White privilege is what happens when the liberal mind must engage in racism. By the 1980s, it was becoming obvious that racism was not very prevalent amongst whites. Demonstrations for racial unity and other such things were predominantly white and the necessity of such things was beginning to be drawn into question. Was America truly close to ending racism?
But this obviously couldn't be. Blacks are statistically engaged in more crime. They make up a disproportionate percentage of the prison population. Something must be going on.
Reflect back to liberal and conservative visions. Under liberal visions, we are all born into relatively fixed positions. We are born as equally as we live. Since we are, also, not in control of our own being - if we are born equal, this means we are equal as adults as our development should be equal across all individuals. IE - you and I are not just born with equal opportunity, we are born with equal outcomes unless an outside institution acts upon us.
So, if blacks and whites are born to become equal adults - then the fact that more blacks are incarcerated must mean that society is somehow acting upon them to create this problem for blacks, as there is nothing within their nature to produce this phenomena.
White privilege and 'subconscious racism' are the answer the liberal arrives at.
The Conservative views the problem differently.
We may all be born with equal opportunity, but we are continuously a product of parental influence and our own conscious decisions. Human beings are in charge of their own development and, therefor, assume the bulk of the responsibility for the end product. If a group of people are not experiencing equal outcomes, the conservative looks at the individual and the environment to identify where our mutual thuggish and brutish behavior was not properly constrained (or conserved).
Basically, the conservative understands that it is the instinct of humanity to devolve into a third world hell hole without continual effort to restrain those instincts and preserve society. The human being is not naturally virtuous and, for society to exist and persist, the individual(s) must learn to constrain his/her nature.
What this means is that the liberal blames all factors external to the black population while the conservative blames a lack of constraint within the black population.
Like I said. Liberalism manifests as a never-ending campaign to assign virtue to one group while destroying those deemed to have lesser virtue. It is perpetual misery and a mental disorder resulting in sociopath behavior.
@Bold, when in reality it's both. I have no problem admitting there is something gravely wrong in the black community(I'm generalizing but mainly in the hood. Most other problems are just mainstream teenage problems).
I just can't understand how people can look at the problems in the black community(Again, I'm generalizing) and say it's entirely and absolutely their fault. Yes they need learn and fix their problems, but as you said there has to be something making them act this way.
Yeah I know and pointed it out when I asked you about the American counterparts. So basically it's liberals who label people and conservatives are the real individualists in the good sense?
Further complicating the issue is the erosion of the definitions of Liberalism and Conservatism. Liberalism has largely become synonymous with the idea of 'change' and 'liberty' while Conservatism has become synonymous with the ideas of 'staying the same' or 'control.'
Change is not always good. People today seem to have this idea that change means evolving into something better, and that western societies can only improve, never regress. However, to me things like this transgender stuff, seems like a symptom of decay. Westerners have become complacent. I'd rather agree with conservativism in the sense that it is not necessarily against changes, only rushed and hasty changes. But it supports slow reforms.
Btw change and liberty, even Aristotle argued criticizing democracy that it's not real freedom when everyone can do whatever they want. Instead, obeying the law and constitution is not slavery but security...
In Western thinking, we can trace the core concept of Liberalism and Conservatism back to Plato and Aristotle, respectively. The ideas likely go back well before them - possibly dating back to the first philosophical discussions, but our records are limited to Plato and Aristotle:
Plato -
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
Plato believed that human beings were born with an innate virtue to behave correctly and that it was the influence of our various constructs (religion, philosophy, etc) that caused us to deviate from this nature. Human nature, therefor, is something that must be liberated from the sociological constructs of humans.
Likewise, each individual was born into a set group of aptitudes. A musician was to be a musician. A craftsman was to be a craftsman, so on and so forth. Attempts to act outside of this predestination were potentially hazardous to the individual and by extension a waste of resources within society.
