I see, here: https://youtu.be/K92rOsjyLBs?t=847Volenta wrote:But don't take my word for it, watch the first video you linked, he himself is stating he's a centrist. He also states that the word 'liberal' has got another meaning in U.S. than what it traditionally meant (and Europe still holds by the way). I used the word 'liberal' in this discussion in the U.S. way (meaning 'left'), although I'm fully aware of the hijack and use 'liberal' in my own (European) country in the traditional way.
I think he's saying he doesn't call himself a liberal anymore due to confusion, but still considers himself a liberal in the traditional sense of personal liberty. From the context of his other mentions of politics, it seems like he strongly disagrees with conservative illiberal social values.
Sounds a lot like a vegan who won't call his or herself a vegan because he or she doesn't want to be associated with how the word is being hijacked by pseudoscience, as a diet fad, or by extremists who break the law, commit arson, etc.
Sort of like Harris said he would 'check all of the boxes' except when it comes to the issues around Islamism and dealing with the Middle East.
It looks like he's drawing a distinction between the illiberal left and the liberal left.
Since Haidt says he's always voted Democrat, and doesn't see that changing this time either, it's very hard to regard him as a centrist.
His main criticism of Clinton is her supporting the idea of a rape culture on campuses and that she may tighten down restrictions on speech: his dislike for Trump seems to be a lot broader than that despite nominal agreement on the points about political correctness.
I don't think he's quite a socialist, so he's not on the far left like Sanders (he has serious problems with communism and the extreme left).
I can't really see the justification to the claim to centrism, though.
I think it's more of looking at the balance of his views. Placing somebody on a two dimensional political spectrum is of course more useful than any binary and muddled term like "liberal".Volenta wrote:He's liberal on many issues, yes, but it would be cherry picking to therefore conclude he's a liberal.
Is he socially liberal? It seems very much so: he's close to a libertarian to the extent he wants personal freedom, and particularly freedom of speech and belief. He doesn't seem to agree with any socially conservative or illiberal ideas.
Is he fiscally liberal? Yes, but maybe not as much so. He has a positive regard for capitalism and competition, but he does believe in fiscal regulation, and he does believe in graduated tax structures and social programs. He may be closer to centrist in that respect now, but the way he talks about education and social policies sounds very liberal.
I really think he was appealing to the utility of compromise, and the dangers of extremism (as seen in the illiberal left, as he calls it, as opposed to the liberal left) when we lock out opposing ideas. He thinks we need friendly opposition in order to keep ourselves in check: that liberals need conservatives to keep from running off the rails.Volenta wrote:I don't think it's unreasonable to say he's a centrist when advocating liberals have impoverished moral sensibilities, and should therefore compromise with conservatists (who have a stronger sense of them).
In no way is he actually advocating socially conservative beliefs like banning abortion or gay marriage, or war mongering, or being 'tough on crime'.
At least, that was my interpretation,
You can respect something without agreeing with it. You can see that the existence of the idea and opposition argument has value.Volenta wrote:What does 'respect' imply, if not at least thinking they are of importance.
Like criminal defense for a guilty defendant.
I don't think that's what he wants. He believes that if there's more understanding and respect, that the right ideas will ultimately win because it will be possible for the conservatives to come around on these issues and understand why they are wrong.Volenta wrote:I think he's just wrong on this point, which is a regressive position to hold. Just think about what it would imply: accepting more abortion restrictions, holding down on environmental regulations, is that really what we want?
I don't see the contradiction here. He doesn't seem to believe that conservative values are valuable in and of themselves, but that some of them, in moderation, have good outcomes and that we need to examine their utility from an evolutionary perspective so we don't throw the baby out with the bath water. There may be some value in some of them, one of his examples being some cases of group identity which improve connection without creating more hate for outsiders. He's not assuming conservatives are correct in the way or degree they express these values, but they have evolutionary links to people's behavior and that they can be understood and used to better ends.Volenta wrote:He is still an regular utilitarian by the way. He's quite contradictory in that sense. On the one hand he argues that the liberals and utilitarians have bad moral taste by having such limited values, which he thinks originates from the enlightenment period, especially from the autistic (which without doubt had effect on his philosophy) philosopher Jeremy Bentham. But then to the question 'what should we do?', he concludes that he has no better alternative than utilitarianism (given that there is ethnic and cultural diversity in society and we have to have some common currency).
I think he believes liberals are the ones more capable of the work -- which is done in understanding.Volenta wrote:But the point is, that he thinks liberals are the ones who really have work to do because of their moral insensitivities. I don't think it's unfair to focus on this aspect more, since he's mostly talking about this as well.
In order for conservatives to come to understand liberals, they'd have to understand why their values are not valuable, which he sees as a near impossibility based on his research.
It seems to be easier to empathize with a value another person has that you don't agree with than to imagine a value you have is not valuable.
Sure, but if you attribute some degree of his work to his political views, you may be misunderstanding his argument (or I may be).Volenta wrote:I'm less interested in his personal political views as I am in his professional work, which have ethical and political implications.
I think when we look at, for example, the dismissal of Harris' argument that torture would be preferable to human collateral damage by using personal attacks and slandering him rather than addressing the argument, that probably qualifies.Volenta wrote:I think Sam Harris is guilty of this (his fan base even more) as well. The original usage of Maajid Nawaz to describe people dismissing minority views within minorities was appropriate (although I haven't actually come across people from the left actually holding this believe).
I don't always agree with him, but few people are more misunderstood or personally attacked rather than having their arguments addressed.
I think a problem with a large swath of the social "sciences" is that they are anti-scientific. Some of these fields, and as they are practiced, are comparable only to theology in the academics, and I think there is an objective metric by which we can decide that they have no real value and in the very least should not be publicly funded or encouraged (these should not be permitted at public universities any more than a class advocating a particular religion would be). Some of these classes and departments should be treated no differently from a department of radical Islamism, or a department of conspiracy theories.Volenta wrote:I think these are legitimate concerns to have (weird things going on in the U.S.). But to balance the view a bit since it's a popular one these days, I also think some popular YouTubers are going too far in their criticism by attacking social science at large and wanting universities to ban (read: censor) certain studies they don't like.
Banning these things -- if they can pass an objective test of having no scientific merit -- would be good. The only question would be the institution doing the banning and its susceptibility to corruption and bias: for me, that's the unanswerable one right now.
Some ideas are just bad, epistemologically, but it's very difficult to police bad ideas without risking the good ones too, or eliminating disagreement (I don't think rationalism is as impossible as Haidt does, since the hard [real] sciences work very well without any significant contingent of complete lunatics, but it's not easy).
I think he was just speaking to liberals because he doesn't think conservatives can do much in terms of understanding, so it came off very one-sided against liberals and made him look conservative or regressive on some points -- I don't think he actually is.Volenta wrote:I hadn't yet seen his reflections on the book, thanks. It's good that he realizes this was valid criticism against his book. I still disagree with his normative ethical view, but it's great he's aware of this point.
I agree, and I think there's a good argument that he may have over-corrected on some points and became skeptical of his own views and preferences.Volenta wrote:It's the compromising aspect I don't agree with (I believe he doesn't state this in this interview though). Middle ground isn't always (many of not most times not) the best option.
But is he really just advocating compromise, or is he advocating a battle of ideas with a greater degree of mutual understanding so there can be more movement on these issues?
Not all things that look like compromise mean not getting what one wants; sometime compromising is in effect a slight change in opinion. The modern hate of "flip flopping" is a strong force against being reasonable today.