Do you have a coherent ideology?

[Narz]

I contain multitudes mofos!

Anyone who claims they have a coherent ideology either overestimates him(her)self or underestimates the universe.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Has a new ms of Leaves of Grass turned up?

 

[kochman]

I contain multitudes mofos!

Anyone who claims they have a coherent ideology either overestimates him(her)self or underestimates the universe.

Thus far we have 8: brennan, CELTICEMPIRE, classical_hero, Cutlass, History_Buff, KMRblue1027, Nitram15, tetley

 

[Camikaze]

No, I don't have an ideology.

I approach every single question, problem, or whatever, on its own merits.

People who base everything around an ideology are doing it wrong.. It's a dangerous way to look at the world - it leads to a lot of problems.

I think ideologies are for people too intellectually lazy to really think about every issue at hand. I could be generally described as center left, but I some of my opinions about economic issues are either far left (nationalize all natural monopolies) or right wing (subsidies should only be used to help develop new technologies, not to keep obsolete jobs).

Isn't the manner in which you approach every question, or interpret the 'merits', an ideology? I guess that's sometimes termed a 'philosophy' instead, but I think ideology is also much more about your approach to political problems than it is about conforming to a pre-determined set of positions. Far from being intellectually lazy, then, people with a ideology would surely be more consistent than those who take a different approach to different issues, or who don't recognise that they are taking a similar approach to all issues. For example, your ideology might be a scientific one, so with each issue you'd try to determine the empirically best outcome (with 'best' presumably being defined by reference to a stable point). That'd seem better than approaching some matters in that way, and ignoring the approach in others, i.e. not having a particular ideology.

 

[Kyriakos]

A better term for their stable position(s) would be Ideolepsis, not Ideology. A psychiatric term, of course Mostly meaning a gained idea which is not examined anymore and instead set as an changeless basis. The thing just breeds hostility and fallacies

(http://www.definition-of.com/ideolepsis)

 

[Mise]

I think most people on CFC have a coherent ideology and underestimate their ability to adhere to one. Sure, most people decide each issue on its merit, but what do we mean by "merit"? How do you decide when an idea has merit? There is some broadly coherent moral theory at work underneath all of that. It might not be 100% coherent, but only the most trivial theories are so pure.

Personally I'd say I was at 80%. The most incoherent part of my moral theory is reconciling feminism with liberalism, largely because the former is still relatively new, both the to the world and to me. I firmly believe that feminism is a consequence of liberalism, but in practice it is not always obvious how the two should be reconciled, as feminists can be quite illiberal at times. Recently I've made some progress in separating what the government ought to legislate on from what we can and should eliminate through social norms. Guiding all of this, though, is the belief that liberty is the thing we should be maximising (i.e. "merit" means "increases liberty"). To that extent, my moral philosophy is coherent. Anyway, this is an area I'm still working out.

Speaking about the UK's political parties, the 3 main parties are fairly ideologically coherent, as political parties go. Of course, they have to abandon ideology in order to gain votes from the public or in the commons, but on the whole I'd say that 75% of the things they put in their manifesto are driven by a coherent ideology, and 25% by the need for votes.

 

[Tahuti]

I pretty much believe in the values of old, believing these are more human - as in not seeing people as just another machine that can be manipulated directly.

So, that makes me a reactionary pretty much.

 

[Smellincoffee]

I don't think so. I'm somewhere between a left-libertarian and an anarcho-conservative. The one thing I'm absolutely sure of is that I hate the modern State. A pox on the homogenizing hegemony!

 

[amadeus]

My beliefs now just kind of boil down to "you mind your own business and I'll stay out of yours."

 

[kochman]

Isn't the manner in which you approach every question, or interpret the 'merits', an ideology? I guess that's sometimes termed a 'philosophy' instead, but I think ideology is also much more about your approach to political problems than it is about conforming to a pre-determined set of positions. Far from being intellectually lazy, then, people with a ideology would surely be more consistent than those who take a different approach to different issues, or who don't recognise that they are taking a similar approach to all issues. For example, your ideology might be a scientific one, so with each issue you'd try to determine the empirically best outcome (with 'best' presumably being defined by reference to a stable point). That'd seem better than approaching some matters in that way, and ignoring the approach in others, i.e. not having a particular ideology.

Good point. Let's use the OED version:
A system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy

I think most people on CFC have a coherent ideology and underestimate their ability to adhere to one. Sure, most people decide each issue on its merit, but what do we mean by "merit"? How do you decide when an idea has merit? There is some broadly coherent moral theory at work underneath all of that. It might not be 100% coherent, but only the most trivial theories are so pure.