Within this - we can see that Plato favored the idea of "Philosopher Kings" - people born with enough virtue and intelligence to be able to reason through problems and properly direct the efforts of many people. A proper government was, therefor, was most important to staff with people of the proper virtue. The structure of the government was more of a product of the times or necessity and not important so long as virtue was present in the leaders.
What is important is that those who have proper virtue be obeyed for the better of society. Compliance with what virtue has ordained to be the proper path is essential in this view of humanity and government.
This forms the basic viewpoint from which all Liberal actions and opinions spawn.
Aristotle -
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
Aristotle rejects the notion that human beings are born with any inherent virtue. Aristotle suggests that man serves, most consistently, his own self-interests. This means that human beings have a predictable set of faults. Human nature is to follow the interests of personal gain and expediency. Therefor, Human nature is something that is to be conserved.
Since human beings are born with the same faults and their nature is to fail along similar patterns of behavior, a proper society and government would analyze these patterns and establish systems in order to delay the onset of these patterns, minimize their impact upon society, and prevent them where possible. The ideal government, therefor, is systemic in approach and is developed from a trial and error process against common flaws we are all born with.
That doesn't mean that we are incapable of escaping these flaws - but that we define ourselves according to how we rise above these flaws and restrain our own behavior. A human being is, therefor, self-made and fully capable of gaining control over his or her self.
...However I think that Aristotle and Plato are a bit misunderstood.
The first quote you used from Plato is in his work Protagoras. You should read the whole thing to understand the context of the reasoning.
"...Then, my friends, what do you say to this? Are not all actions honourable and useful, of which the tendency is to make life painless and pleasant? The honourable work is also useful and good?
This was admitted.
Then, I said, if the pleasant is the good, nobody does anything under the idea or conviction that some other thing would be better and is also attainable, when he might do the better. And this inferiority of a man to himself is merely ignorance, as the superiority of a man to himself is wisdom.
They all assented.
And is not ignorance the having a false opinion and being deceived about important matters?
To this also they unanimously assented.
Then, I said, no man voluntarily pursues evil, or that which he thinks to be evil. To prefer evil to good is not in human nature; and when a man is compelled to choose one of two evils, no one will choose the greater when he may have the less.
All of us agreed to every word of this.
Well, I said, there is a certain thing called fear or terror; and here, Prodicus, I should particularly like to know whether you would agree with me in defining this fear or terror as expectation of evil.
Protagoras and Hippias agreed, but Prodicus said that this was fear and not terror.
Never mind, Prodicus, I said; but let me ask whether, if our former assertions are true, a man will pursue that which he fears when he is not compelled? Would not this be in flat contradiction to the admission which has been already made, that he thinks the things which he fears to be evil; and no one will pursue or voluntarily accept that which he thinks to be evil?
That also was universally admitted.
Then, I said, these, Hippias and Prodicus, are our premisses; and I would beg Protagoras to explain to us how he can be right in what he said at first. I do not mean in what he said quite at first, for his first statement, as you may remember, was that whereas there were five parts of virtue none of them was like any other of them; each of them had a separate function. To this, however, I am not referring, but to the assertion which he afterwards made that of the five virtues four were nearly akin to each other, but that the fifth, which was courage, differed greatly from the others. And of this he gave me the following proof. He said: You will find, Socrates, that some of the most impious, and unrighteous, and intemperate, and ignorant of men are among the most courageous; which proves that courage is very different from the other parts of virtue. I was surprised at his saying this at the time, and I am still more surprised now that I have discussed the matter with you. So I asked him whether by the brave he meant the confident. Yes, he replied, and the impetuous or goers. (You may remember, Protagoras, that this was your answer.)
He assented.
Well then, I said, tell us against what are the courageous ready to go—against the same dangers as the cowards?
No, he answered.
Then against something different?
Yes, he said.
Then do cowards go where there is safety, and the courageous where there is danger?
Yes, Socrates, so men say.
