Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

yurp

The State Of Play

Recommended Posts

It seems to be a rule here that we end long posts with a joke, so perhaps now is a good time to point out that some of us don't poo in our pants (any more) because it gets a bit messy and you end up smelling of Sh#t all day. I tried it in primary school and it wasn't for me. That said, if flushing the toilet less would save on my water bills, and if I could get away with it, I'd Sh#t all day long in George's pants.

Well, I suppose it's a dirty job but someone's got to do it. Actually I'm just impressed that you can Sh#t all day long, I mean I already knew you could talk Sh#t all day long, but I think you need to change your diet or something :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say if the police took a day off, I don't think most people who have been conditioned in this society would (or could) suddenly start going out and murdering other people. I think it would take quite a while for people to get back to those caveman instincts. However, stealing is another matter. Stealing provides a clear benefit (and even more importantly, is easier to justify your actions, e.g. "it's all insured; they don't need it" etc), and if most people could do it, I'm pretty sure they would (at least, from a "show of hands" exercise I once saw, most people would steal clothes from a shop if they could, etc.

ah - but you miss the point of the question. to take you example - why would we even have to justify stealing to ourselves as 'not that bad'?

actually - you go on to answr this from your point of view below so...

Well, I think we (well, 99% of people) are born as "blank slates", and morals are socially constructed through norms and values of society; people's morals change as society changes. As children we are socialised into certain patterns and traits by our families and other, secondary influences such as school, e.g. we are taught about sharing and cooperating with others at school. That is where morality first comes from, I don't believe it is innate (even if potentially some people are born with the capacity to do great good whereas others are the opposite). Then, as people get older, it comes from ideas like religion, in the form of the 10 Commandments, or whatever else you choose to believe in. Eventually, once you have been socialised enough, your moral stature probably becomes set in concrete (hence my answer above why people wouldn't start murdering, it would take a long time without socialisation for cracks to appear in the concrete).

interesting idea - so essentially its all nurture. but then that would remove a lot of the argument for the morality that's played a part in our evolution, which I would think should be inate. not that I'm disagreeing, just interested as to how you might bring that into your theory.

...and many stay there.... :D

:naughty:

Oh no, please, let's not start talking about Piquet again!

:clap3:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pity there are almost too many issues to reply to now. :(

Yep - these discussions tend to take too many diverging tangents

She was before my time but I don't think Thatcher really wanted people to be more selfish, and I certainly don't. The way I see it, she was realistic about what motivates people and wanted to set up a system that got the best out of people - and in that I agree with her. If everyone is only allowed to work for the greater good, unfortunately very little work will ever get done. Bust ecoenomies are good for no on, rich or poor.

As well as seeing it as a motivational force, the Right usually couples individualism with other, related ideas such as personal duty, patriotism and individual responsibility for being a good person. I recently heard one of Thatcher's protégé's (Michael Portillo) saying how disappointed he was with how selfish people have turned out to be. Back in the '80s, according to him, the Thatcherites believed that if you appeal to individual responsibility in all areas of life, people will respond by taking care of their own community voluntarily (rather than through taxation). They might even argue that State intervention serves in some ways as an excuse for people to abdicate personal responsibility for those around them.

Since Thatcher was somewhat before your time, I'll forgive you for not knowing what a complete and utter bitch she was and how she ground the country down by cutting off all kinds of funding to worthwhile government bodies (NHS, Education, Public transport, Utilities etc etc) in order to cut taxes (for the rich) whilst concurrently introducing the Poll Tax (aimed soley at obtaining lower taxes for the wealthy and higher ones for the poor) and then ended her time in office by selling off (privatising) all of the national institutions which she had so fantastically wrecked (public transport systems, public utilities etc etc) and making sure that her cronies got board seats on the companies set up to run those (formerly profitable) public bodies into the ground whilst demanding further money from the government to do so which inevitably went into their own ****ing pockets - not to mention the Faulklands war.

