Morality

[dr_mabeuse]

Since we fight about it so much on this board, I thouht this brief overview on science's view of morality - why and how we argue about it - was interesting. It's from World Science

=======

ow much money would it take to get you to stick a pin into your palm? How much to stick it into the palm of a child you don’t know? How much to slap a friend in the face (with his or her permission) as part of a comedy skit? What about if your father took the place of the friend?

How you answer such questions may say something about your morality, even your politics. Conservatives, for instance, tend to care more about issues of hierarchy and respect; liberals focus more on caring and fairness.

Clashing moral views underlie many violent conflicts, Haidt argues.
Scientists are reaching a new consensus on how morality originated and how it works, according to psychologist Jonathan Haidt of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Va.

Haidt penned a review of the subject to appear in the May 18 issue of the research journal Science. Understanding morality, he argued, might help people see why disputes over morality leads to violent conflicts globally—and learn to resolve such clashes.

“We are surrounded by moral conflicts, on the personal level, the national level and the international level,” Haidt said. “Recent scientific advances in moral psychology can help explain why these conflicts are so passionate and so intractable. An understanding of moral psychology can also point to some new ways to bridge these divides, to appeal to hearts and minds on both sides.”

Evolutionary, neurological and social-psychological insights are converging on an account of moral reasoning based on three principles, Haidt claimed:

-- Emotions and gut feelings generally drive our moral judgments.

-- We engage in moral reasoning not to learn the truth, but to win others over to our viewpoint.

-- Morality was crucial for the evolution of human ultra-sociality, which lets us live in large, highly-cooperative groups. Gossip was also crucial; it’s the vehicle through which we seek to win over others, again using moral reasoning.

Together, these principles force us “to re-evaluate many of our most cherished notions about ourselves,” said Haidt, whose own research has found that people generally follow their gut feelings and make up moral reasons afterwards. (You can take a short test of your moral intuitions at www.yourmorals.org).

“Since the time of the Enlightenment,” Haidt said, “philosophers have celebrated the power and virtue of cool, dispassionate reasoning. Unfortunately, few people other than philosophers can engage in such cool, honest reasoning when moral issues are at stake. The rest of us behave more like lawyers, using any arguments we can find to make our case, rather than like judges or scientists searching for the truth. This doesn’t mean we are doomed to be immoral; it just means that we should look for the roots of our considerable virtue elsewhere.”

Haidt argues that morality is a cultural construct built on, and constrained by, a handful of evolved psychological systems. Liberals rely mainly on two of these, involving emotional sensitivity to harm and fairness. Conservatives draw on these two, plus three more: sensitivity to in-group boundaries, authority and spiritual purity.

“We all start off with the same evolved moral capacities,” said Haidt, “but then we each learn only a subset of the available human virtues and values. We often end up demonizing people with different political ideologies because of our inability to appreciate the moral motives operating on the other side of a conflict.”
=======

So there! Nyahhh!!!

 

[cantdog]

This whole article is credible to me, right away. It reinforces my own ideas. Heh. So good not to be isolated.

 

[rgraham666]

Interesting, dr_m.

I found it rather amusing though, that they pointed out something I've know for years. That human beings are more rationalizing animals than rational ones.

 

[Huckleman2000]

[snip]Conservatives draw on these two, plus three more: sensitivity to in-group boundaries, authority and spiritual purity....

Hence the typical Conservative confusion between what is legal and what is moral.

I find it hard to see those psychological systems as the roots of morality; but mocking them has kept comedians going for millenia!

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Well, the reason I posted this, aside from the emotional basis of morality thing (a pet cause of mine, I confess), was that I was thinking about how we approach our little "discussions" here...

You never really change anyone's mind by arguing, and rarely by reasoning, and the more emotional the topic is, the less effective the appeal to reason is. There are techniques for changing people's minds. They're known as "persuasion" and advertisers use them all the time to influence behavior. In fact, it's a pretty intensely studied science.