Very true, I said. But I want to know against what do you say that the courageous are ready to go—against dangers, believing them to be dangers, or not against dangers?
No, said he; the former case has been proved by you in the previous argument to be impossible.
That, again, I replied, is quite true. And if this has been rightly proven, then no one goes to meet what he thinks to be dangers, since the want of self-control, which makes men rush into dangers, has been shown to be ignorance.
He assented.
And yet the courageous man and the coward alike go to meet that about which they are confident; so that, in this point of view, the cowardly and the courageous go to meet the same things.
And yet, Socrates, said Protagoras, that to which the coward goes is the opposite of that to which the courageous goes; the one, for example, is ready to go to battle, and the other is not ready.
And is going to battle honourable or disgraceful? I said.
Honourable, he replied.
And if honourable, then already admitted by us to be good; for all honourable actions we have admitted to be good.
That is true; and to that opinion I shall always adhere.
True, I said. But which of the two are they who, as you say, are unwilling to go to war, which is a good and honourable thing?
The cowards, he replied.
And what is good and honourable, I said, is also pleasant?
It has certainly been acknowledged to be so, he replied.
And do the cowards knowingly refuse to go to the nobler, and pleasanter, and better?
The admission of that, he replied, would belie our former admissions.
But does not the courageous man also go to meet the better, and pleasanter, and nobler?
That must be admitted.
And the courageous man has no base fear or base confidence?
True, he replied.
And if not base, then honourable?
He admitted this.
And if honourable, then good?
Yes.
But the fear and confidence of the coward or foolhardy or madman, on the contrary, are base?
He assented.
And these base fears and confidences originate in ignorance and uninstructedness?
True, he said.
Then as to the motive from which the cowards act, do you call it cowardice or courage?
I should say cowardice, he replied.
And have they not been shown to be cowards through their ignorance of dangers?
Assuredly, he said.
And because of that ignorance they are cowards?
He assented.
And the reason why they are cowards is admitted by you to be cowardice?
He again assented.
Then the ignorance of what is and is not dangerous is cowardice?
He nodded assent.
But surely courage, I said, is opposed to cowardice?
Yes.
Then the wisdom which knows what are and are not dangers is opposed to the ignorance of them?
To that again he nodded assent.
And the ignorance of them is cowardice?
To that he very reluctantly nodded assent.
And the knowledge of that which is and is not dangerous is courage, and is opposed to the ignorance of these things?
At this point he would no longer nod assent, but was silent.
And why, I said, do you neither assent nor dissent, Protagoras?
Finish the argument by yourself, he said.
I only want to ask one more question, I said. I want to know whether you still think that there are men who are most ignorant and yet most courageous?
You seem to have a great ambition to make me answer, Socrates, and therefore I will gratify you, and say, that this appears to me to be impossible consistently with the argument. "
In this dialogue, 'good' is attributed with pleasure, evil is connected to pain. In essence, noone would choose pain over pleasure, but what one may deem to be good for himself, in reality may not be good at all. Plato talks from the pov of a virtous man who posesses knowledge. A man with real knowledge won't choose evil over good. If someone does so, that person is ignorant (at least in regard of that specific action). In his Republic, Plato proposes an education system to bring up the best possible leaders for the state. He doesn't deny the necessity of education in making someone virtuous. It's just that in his theory of ideas, everyone has received the idea of Good, but most people don't recognize it. But Plato doesn't really blame outside factors, at least I don't ever remember reading that in his works. He also says that one can remember the original life in the world of ideas and thus achieve real knowledge (coz in his philosophy, the 'real world' is the world of the ideas so real knowledge is that of knowing the ideas) by living the life of a philosopher. He somewhere wrote that 3 things can make someone virtuous: nature, education, rationality.
You must be registered for see images
(^This is another from Plato, if you prefer these online picture quotes, but some quotes out of context are never a good way in understanding a philosopher. It's not like he denied that education is necessary to make someone virtuous.)
