascinating! This. Changes. Everything.

      Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Bill McDavitt

    Back in 1945, Charlie Parker belted out on his saxophone an extraordinary piece titled KoKo. Stunning and impressive as it was, it is not one of jazz's better known pieces. On a spring day in 2020, the day after a live Zoom call with Sarah, David and Steve, Jonah got out his microphone and recorded Social Capital vs Social Justice. Stunning and impressive as it was, sadly, I suspect it will not be one of conservatism's better known pieces. Regardless, I will share this podcast with my left of center friends hoping that there is some persuasive value to Jonah's words. I want to express my gratitude for Jonah taking the time to record this. Yes, I suppose it is his job, but he did look a bit out of sorts on the Zoom call; I will go out on a bit of limb and assume that Jonah might not have been as motivated to record this podcast as he has been for other podcasts. One can perhaps reasonably assume that he's had a rough few days under lockdown and nobody, not even Michael Jordan as we saw in The Last Dance, can have perfect days everyday. I've already listened to this piece twice and I suspect I will listen to this one again in the future. It's a classic in my book. Best wishes to Jonah and the Goldberg family. With gratitude.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Lawrence Jones

    Enjoy the excursions into political philosophy. Thanks Jonah

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Bill

    Hmm... at 18:45 I swear I heard JG come pretty close to "you didn't build that" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GjqdP6KSOE)."

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Jonathan Nebel

    I am really enjoying these free-flowing podcasts from Jonah. And, I look forward to reading Benda's book!

    Collapse
    1. Photo of Jonah Goldbergcircle-angle-nib
      Jonah Goldberg vertical-nib Author

      Thanks. They still feel really, really, weird to me. And I am not being falsely modest when I say I'm stunned people seem to like them. As for Benda, it's not a hard read. But some people get caught up on not catching all the references to stuff "the news" at the time. You can dive down rabbit holes trying to figure out some of it, or you can just charge ahead.

      Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Jay Graham

    Ethics are for easy climbs.

    I was into rock climbing in my youth, and whenever me or my friends got into a situation where we couldn't solve a climbing problem and had to resort to some form of "cheating" (e.g., by using our knees, or hoisting ourselves with the rope, or using a mini jetpack) we would signal our capitulation by saying "ethics are for easy climbs".

    Deploying any form of raw power to solve a climbing problem always looked ugly and never felt good, especially in hindsight. But nevertheless the temptation was always strong and of course we had an abundance of understanding and forgiveness to give each other when the temptation got the best of us because, holy s#!t, climbing is difficult.

    Not sure how we get (back?) to a place we're we acknowledge the difficulty of a problem without compromising the means we employ to solve the problem.

    Collapse
Load More