Usually what you do is you start out by agreeing with your "subject". You establish some rapport, and once you've opened a line of communication, then you can make your point or your argument, but you have to open that line of communication first. That means no confrontation, no insult, no in-your-face. It's a tactic. It's not underhanded or duplicitous. It just means you're willing to listen to where your opponent is coming from first and uunderstand their position before you make your case. I think it's a tactic you don't see here very often.

It's just something to bear in mind. Whatever arguments do, they unfortunately don't change minds.

 

[slyc_willie]

Well, the reason I posted this, aside from the emotional basis of morality thing (a pet cause of mine, I confess), was that I was thinking about how we approach our little "discussions" here...

You never really change anyone's mind by arguing, and rarely by reasoning, and the more emotional the topic is, the less effective the appeal to reason is. There are techniques for changing people's minds. They're known as "persuasion" and advertisers use them all the time to influence behavior. In fact, it's a pretty intensely studied science.

Usually what you do is you start out by agreeing with your "subject". You establish some rapport, and once you've opened a line of communication, then you can make your point or your argument, but you have to open that line of communication first. That means no confrontation, no insult, no in-your-face. It's a tactic. It's not underhanded or duplicitous. It just means you're willing to listen to where your opponent is coming from first and uunderstand their position before you make your case. I think it's a tactic you don't see here very often.

It's just something to bear in mind. Whatever arguments do, they unfortunately don't change minds.

What a load of bullshit!

. . . that's just how a lot of arguments like this are handled on an online forum. Even though we all relatively 'know' one another, there is still that element of anonymity, that feeling of security gained through the fact that, if we don't want to hear someone's argument, we can just ignore them.

It would be nice, indeed, if we were all rational beings who used intuition and reason in our arguments. But very few of us are. We respond quickly and eagerly, and with all our particular sound and fury, to whatever piques our ire. And if it makes us sound like an ass, well . . . all we have to do is avoid that particular thread we posted on.

----

I see morality as a very fluid thing, subject to change according to what works. By that, I mean that the majority of human beings are willing to compromise their morality to accommodate their current desires. Many people would be willing to say that theft is wrong; but when you're really hungry . . . .

Thus, back to Rob's comment about rationalizing vs. rational.

 

[cantdog]

I never actually imagine I will change my opponent's mind, arguing online. I just want the arguments for my side to be there. If a reader whose mind is comparatively open (and how open does it have to be, in comparison with certain of my opponents online?) comes by, she will then have both sides to look at. You just don't leave a stinking pile of lying talking points lie there unopposed.

It's for onlookers. It means that the AH, in this case, is one place they can't lie to everyone unchallenged.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Emotions and gut feelings generally drive our moral judgments. And wat determines the content of one's emotions? You may celebrate that the king is dead. I may celebrate when your report is learned to be exagerated.



-- We engage in moral reasoning not to learn the truth, but to win others over to our viewpoint.
Sounds like typical, fashionable, affected postmodernist cynicism. Nothing means anything, all is bald self interest and win-baby-win. Yawn.

-- Morality was crucial for the evolution of human ultra-sociality, which lets us live in large, highly-cooperative groups. Gossip was also crucial; it’s the vehicle through which we seek to win over others, again using moral reasoning.
That's interesting.

How much would money would I need to stick a pin in the hand of a child? It's easy if the child is old enough to appreciate money: Enough so he would be happy with the amount I shared with him after doing the dirty deed. It would be a judgement call, and the amount would have to be large enough to cover a wide range of error in judgement.

If the child is too young to appreciate money, it's harder. The decision is still based on sharing the money with the child, or perhaps giving the child all of it, since with the younger one I can't "negotiate" after the fact. ("No, I want want $9 of the $10 bucks - that hurt!" "Would you feel ahead of the game with $8?" "Um- $8.50!" )

Would I take $5,000 that I could put into a college fund for the child? How bad do I gotta stick him?