I often see people making big contrasts between Plato and Aristotle, but the two agreed on many things, and the difference is not always obvious. Aristotle didn't say that humans are inherently evil or lack goodness. He also wrote that some people by nature, are inferior to greeks (as well as women are inferior to men in their mental abilities), and so it's righteous to wage war on the 'barbarians' and make them slaves for the greeks. In his plan for an ideal state, he also categorized people according to craftsmanship/trade. He said that it's not proper for free men to be farmers/peasants or handicraftsmen. It is for the slaves.
In his analyzing the currently available constitutions, he concluded that monarchy is the best form, the king being the most virtous of all men, who seeks the wellbeing of the state, instead of his own benefits. Aristocracy is also one of the best forms of constitution: when a group of righteous/virtous people possess the power. So, along with Plato, they both preferred virtous people's rule over the rule of a mob. The difference is that in Plato's ideal state, people are selected at birth for the caste for they seem to be most fit, while at Aristotle, the ideal state consists of middle classers who are served by slaves. But in both ideal states, we can find the concept of public ownership along with private ownership (though the latter is blurry at Plato).
At the end of the day, both of them represented virtue ethics. In his late works, Plato concludes that maybe real virtue is not possible for humans to achieve in this life. That's another reason why you can't judge a philosopher based on a single quote from an early work of his.
"While Plato never strays from his conception of virtue ethics throughout his life, by the time he fully matures his views, he does seem to clarify what arete and eudaimonia are by quite a bit. By the end of his career, Plato decides that true eudaimonia is not really achievable on Earth in the same way that he thought was the case earlier on. Early Plato acts as though striving for arete is a realistic goal to have; yet later Plato questions whether arete is even possible without first possessing knowledge of the universe as a whole. For this older Plato, a person cannot even know what arete really is without knowing the form of the good itself, and so the greatest good comes from knowing the measure of one's own knowledge."
You must be registered for see links
There is a difference though:
"While the theory of virtue ethics was born with Plato and Aristotle, their theories are not the only that are recognized. What virtue ethics refers to, rather, is a collection of normative ethical philosophies that place an emphasis on being rather than doing. Another way to say this is that in virtue ethics, morality stems from the identity and/or character of the individual, rather than being a reflection of the actions (or consequences thereof) of the individual. Today, there is debate among various adherents of virtue ethics concerning what specific virtues are morally praiseworthy. However, most theorists agree that morality comes as a result of intrinsic virtues. Intrinsic virtues are the common link that unites the disparate normative philosophies into the field known as virtue ethics. Plato and Aristotle's treatment of virtues are not the same. Plato believes virtue is effectively an end to be sought, for which a friend might be a useful means. Aristotle states that the virtues function more as means to safeguard human relations, particularly authentic friendship, without which one's quest for happiness is frustrated."
You must be registered for see links
While virtue is the end at Plato, Aristotle says in Nicomachean Ethics that everything strives for the ultimate good, which is happiness, and happiness is 'the action of the soul in accordance with virtue', through one's whole life. So, at Aristotle, happiness is the final goal, which is the exercise of virtous actions. Then he defines virtue as in the famous concept of aurea mediocratis. That is, to seek the middle and avoid extremes (no wonder muslim philosophers liked him: the Quran also supports moderateness and forbids transgressing limits). Aristotle however also divides the soul into two main parts: one is rational, the other is not (it's instinctive, more like that of animals). It is through traditions and education that one can learn how to subdue the instincts to rationality. But. He says that we are born with the ability and capability of learning that. So, from this I'd rather conclude that if we don't learn it, then partially the society and our parents, that is, external factors, can indeed be blamed. He wrote that society (the polis) has to provide for people the circumstances that can make a virtous/happy life possible. (No wonder he wanted slaves. He argued that if slaves do the dirty work, free people have more time to spend on practicing virtue.)