*pauses for breath*

But I'll forgive you for not knowing any of that. Incidently - I remember when the trains ran on time, turned a profit and weren;t completely over crowded. I remember whenb the NHS wasn't starved of desperately needed funds. I remember when every child got free milk in schools in order that they grew up healthily - I remember all sorts great and wonderful things pre-thatcherism.;)

It has indeed been interesting. Just to reply to a few particular points, as you probably know I do science research for a 'living' and you'd be surprised what they/we are like. Quite a few of my friends have had their experiments sabotaged and even I have had the odd idea stolen by my 'colleagues'. Many people, like myself, keep their ideas to themselves until they have a chance to publish, and hence own, their discoveries. It's supposed to be the free, open and objective pursuit of knowledge but, because human beings are involved, it doesn't really turn out that way.

The fact that scientists have dodgy political views is no surprise to me! Imho a science training is not always a good one for forming sensible opinions. And of course there are many other biases in such data but that is another (fun) issue...

Interesting - what manner of scientific research are you in? My 3 friends who are all researchers are all based in the medicinal field and don't work for multi-national pharma companies - (cancer research, gene splicing and one other (forget right now)) - they seem to tell a different story, but I guess neiother of us should be generalising too much. I take what you say on board.

One more thing: I think almost all of us will have ancestors who were guilty of the sins I mentioned. My impression is that a great many people in my grandparents' generation were quite homophobic, sexist, colonialist etc.

Fair enough, but if you want to say that, then let me ask you if those traits defined their character as people. Would people say 'That's Bill the homophobic' or 'That's Bill the teacher'? What I mean - going back to this - is that those traits are again the exception rather than the rule. They didn't spend more than 50% of their time being b#####ds in one way or another did they.

moving on

OK, we can move on from this issue if everyone wants to. Just to summarise the way I see things: perhaps our definitions of selfishness are different. You think not committing murder makes us selfless, whereas I take it to mean we're not utterly ruthlessly selfish, or 'psychotic', as Steph puts it. Selflessness in my view would be something like: if you were tihe millionare above, would you voluntarily give most of your money away to people who actually needed it? Most rich people don't - just ask the Africans I keep bringing up.

nope - I think that taking money makes us selfish.

but I agree that we have different concepts here - perhaps we should agree that there is not just selfish and selfless, but quite a big grey area in between. i.e. not being selfish does not necessarily mean being selfless and visa versa.

Yes I agree that most people would steal if they could. In fact, I've seen plenty of surveys that show that most people actually have stolen, albeit usually small things like shoplifting sweets or stationary from work etc. A scary thought is to consider a recent surveyfrom South Africa that showed that a quarter of all men (in the large and apparently representative areas surveyed) admit (anonymously) to being rapists.

Yep - I saw that report on BBC too. Again, I would say that (i) 1/4 is not over 50% (terrible though it might be), (ii) they weren't out a raping all day (only 25% said twice or more times), (iii) therefore is exception not rule, (iv) made press precisely because it isn't standard behaviour - You know this argument by now. I think those men probably spend more time being nice than raping women - that's not to excuse abhorent behaviour - just to point out it's not the normal.

It seems to be a rule here that we end long posts with a joke, so perhaps now is a good time to point out that some of us don't poo in our pants (any more) because it gets a bit messy and you end up smelling of Sh#t all day. I tried it in primary school and it wasn't for me. That said, if flushing the toilet less would save on my water bills, and if I could get away with it, I'd Sh#t all day long in George's pants.

Jokes are good - maintains the levity - did I use this one before?...

Woman with baby walks onto bus.

Bus driver says, '**** me, that's the ugliest ****ing baby I've ever seen!'

Woman storms to back of bus, obviously p**sed off and sits down next to man.

Man says, 'What's the matter love, you look upset?'

Woman says, 'That bus driver just said something really rude to me!'

Man says, 'That's terrible love. Here - you go and give him a piece of your mind, you give him what for, stand your ground, I'll hold your monkey for you.'

boom tish.

