Note to my readers: Ross Gittins' article and maybe other excitements will be posted tomorrow, or when I have time.
Here is the link anyway.
Who knows: ROSS HIMSELF MAY DEIGN TO RESPOND WITH A FEW LINKS OF HIS OWN
GS
GS
#########################################################################################################################################################################################################
Hello again Ross
I feel we are getting to know each other: wonderful what a google search or
merely my recollection of the unkind things The Australian pasted about you on
their Cut And Paste column over the years.
Still, I had hoped you would respond to my email yesterday. As below.
Here is the deal, Ross.
I will paste your response on my blog – within minutes....giving you
unlimited space to explicate your views on tribes, happiness, moral trade –
offs, meta – morality and whatever is begatted from your article. This will be
on my blog soon.
It is understood that this may prove too difficult for you because your
work is an amalgam of the works of others.
I guess my blog could have been called SOCIALIST UTOPIA: IT WOULD
HAVE MEANT THE SAME
These dystopia / utopia words are special, non? They mean the same
essentially and aptly describe the left in all realms.
So – why do you not ask the entities whose efforts in
social twirpery may be more advanced than yours to explain the
inexplicable?
I will help your troika: here is a rough resume of the more ‘interesting’
things you have written – plundered from Joshua Greene. professor of
psycho babble at Harvard and Jonathan Haigh.
So – here we go Ross: pardon the cryptic approach – but my
scribbles will sadly make sense to anyone with a rational intelligent
mind.
- Moral psychology... ‘’hottest area’’ of psycho babble............... what pap!
- Oddly scientific .. this is merely an excuse to distort via religion bashing!
- Selfish individuals – hey Ross – we are all selfish .... this is asinine in any context... i could write 20 000 words!
- but we like groups – congrats Ross... but why the ‘but’ word? there is no room for such but codicils!
- unmatched ability to cooperate – huh? - are we not so clever? some are more stupid than others I guess that makes some clever by default to see an imbecilic tautologous idiocy, non?
- How is your tripe ‘’oddly scientific’’ ? Is this an example of science when you debauch every principle that resides there? It fails the common sense test.
- Now we come to the ultimate bar 20 or so others... specialization.... I will write an essay with the help of a competition for all children under 13 – to decimate this idea of yours. No room or time for now
- How about this tosh: morality, psychological adaptation, otherwise selfish , reap benefits... I will leave this to the children
- So why do we want to cooperate? – OH! THIS IS HEAVY – RESTRICTED TO PEOPLE IN THE TOP 99% of IQ! Another day, Ross
- US VS THEM: OH how pathetic – another day... all leftist codswallop
- ‘Empathy’ soon follows – I have no time to get back to my notes BUT I TELL YOU ROSS – YOU CAN FOLLOW ALL THESE – THEY ARE SEQUENTIAL
- I now look here : LEADS TO TRIBALISM: ......THIS IS AN ATTACK ON GOVERNMENT – YOU SUPPORT ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT BY ANY CHANCE?? I wish I had time to try to prove to you how stupid this is and so plainly antithetical of the barest elements of what even a left – wing economics journalist should encompass
- YOU DARE ATTACK INTELLIGENT ECONOMISTS VIA ‘’denying it / playing it down’’
- META MORALITY --- HUH HOW COULD YOU ROSS – THIS IS IMBECILIC
- WHAT REALLY MATTERS: UTILITARIAN ... MORAL TRADE OFFS.... MAKES SENSE TO ALL TRIBES – i can see ISIS BEING PART...
That is it for now_ you should read The Oz ex Saturday. You will learn what
leaden flummery you have writ
The
Australian - 2 days ago
-
The Australian - 2 days agoThe kind of stupidity I have in mind has nothing to do withignorance or ... Call it the curse of knowledge: a difficulty in imagining what it is like for ...
Ross Gittins, Corrected | teaching Ross Gittins economics
rossgittins.info/
Hello Ross Gittins
Someone gave me a hard copy of your article of 8 October.
Kindly explain the nature of the moral trade – off
explicit in your title. I have no idea why you would think that there is any
moral trade – off via the majority having the solution that makes the majority
‘happy’. Seeing that elsewhere you proferred the correct meaning in your
screed.
You would not by any chance be suggesting an alternative system of
government?
I personally would vote for any system that would incorporate a majority
vote basis AND ensuring everyone’s happiness is protected as below. Maybe a
touch of utopianism ?
Do you think we could start with a SENATE candidate under the aegis of
UTOPIAN UTILITARIANIST PARTY [UUP]?
I tell you Ross – this META – MORALITY has me flummoxed: see the second –
last paragraph. If it could work, it is virtually amounts to a ONE WORLD
GOVERNMENT!
ISIS IS ELIMENATED FROM THE LADSCAPE>
No more wars!
I always thought that being ruled by 3 layers of politicians is two too
many: we should do well.
And kindly elucidate as to why you appear to have changed the meaning /
raison d’etre of utilitarianism from the understood dictionary meaning?
See below quotes from your article.
It seems to me you refer to utopianism AKA Socialism? Non?
AAh – the grandchildren have arrived....
Regards
Geoff Seidner
East St Kilda
03 9 525 9299
‘’...(This is of
relevance to economists because, though they've spent the past 80 years trying
to play it down, utilitarianism forms part of the bedrock on which the
conventional economic model is built.)
According to Greene,
utilitarianism answers two basic questions: what
really matters and who really
matters. What matters most is the quality of our experience. Economists call
this "utility" and the rest of us call it "happiness". Who matters most is all
of us, equally - otherwise known as the Golden Rule.
Thus Greene summarises utilitarianism as
"happiness is what matters and everyone's happiness counts the same. This
doesn't mean that everyone gets to be equally happy, but it does means than no
one's happiness is inherently more valuable than anyone
else's".
He claims
this meta-morality involves a moral system that can acknowledge moral trade-offs
and adjudicate among them, and can do so in a way that makes sense to members of
all tribes.
It's a nice thought.
Somehow I think it will be a while before we measure up to that ideal. But it's
always good to have a vision of what we should be aiming for and how we can move
towards it.
utilitarianism
jʊˌtɪlɪˈtɛːrɪənɪz(ə)m/
noun
-
the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority.
-
the doctrine that an action is right in so far as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct.
-
No comments:
Post a Comment