Would I take $5,000 if I had to keep it all, not benefit the child in any way, yet not stick him very bad? Actually, I think that is where it becomes immoral, regardless of the amount. Would I be strong enough to turn down $100,000 in that case? $1 million? (How bad do I have to stick him again? )

Good question to pose!

 

[slyc_willie]

How much would money would I need to stick a pin in the hand of a child? It's easy if the child is old enough to appreciate money: Enough so he would be happy with the amount I shared with him after doing the dirty deed. It would be a judgement call, and the amount would have to be large enough to cover a wide range of error in judgement.

If the child is too young to appreciate money, it's harder. The decision is still based on sharing the money with the child, or perhaps giving the child all of it, since with the younger one I can't "negotiate" after the fact. ("No, I want want $9 of the $10 bucks - that hurt!" "Would you feel ahead of the game with $8?" "Um- $8.50!" )

Would I take $5,000 that I could put into a college fund for the child? How bad do I gotta stick him?

Would I take $5,000 if I had to keep it all, not benefit the child in any way, yet not stick him very bad? Actually, I think that is where it becomes immoral, regardless of the amount. Would I be strong enough to turn down $100,000 in that case? $1 million? (How bad do I have to stick him again? )

Good question to pose!

I took the question as presupposing the money was entirely yours. But you interjected rationalization. Sharing the money would make it easier? In what way? Wealth comes and goes. Giving money to a child -- even if he or she understood its value -- for such an act would be detrimental, don't you think?

"Here, I'll share half the money with you if you just let me stick a needle in your hand. It'll only hurt for a minute, but then you'll be rich!"

I think that has to be one of the most shallow, materialistic arguments I have ever heard. What does that teach the child? That money is more important than personal value? Sure, it's just a minor wound; the child will heal. But there is more to consider.

That child might grow up thinking that small amounts of pain are fine and dandy if there is a material reward to be had. How much are a few bruises worth when fighting for money? Or a ruptured hymen?

I understand your argument was given with a little tongue-in-cheek, Roxanne. But would you really stab a six-year-old in his/her hand? For any amount of money?

 

[cantdog]

Come on slick, she attaches the most profound meaning of all to self interest. Of course she would. I know it makes you angry and you feel it's despicable, but we must be civil.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I took the question as presupposing the money was entirely yours. But you interjected rationalization. Sharing the money would make it easier? In what way? Wealth comes and goes. Giving money to a child -- even if he or she understood its value -- for such an act would be detrimental, don't you think?

"Here, I'll share half the money with you if you just let me stick a needle in your hand. It'll only hurt for a minute, but then you'll be rich!"

I think that has to be one of the most shallow, materialistic arguments I have ever heard. What does that teach the child? That money is more important than personal value? Sure, it's just a minor wound; the child will heal. But there is more to consider.

That child might grow up thinking that small amounts of pain are fine and dandy if there is a material reward to be had. How much are a few bruises worth when fighting for money? Or a ruptured hymen?

I understand your argument was given with a little tongue-in-cheek, Roxanne. But would you really stab a six-year-old in his/her hand? For any amount of money?

Small amounts of pain are worth money. In addition to one's time, they are what manual laborers trade in return for a wage, for example.

Forget kids for a moment. If you and I were friends or close acquaintances to the extent that trust relationship existed, and out of the blue I gave you a good stick in the hand, like the equivalent of a nurse drawing blood, and then handed you $50 bucks, would you feel violated? You might. How about $100? How about $500? $1,000? At some point aren't you going to say, "Hey, thanks Roxanne! Damn, this is a good deal - I'm glad you chose me for this experiment." Probably you will. Remember we have a pre-existing trust relationship, so this is not some creepy, disturbing event involving a stranger

Let's say it's a two year old, same level of pain, also have a trust relationship, and it's $20,000 into a college fund. Is that really "one of the most shallow, materialistic arguments I have ever heard?" If you are that kid 17 years later trying to figure out how to pay tuition, and I say you coulda had $20k except I thought it was immoral, how are you going to feel? Like kicking me, most likely.