EDIT - my typing's no good at this time in the morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidently - I remember when the trains ran on time, turned a profit and weren;t completely over crowded. I remember whenb the NHS wasn't starved of desperately needed funds. I remember when every child got free milk in schools in order that they grew up healthily - I remember all sorts great and wonderful things pre-thatcherism.;)

and the Mars Bars were bigger - don't forget the Mars bars :)

The school milk was always warm, you had 6 months waiting lists for operations and the trains most definitely did not run on time! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and the Mars Bars were bigger - don't forget the Mars bars :)

The school milk was always warm, you had 6 months waiting lists for operations and the trains most definitely did not run on time! :)

Our's was pleasantly cool - if a little icey in winter.

You had to wait far less time for a bed than you do today - don't believe the myths that gov bodies spread - 'Waiting times at all time low' - nonsense - check what figures they're including and which they're leaving out. Basically what is happening is that NHS hospital directors are given targets to hit by Gov. How do they hit them - by prioritizing routine operations and delaying more expensive, difficult and lengthy ones.

It's like when Thatcher stopped counting homeless in the jobless figures and touted "Unemployment at all time low!" - no, homelessness at all time ****ing high.

I always remember the trains turning up when they were supposed to - is that my fuzzy memory again?

oh yes - and the Mars Bars - won't someone please think of the Mars Bars.

after a quick hunt on the interwebs...

okay - from a wikipedia articlediscribing exactly what a pig's ear was made when privatising the railsystem. Read more for a full outline of what a complete **** up it was.Read also who benefitted most from it - ex-Tory MP's situated on boardsof private companies. Now I know this is wikipedia, but I remember thenewspaper coverage of the time too - so I know it's well founded info.Would have prefered to give more actual figures - but can't be arsed togoogle for them - sure they're in there somewhere.

While BR received less financialsupport than in most European countries from the government, it wasable to maintain the network to a reasonable standard.

Basically Thatcher cut as much funding to British Rail as possible in the run up to privatisation so that she could cut taxes and get votes - same old story. I should apologise, it was actually Major who eventually privatised the rail network, but he was basically following Thatcher's lead with public utilities. They sold off the country's assets in order to cut taxes in the short term. Once they had stolen everything of worth and placed it into private companies in which they had stakes, they ****ed off to live it up off the hard work of the several generations that came before them.

The privatised railway has notshown the improvement in punctuality and reliability that was hopedfor. The contracts in place between companies were intended toincentivise improvements in these areas, but with the large increase inthe number of trains run while using more or less the same amount ofrolling stock and track, there has been less room for manoeuvre whenproblems occur, with consequent impacts on punctuality. This was alsocompounded by post-Hatfield disruption.

And it goes on...

In 1994, the total government support received by BR was £1,627m,[9] (£2,168m in 2005 terms, adjusted by RPI[10]), while in 2005, government support from all sources totalled £4,593m.[9], despite a lack of any particular increase in government investment in improving infrastructure.

where does a large proportion of that 4,593million go? Rail company director's pockets!

In all, thesubsidy to the railway from the Government is considerably larger nowthan it was for BR.
One the benefits promoted for privatisation is that it would removerailways from short-term political control which damaged an industrylike the railways, which had long-term investment requirements. Thishas not happened and, with the latest changes that have been made tothe railway structure, the industry is more under government controlthan ever before.

So basically British Rail was killed and ripped apart for the benefit of those people entrusted with running our country. Everyone else suffers while they take private jets from Birmingham to London. Privatisation was one small element of Thatcherite philosophy, but an exceedingly typical one. That is how the country was run pillaged by that greedy bitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ah - but you miss the point of the question. to take you example - why would we even have to justify stealing to ourselves as 'not that bad'?

actually - you go on to answr this from your point of view below so...

interesting idea - so essentially its all nurture. but then that would remove a lot of the argument for the morality that's played a part in our evolution, which I would think should be inate. not that I'm disagreeing, just interested as to how you might bring that into your theory.

:naughty:

:clap3:

I must say, I have no bollocking idea how I'd bring that into my theory! At least at the moment I don't, 'cos I have a haddock [headache].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read this article and thought it adds something to our discussion.

It unifies Max's and my differing viewpoints quite well.