You must be registered for see images
So it's not like Aristotle rejects that outside factors can ever be blamed. Also, as I've already said, he doesn't reject virtous leaders either. Why would he? Virtous leaders are the best ones. Only an ideal state could be better than that: in which everyone is a middle classer and virtous, and the leaderships are rotating. Which is not much more feasible than Plato's republic. But. Plato doesn't say that humans are constrained only by society. They are also constrained by birth. He believes in the transmigration of souls. Before being reborn, souls drink from the river Ameles- that is the river of forgetting. So when they are reborn, they don't remember the world of ideas. They have to study hard so that they can remember again. It is by learning, and pondering on philosophical questions, that one can gain knowledge and thus become virtous. For that, one may give up pursuing wealth and pleasures: like Socrates did.
Also, both Plato and Aristotle believed that there is a standard by which we can judge human laws. The latter are called nomos, the former is physis- natural (or sometimes divine) law. Laws made by humans must abide by natural law. The standards of natural law are mostly congruent with righteousness, rationality, etc. The point is, there is something higher than man-made laws. Proponents of natural law say that a law can't even be considered law and thus doesn't have to be obeyed, if it's against natural law. (F.e as in Sophocles's Antigone). The point is, when Aristotle talks about obeying laws, he always means laws that are in harmony with the natural law.
And it's not like Plato is not for lawfulness. If you read his Apology, he writes about Sokrates obeying the laws even if it means his death.
Btw your first quote from Aristotle is actually not a quote from Aristotle.
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
Finally, republicanism is rather rooted in Tacit's thinking :
"Virtue theory emphasizes Aristotle's belief in the polis as the acme of political organisation, and the role of the virtues in enabling human beings to flourish in that environment. Classical republicanism in contrast emphasizes Tacitus' concern that power and luxury can corrupt individuals and destroy liberty, as Tacitus perceived in the transformation of the Roman republic into an empire; virtue for classical republicans is a shield against this sort of corruption and a means to preserve the good life one has, rather than a means by which to achieve the good life one does not yet have. Another way to put the distinction between the two traditions is that virtue ethics relies on Aristotle's fundamental distinction between the human-being-as-he-is from the human-being-as-he-should-be, while classical republicanism relies on the Tacitean distinction of the human-being-as-he-is from the human-being-as-he-is-at-risk-of-becoming."
You must be registered for see links
---
Not everyone is strictly liberal or strictly conservative. Not every view is strictly liberal or strictly conservative. Most, however, will fall mostly into one category or another in how they perceive people and life in general.
As for the rest, I think this 'unconstrained-constrained' view is an unnecessary distinction. I think humans are neither good nor bad by birth, but they are capable of becoming 'good' or 'bad', appending that even generally bad people do good, and sometimes generally good people do bad. Sometimes on purpose, sometimes unintentionally/accidentally. If someone purposedly kills a series of people, I don't think any sane person- liberal or not- would say that the person is not to be blamed or punished.
@Bold, when in reality it's both. I have no problem admitting there is something gravely wrong in the black community(I'm generalizing but mainly in the hood. Most other problems are just mainstream teenage problems).
As I said, most people do not sit at the extremes of either ideology, but most will fall firmly within each ideology. "Moderates" who fall squarely in the middle are just as rare as those who are rigid ideologues of such ideologies (if not more so). You could think of it as being an interference pattern with two peaks.
The human mind has evolved to survive through analysis. It takes more than a few generations of modern society to completely destroy our ability to realize when reality is contradicting ideology.
I just can't understand how people can look at the problems in the black community(Again, I'm generalizing) and say it's entirely and absolutely their fault. Yes they need learn and fix their problems, but as you said there has to be something making them act this way.
Of course. It's called culture. It's in the ideas one is raised with since birth. It is in what they are taught in school. It is in how they are treated as teenagers and adults - the experiences that serve to contradict or reinforce certain ideological principles.