Don't make me post "The Meaning of Money." Oh the heck with it - where's Ami? Ami, post the "Meaning of Money," wouldja?

However, if you or the kid get nothing out of the deal, its immoral, no matter how much I get. That's clear.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Come on slick, she attaches the most profound meaning of all to self interest. Of course she would. I know it makes you angry and you feel it's despicable, but we must be civil.

Bitter post deleted and replaced with - that's pretty fucking cold, Cant.

 

[cantdog]

Ayuh. So is your philosophy. It chills me quite a bit. But I have learned to expect it.

 

[cantdog]

Nothing personal. I would do anything I could for you, if you needed me.

But it used to appall me, to hear you espouse the incredible ideas you do! I have lived with the victims of them, the human objects of those ideas. Their difficulties are too massive, beyond my poor power to remedy. I have spent so many nights in the third world, conscious of my inadequacy, after long days of toil, to make very much impact for the better on the lives of the people around me. Because the logic of their degradation, the reasoning describing why no one should give one thought to them, is too deeply entrenched to be moved by the magnitude of their injury. Because, in fact, of your ideas, put into action.

But there it is. It was not you, after all. I tell myself, whoever you may be in real life, it was not you personally who ruined the people I have gone to aid. So I let you off the hook. Hearing you now, though, verbally driving a spike through the hand of a child too young to understand, for money, has made me recoil. So do not, for my sake, delete the bitter post. I deserve to hear it, to remind me to forgive before I post.

I forgive you utterly and completely, and please believe me: I am heartily sorry to have attacked you.

 

[cantdog]

As a matter of fact, I have been letting myself slip more and more, on the board, here. I keep finding I've lashed out at someone. I should probably leave Lit for a while. I find I can no longer stomach these people who so blithely speak with no concrete experience among the conquered. I have lost patience. With the myriad casual advocates of empire I find I can no longer coexist without my rancor making me spit at them, before my better nature intervenes. I simply don't associate with the thoughtless and the ruthless, in my usual life, and perhaps that has fitted me ill for the society of such people.

Amicus, of course, has blinders so long and so wide, and of such long use. Nothing will ever be seen through them to alter his thinking. He is so blind as to have become a caricature of himself. But S-Des is young. Roxy is logical and sensitive. There are similar things I tell myself about dozens of people, here. Surely people here can be moved, I think, by my witness, my examples. But more and more, I see that such hopes are overstated. I need a respite. You won't hear from me here for a while.

 

[neonlyte]

As a matter of fact, I have been letting myself slip more and more, on the board, here. I keep finding I've lashed out at someone. I should probably leave Lit for a while. I find I can no longer stomach these people who so blithely speak with no concrete experience among the conquered. I have lost patience. With the myriad casual advocates of empire I find I can no longer coexist without my rancor making me spit at them, before my better nature intervenes. I simply don't associate with the thoughtless and the ruthless, in my usual life, and perhaps that has fitted me ill for the society of such people.

Amicus, of course, has blinders so long and so wide, and of such long use. Nothing will ever be seen through them to alter his thinking. He is so blind as to have become a caricature of himself. But S-Des is young. Roxy is logical and sensitive. There are similar things I tell myself about dozens of people, here. Surely people here can be moved, I think, by my witness, my examples. But more and more, I see that such hopes are overstated. I need a respite. You won't hear from me here for a while.

Don't beat on yourself Cant. Go do something good. Taking the blinkers off the blind doesn't help them see.

 

[gauchecritic]

Now look what you've done.

Possibly what I've done by answering various political/moral type threads and coercing unpalatable quasi philosophies from the morally challenged.

You know, it's not easy standing on the high ground and inviting repugnance in an effort to display wrong-headedness by giving platforms.

But like Cant says, we can't just let them stand and bray without challenge, or what would reasonable people think?

I think your article is probably usable if not correct in a face to face situation Zoot, maybe even via messenger (take Tony Blair's wholesale conversion of a socialist party's moral stance into a right of centre philosophy) but on a stage such as the AH, as has been said many times before, debate between any individuals here is purely for the benefit of an audience. And the aim of any arguement in this theatre is to impress that audience with our own personality. Moral values and politics come a poor second to self aggrandisement.