...according to Levitt and Dubner ... "peoplerespond to incentives". Fundamentally, we're self-interested. Thisdoesn't necessarily mean that we're always greedy and selfish: ourself-interest can include a desire for the warm glow of acting in amoral or charitable way. But people, they write, "aren't 'good' or'bad'. People are people, and they respond to incentives. They cannearly always be manipulated – for good or ill – if only you find theright levers." Or, as Levitt puts it: "You could put Mother Teresa in asituation where she might not act altruistically, and you could putCharles Manson in a situation where he might act altruistically."

So self interest allows for greed and generosity depending upon circumstance - I would agree with this. I hold that the political/socio-economic climate sets the boundaries of our circumstances and therefore dictates the ammount of greed vs generosity - ergo my original idea that politics of the last 30 years have led to a disintegration in moral values.

I do think though, that I was being far too cut and dry in my explanation and hadn't allowed for the nuance that exists in Levitt and Dubner's less emotive argument.

I recommend reading the entire article for context - it's an intriguing interview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moan, moan - bitch, bitch - whinge, whinge - we love it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moan, moan - bitch, bitch - whinge, whinge - we love it!

a random and bizarre (to put it nicely) comment - well done you. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read this article and thought it adds something to our discussion.

It unifies Max's and my differing viewpoints quite well.

So self interest allows for greed and generosity depending upon circumstance - I would agree with this. I hold that the political/socio-economic climate sets the boundaries of our circumstances and therefore dictates the ammount of greed vs generosity - ergo my original idea that politics of the last 30 years have led to a disintegration in moral values.

I do think though, that I was being far too cut and dry in my explanation and hadn't allowed for the nuance that exists in Levitt and Dubner's less emotive argument.

I recommend reading the entire article for context - it's an intriguing interview.

Hi Adam. I only noticed you'd replied last night! Looking back, I think we were partly using the same words to mean different things. Morality for me is to do with the intentions behind actions, whereas for you I think it's more to do with outcomes and actual behaviour.

For example, I don't think you can change someone's moral character by incentives of the kind Levitt and Dubner seem to be suggesting, though I agree you can change someone's behaviour for the better. If someone does a good thing purely because it's in their own interest, then to me they are no more moral than if they had done a selfish thing, which imho they have anyway. Your view of course is that their behaviour has become more moral. It's a different way to use the word, I think.

Levitt and Dubner give an interesting take on all this, I agree. It seems their view is the, presumably, traditional one of economists that people are rational agents, by which I think they mean people act in cold-hearted self-interest, and therefore need to be incentivised to do the right thing. This is certainly what I think too, and it's the point of governance of all kinds, in politics or sport for example.

Max's Jean's job is to come up with a set of regulations that create incentives for the teams to produce a good show. In other words, it must be in the teams' own selfish interests to design cars that allow good overtaking and are relatively equal. Of course, this is an exceptionally difficult ask and the reason that I pin most of the blame for F1's failings on the teams.

This idea of incentives is also a big dividing line between right and left in politics, it seems to me. The left is often big into collectivism and the right, individualism. The attraction of individualism is that that is really what motivates most people and better reflects the way we are most of the time. Those on the right feel that by making people more empowered in, and responsible for, their own lives, you incentivise them in positive ways. But of course it would be a sorry world without people being forced to care for their fellow man as well, so it's a question of balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw Levitt and Dubner irritate me in other ways. They try to be radical and politically incorrect, but only in cheap ways. And I think they will only reinforce the more artsy members' view that anything with numbers in it is suspicious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Hi Adam. I only noticed you'd replied last night! Looking back, I think we were partly using the same words to mean different things. Morality for me is to do with the intentions behind actions, whereas for you I think it's more to do with outcomes and actual behaviour.

2) For example, I don't think you can change someone's moral character by incentives of the kind Levitt and Dubner seem to be suggesting, though I agree you can change someone's behaviour for the better. If someone does a good thing purely because it's in their own interest, then to me they are no more moral than if they had done a selfish thing, which imho they have anyway. Your view of course is that their behaviour has become more moral. It's a different way to use the word, I think.

3) Levitt and Dubner give an interesting take on all this, I agree. It seems their view is the, presumably, traditional one of economists that people are rational agents, by which I think they mean people act in cold-hearted self-interest, and therefore need to be incentivised to do the right thing. This is certainly what I think too, and it's the point of governance of all kinds, in politics or sport for example.