Society has an impact on the culture of smaller groups of people. This, again, gets into how a liberal and a conservative analyze a problem.
The liberal looks for things that may be preventing a population from expressing its natural virtue. All blacks are good people who want to become productive members of society. Something must be actively suppressing that inherent virtue.
The conservative looks for ways in which the naturally destructive tendencies of human beings are not properly contained or have been reinforced. Something is encouraging a pattern of destructive behavior.
Thus, liberals construct things like "white privilege" to explain what must be suppressing the inherent virtue of blacks.
Conservatives look at the decades of government subsidies that attempt to eliminate consequences for poor decisions, government intrusion into the housing market, government intrusion into education, the establishment of hiring and firing policies based upon race/ethnicity, etc. The conservative makes the observation that the black population has been, for decades, paid to be single mothers who pop out children who can't compete within higher-rated colleges and therefor fail to acquire degrees (when they would have done just fine at a community college or lower ranked college, could have still gotten a degree, and bettered their outcomes and therefor been able to see their children improve even further). These children then end up falling on an employer market that can't take the risk to hire them (because of litigation) and thus these children end up on welfare programs and/or various forms of criminal behavior to resort to a living.
This feeds back into a cycle that, naturally, begins to glorify itself. It is the nature of all human beings to express ego, criminals believe their way of life is just as meritorious and valid (in most cases) as any honor-bound paragon would. When you create an environment where that lifestyle is the statistical likelihood, it will feed back into itself and rapidly lead to the conversion of a culture.
This can be explored even further.
The liberals often like to believe they are so enlightened and intelligent as to be able to correctly and virtuously solve any and every problem. Not only this - but it is ONLY through enforcing their wisdom that the world will be made a better place. It is the duty of those who have virtue to lead the world in spreading that virtue (and you may have to break a few eggs to make an omelet, or whatever stalinist logic goes along with that).
This is the "philosopher king" ideology.
It is important to understand how this applies to individual thought processes and how it manifests within views of racism. Liberals want to do something in order to liberate the inherent virtue of a race from the oppression of various social constructs.
Conservatives, on the other hand, would argue that the only individual worthy of being a "philosopher king" realizes that the world has little need for his wisdom and is perfectly capable of handling itself.
Thus, a conservative simply looks at the ways in which his or her actions are interfering with how other races have integrated with society or what that race is failing to do in order to adapt and overcome (as life naturally attempts to do).
In some ways, the two approaches can come to some of the same conclusions about what mechanisms are causing problems, but have completely different ideas about what must be done about them or how they arose in the first place.
The other key difference is in what liberals and conservatives expect in terms of outcomes.
Liberals, because they believe in inherent virtue, believe that once the restrictions imposed by society are removed, that people of all races will achieve entirely equal outcomes. Within this idea, it is completely reasonable to assume that a measure of effective racism is how many engineers are asian compared to their percentage of the population. Disproportionate representation of races within certain fields is empirical evidence for racism within this view.
Conservatives, because they believe in inherent flaws, believe that once an individual has properly conserved their destructive nature, his or her future is to be shaped by individual choice and exercise thereof. There is no logical reason to assume that there should be equal representation across fields of employ. In fact, the opposite is expected because the decisions of parents influence the development and choices of their children who will later pattern their behavior off of these influences.
The world that liberals view as being indicative of a racial problem is exactly the world the conservative expects to see out of a world without race as an issue.
Society is always adapting to the way it feels it should. Each time period is marked by differing public opinion. What is happening now in society may look different than in 1950, but it's the same: people doing what they think is in the best interest of their world and people with dissenting beliefs. Whether it is predominance in homosexuality and pedophilia in ancient Greece, conquest and slavery of ancient Rome, European Feudalism, radical puritanical religiosity and conversion, Jim Crow laws and segregated American South, or science altering nature, it is all the same with a different mask. Public standards will change again and again. Fighting against the current doesn't change anything; it will change naturally and adapt over time.