 

[Guest]

As a matter of fact, I have been letting myself slip more and more, on the board, here. I keep finding I've lashed out at someone. I should probably leave Lit for a while. I find I can no longer stomach these people who so blithely speak with no concrete experience among the conquered. I have lost patience. With the myriad casual advocates of empire I find I can no longer coexist without my rancor making me spit at them, before my better nature intervenes. I simply don't associate with the thoughtless and the ruthless, in my usual life, and perhaps that has fitted me ill for the society of such people.

Amicus, of course, has blinders so long and so wide, and of such long use. Nothing will ever be seen through them to alter his thinking. He is so blind as to have become a caricature of himself. But S-Des is young. Roxy is logical and sensitive. There are similar things I tell myself about dozens of people, here. Surely people here can be moved, I think, by my witness, my examples. But more and more, I see that such hopes are overstated. I need a respite. You won't hear from me here for a while.

 

[cloudy]

As a matter of fact, I have been letting myself slip more and more, on the board, here. I keep finding I've lashed out at someone. I should probably leave Lit for a while. I find I can no longer stomach these people who so blithely speak with no concrete experience among the conquered. I have lost patience. With the myriad casual advocates of empire I find I can no longer coexist without my rancor making me spit at them, before my better nature intervenes. I simply don't associate with the thoughtless and the ruthless, in my usual life, and perhaps that has fitted me ill for the society of such people.

Amicus, of course, has blinders so long and so wide, and of such long use. Nothing will ever be seen through them to alter his thinking. He is so blind as to have become a caricature of himself. But S-Des is young. Roxy is logical and sensitive. There are similar things I tell myself about dozens of people, here. Surely people here can be moved, I think, by my witness, my examples. But more and more, I see that such hopes are overstated. I need a respite. You won't hear from me here for a while.

I wish you'd stay. Many times you've been in my corner because you've seen what life is like among the conquered. So few understand the realities.

Please stay.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The problem is, you view economics as something apart from the rest of human life. It's not. The relationship is as close as that of your stomach to your genitals, “holistic,” so to speak. But you resist that. You want to imagine the rest of human life, including the parts related to those genitals and what we call the heart (romance) and heart (sympathy), as existing on some separate plain of existence, like the "forms" of Plato.

It's a warm and fuzzy illusion that you find comforting, but it's not an accurate description of human beings and life. Therefore, when you make public policies or ethical systems based on it they don't quite work out. There are inevitably countless unintended consequences, because your premise is wrong.

Now and over the ages those unintended consequences have soaked the earth with the blood and tears of their victims.

So along comes someone like me who sees the connection between the flawed premises and their unintended consequences, and is appalled by all the unnecessary suffering and death they have generated. I share the same core humanistic values that you do. I care and feel just as deeply as you about the well being of all humans.

Repeat: I care and feel just as deeply as you about the well being of all humans.

And I see how with some little corrections to those flawed premises we would achieve much better outcomes for many more human beings. I envision a world in which these corrections have have occurred and it is a happier place with much less unnecessary suffering.

I come to a place like this and describe this vision, usually in terms of the ethical system and public policies that would bring it about - basic Adam Smith stuff, not Rand - and you are shocked. It runs counter to your warm illusions.

Here's how that plays out: The higher faculties of thought are disengaged, and you just assume that the person whose words and ideas contradict those flawed premises and warm illusions is a heartless monster, a two-legged adding machine who does not share your humanistic values, or who is emotionally stilted.

Here is the intellectual challenge I pose to you: Force yourself to presume that this is not the case. Consider that I care and feel just as deeply as you do about the welfare of my fellow man. If you do that, then whenever your read a post by me it will force you to reengage those higher faculties and consider: "Given that Roxanne cares and feels as deeply and I, how could the policy or concept described here get us closer to the end we share?"