4) Max's Jean's job is to come up with a set of regulations that create incentives for the teams to produce a good show. In other words, it must be in the teams' own selfish interests to design cars that allow good overtaking and are relatively equal. Of course, this is an exceptionally difficult ask and the reason that I pin most of the blame for F1's failings on the teams.

5) This idea of incentives is also a big dividing line between right and left in politics, it seems to me. The left is often big into collectivism and the right, individualism. The attraction of individualism is that that is really what motivates most people and better reflects the way we are most of the time. Those on the right feel that by making people more empowered in, and responsible for, their own lives, you incentivise them in positive ways. But of course it would be a sorry world without people being forced to care for their fellow man as well, so it's a question of balance.

interesting post - I'll take each paragrpah above one at a time...

1&2...

Actually I agree that morality is about intentions - not consequences. but what I also think is that no one actually walks around think 'I'm going to do something bad'. Insead, they justify it. The fact that they require that justification makes them, in essence good (if not a little / a lot self deluded). Take Stalin - I don't think that he thought he was bad or evil as we may label him. He most likely thought he was doing his country and its people a favor. Same goes for any crazy (right or left wing) through history.

3&4

Although I think it sad that people need incentives to be good to each other and rules to play fair in sports, I do see your point and I do agree. Especially when the potential gains are huge (i.e. in F1, or in a big bonus if you steel your co-worker's ideas) - the justification to cheat becomes easier. For instance if someone suggested I steel a baby's rusk, I'd easily say no. If someone suggested I steel the baby's untold millions, I might have to think about it.

5

When we consider the incentives needed to encorage good behaviour, I think the balance that you talk of comes from understanding the incentives to act badly that currently exist. Also - we should be careful not to mix the two up. Some people would say the pursuit of money incentivises people to act creatively, to work hard, to improve their lives and in so doing improve the country / world and lives of others. Other people would say that money brings out the worst kinds of justifications and ergo the worst kinds of selfishness. So what incentives should government put in place to counteract the bad and encourage the good. I think the left and right in politics are both muddleheaded in this regard for 2 reasons...

A - they both follow an idiology instead of logic. An idiology demands that all the chaotic interactions of society fit neatly into a pattern that they think disernable. Not only is this egotistical, but also false. As society changes, so any idiology must, and let's face it, their idiologies have remained static for a while now. Equally, I would liken a political idiology to an imprecise physics formula. Take F=ma. We know it's not perfect at the quantum level (and we take this inaccuracy into account), but we use it because it's generally good enough when talking about a wide range of forces, masses and accelerations. Political idiologies are also flawed, the problem is that inherent in any idiology is the refusal to admit to where it fails.

B - even if idiologies weren't flawed, political parties don't gain power through following idiological ends, but by following political ends. Just as socialists will point out that there has never been a truly communist state, so even Thatcher, never ran a totally 'conservative' Britain either. Politicians are very good at justifications and always justify taking a tangent from their idiology when it comes to gaining political traction.

I am warmed by the fact that people still need to justify moral bankruptcy to themselves and others before they commit said naughtiness - to me, that proves that we are, in essence, moral beings. When we loose that need to justify immoral actions - we're ****ed.

On the other hand, I think the justifications are getting dissapointingly easier and more numerous as time goes on - That makes me worry.

PS - I agree that Levitt and Dubner are annoying - I find them slightly smug. However, what they're saying shouldn't be judged on who's saying it, but rather on the content of the data. I also think that anyone with a decent understanding of statistics won't take their views as a shot accross the bow of 'numbers', but rather more an added layer of analysis which should be accounted for. In actual fact, I'm a great fan of hard facts and figures. I'm also highly suspicious of the way that people present them. I always go into the sources for stats, because I know, someone has framed a question in a certain way to get the answer they want, or dropped certain figures from the calculations to make things look good (a la, Thatcher removing homeless figures when counting the unemployed, thus making it look like more people were in work than under the previous gov). We have to be careful with stats - if they are used properly (as in good science), they are of great import, when used to one person's ends (as in politics) - they will twist and trick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...