It requires some effort and imagination, but it’s actually the thing we're all "supposed" to do in discussions like this if our intention is to sincerely engage each others ideas, rather than take turns making speeches. It's what I do when I consider your positions, by the way. If nothing else that causes me to appreciate that you care and feel as deeply as I. In this perhaps I am different from our friend Amicus, whose approach to those who don't share his premises is the same as - yours.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Edited to add: This is not directed at any particular individual. Especially Cantdog (although I hope he and everyone reads it and takes it to heart).

 

[rgraham666]

Adding my wish for you to stay cant. You have more courage and wisdom than me. I'll miss it when you're gone.

Please stay.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Adding my wishes that Cant stay.

The thing you describe that grates on you is callowness and shallowness. It's a character deficiency that irritates, and understandably so.

Since lashing out at me - and my hurt - are the proximate cause of your impulse to leave, I'll go a bit further. In the apologia I posted above is this key line:

I care and feel just as deeply as you about the well being of all humans.

Obviously, we disagree about some key premises, but we share that fundamental humanistic value. It hurts when you or others here take the easy, lazy approach to my point of view, which is to presume that this is not case. Nevertheless, I believe you would not disagree with my statement.

I too am irritated by callowness and shallowness, especially when I am the target of it. But when it appears generally and is not directed at an idividual perhaps you are more irritated than I. I think that's a dispositional thing, not related to a particular point of view.

What I'm trying to say is, don't forget to distinguish bad character traits that grate from ideas you disagree with. In general you do distinguish them, and for this I am grateful. Here's the point: Callowness and shallowness are found wherever you go. If anything they are less prevalent here. So you might as well stick around.



(And continue to joust with me on the field of ideas. )

 

[The_Fool]

Emotions and gut feelings generally drive our moral judgments. And wat determines the content of one's emotions? You may celebrate that the king is dead. I may celebrate when your report is learned to be exagerated.



-- We engage in moral reasoning not to learn the truth, but to win others over to our viewpoint.
Sounds like typical, fashionable, affected postmodernist cynicism. Nothing means anything, all is bald self interest and win-baby-win. Yawn.

-- Morality was crucial for the evolution of human ultra-sociality, which lets us live in large, highly-cooperative groups. Gossip was also crucial; it’s the vehicle through which we seek to win over others, again using moral reasoning.
That's interesting.

How much would money would I need to stick a pin in the hand of a child? It's easy if the child is old enough to appreciate money: Enough so he would be happy with the amount I shared with him after doing the dirty deed. It would be a judgement call, and the amount would have to be large enough to cover a wide range of error in judgement.

If the child is too young to appreciate money, it's harder. The decision is still based on sharing the money with the child, or perhaps giving the child all of it, since with the younger one I can't "negotiate" after the fact. ("No, I want want $9 of the $10 bucks - that hurt!" "Would you feel ahead of the game with $8?" "Um- $8.50!" )

Would I take $5,000 that I could put into a college fund for the child? How bad do I gotta stick him?

Would I take $5,000 if I had to keep it all, not benefit the child in any way, yet not stick him very bad? Actually, I think that is where it becomes immoral, regardless of the amount. Would I be strong enough to turn down $100,000 in that case? $1 million? (How bad do I have to stick him again? )

Good question to pose!

Let's up the ante. How about $5 million to blind the child with a hot iron? I understand, that is a huge jump in consequences, but the payoff has grown significantly too. Granted, sticking the pin in the hand leaves very little physical trauma, but we are really unsure what emotional trauma would ensue.

Assuming you split the money equally, the child would get $2.5 million. Which, if left alone and correctly invested, would give that child around $10 million at age 21. That should create a wonderful trust fund that would allow that child to live quite nicely without ever having to work or to touch the principle.

 

[The_Fool]

As a matter of fact, I have been letting myself slip more and more, on the board, here. I keep finding I've lashed out at someone. I should probably leave Lit for a while. I find I can no longer stomach these people who so blithely speak with no concrete experience among the conquered. I have lost patience. With the myriad casual advocates of empire I find I can no longer coexist without my rancor making me spit at them, before my better nature intervenes. I simply don't associate with the thoughtless and the ruthless, in my usual life, and perhaps that has fitted me ill for the society of such people.

Amicus, of course, has blinders so long and so wide, and of such long use. Nothing will ever be seen through them to alter his thinking. He is so blind as to have become a caricature of himself. But S-Des is young. Roxy is logical and sensitive. There are similar things I tell myself about dozens of people, here. Surely people here can be moved, I think, by my witness, my examples. But more and more, I see that such hopes are overstated. I need a respite. You won't hear from me here for a while.

Breathing is good. Deep breaths are better. Vacations are what keep up from quiting our job. Just make sure it is a respite and not a separation. Sometimes you need a break to regain your perspective. If it turns into a sabbatical, then please pop in every once in a while and let us know you are okay.

 

[gauchecritic]

The problem is, you view economics as something apart from the rest of human life.

No. There's the problem. Viewing economics as a tool when it's a means of measurement. Which cancels cancels your next two paragraphs, particularly this point:

when you make public policies or ethical systems based on it they don't quite work out. There are inevitably countless unintended consequences, because your premise is wrong.

A liberal or socialist system accepts that money has to go round. The use of economics as a tool is using a steam hammer to drive a nail. There are only broad consequences to be gained from monetary manipulation and this is where your policies go badly awry. The people at the sharp end, on the shop floor are inconsequential to any monetarist policy because they are individuals that only appear on the capitalist radar as a homogeneous unit. There are no individual voices in the world of economics only ebb and flow, saving and spending in the millions.

Economics, by it's very nature cannot take into account one person buying a pound of potatoes, because it isn't measurable on any scale in the world of high finance.

So along comes someone like me who sees the connection between the flawed premises and their unintended consequences, and is appalled by all the unnecessary suffering and death they have generated. I share the same core humanistic values that you do. I care and feel just as deeply as you about the well being of all humans.

It's not true on my part (and I sincerely doubt that it plays any part in Cant's ideology) that I equate beliefs with the person. But the espousal of those beliefs as a be all and end all for societies ills is frankly beyond belief and leads me to inevitably question the reasoning of such a person.

Saying that you feel for the poor and that they are much better off now than they were, denies the evidence of our own eyes. You cast aspersion on our integrity.

Feeling for the poor and displaced and dying does nothing for your cause when you tacitly admit that this is an inevitable situation given the nature of people, and that you are happy for it to be this way

We (and I realise I'm taking a great liberty using the term we) but we liberals, socialists, call us what you will are dissatisfied with the price that you seem to be willing to pay.

A great example of liberal policy is in the area of health care. The NHS was first mooted as a method of reducing the physical ills of the nation. Spend a few millions on free health care and the population will be healthy and able to man the shop floors with minimum down time. This is/was a purely economic plan to put an end to medical costs for the workforce of the future. It was supposed to be downsized just as soon as everybody was fit enough, it included such ideals as free school meals, free milk for growing kids in school, the reduction of death and disease simply in order to ensure a large workforce for the future.

But now it costs too much, not because the health problems didn't go away, they did; TB, bronchial pneumonia, scarlet fever, infant mortality. They went away, but all the time there were other diseases being visited on an otherwise healthy population because they had become better off. Heart, liver and lung disease, bone breakages and cancers, the list is endless and will always be, because of a changing health and dietary society, not to mention new ways of becoming ill; asbestosis, black lung, radiation poisoning and of course AIDS.

The NHS is a perfect example of why economics doesn't work as a tool. Attacking one part of a dynamic system has unforeseen effects in a chaotic universe. And there is nothing more chaotic than money. They buy and sell the fucking stuff. THEY BUY AND SELL SOCIAL AGREEMENTS ON BARTER.

I'll return to the rest shortly, as my tea is ready and I'm hungry, and Scrubs has just started.