Personally I'd say I was at 80%.

This raises an important issue, when does it become coherent?
If we haven't addressed certain issues on a personal level, it could potentially destabilize other ideas we have thus far stuck too...
But, can we ever cover everything? No, because the world is full of potential... that's why I believe it's basically impossible.

My beliefs now just kind of boil down to "you mind your own business and I'll stay out of yours."

Too vague...

 

[Mise]

This raises an important issue, when does it become coherent?

80%

If we haven't addressed certain issues on a personal level, it could potentially destabilize other ideas we have thus far stuck too...
But, can we ever cover everything? No, because the world is full of potential... that's why I believe it's basically impossible.

Yeah one shouldn't be too hard on oneself. So what if you're inconsistent 20% of the time? As long as you are aware of the weaknesses in your philosophy you can at least be magnanimous about it and say to yourself, "okay, I know this part of my philosophy is kind of incoherent, so the other guy might be right here".

We can also limit the inconsistencies to things that are relatively unimportant. If I'm inconsistent on, say, whether we should allow McDonald's to sell Trans Fats or something, then I'm okay with that, because it's not the end of the world if I'm inconsistent on something relatively trivial like that.

If you first of all know and understand your inconsistencies, and secondly keep your inconsistencies or idiosyncrasies to things that are unimportant and low impact, then you're at least on the right track.

 

[kochman]

I agree Mise, that's why I find the number of people saying they've got theirs solidly figured out to be interesting, especially since they won't even address what it is (for the most part).

 

[Gori the Grey]

The most incoherent part of my moral theory is reconciling feminism with liberalism, largely because the former is still relatively new, both the to the world and to me. I firmly believe that feminism is a consequence of liberalism, but in practice it is not always obvious how the two should be reconciled, as feminists can be quite illiberal at times.

Mise, you might take a look at Edmund Fawcett's new history of liberalism. I'm not myself deep enough into it to yet make a full-fledged recommendation, but his way of conceiving liberalism (which comes through in his two intro chapters) addresses itself to the tension you find between liberalism and illiberal forms of feminism. At least it helped me better understand that kind of tension.

 

[kochman]

And, feminism isn't new.
It was already present during the Enlightenment's liberalism, and came into the public eye during the French Revolution.
Olympia de Gouges, for example...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympe_de_Gouges

She, of course, lost her head as a "royalist".

The thing is, the feminist movement was totally uncoordinated and failed to present a united front, as lots of women of the day preferred the traditional role. As a result, the feminists failed to provide a loud enough voice, and were virtually dismissed.

 

[El_Machinae]

I find my coherence breaks down when theory meets practice. I'll use an off-the-cuff example, which isn't really an example.
- I'm morally okay with a death penalty (mostly), I just don't think it's beneficial in practice. And so, because I've gone and looked at the data, I've found dataX, Y, an Z suggesting it's not a great idea. And so, this gives me an idea of what kind of data would convince me. So, "I'm against it, but if you could do it better, I might support it" is my position. Oh, and I won't approve of any novel experimentation trying to get from A to B.

This sometimes puts me on the wrong side of history. For example, if it had been up to me, I'd have never allowed the first IVF experiments. Now, turns out the objections I would have had were wrong, but what can I do? The best I can do is be self-aware enough to know which way my reasoning would have lead me and then acknowledge I would have been incorrect. I dunno, seems better than just insisting I would have recognised every proven idea as great before we'd even tried.

 

[kochman]

I find my coherence breaks down when theory meets practice. I'll use an off-the-cuff example, which isn't really an example.
- I'm morally okay with a death penalty (mostly), I just don't think it's beneficial in practice. And so, because I've gone and looked at the data, I've found dataX, Y, an Z suggesting it's not a great idea. And so, this gives me an idea of what kind of data would convince me. So, "I'm against it, but if you could do it better, I might support it" is my position. Oh, and I won't approve of any novel experimentation trying to get from A to B.

This sometimes puts me on the wrong side of history. For example, if it had been up to me, I'd have never allowed the first IVF experiments. Now, turns out the objections I would have had were wrong, but what can I do? The best I can do is be self-aware enough to know which way my reasoning would have lead me and then acknowledge I would have been incorrect. I dunno, seems better than just insisting I would have recognised every proven idea as great before we'd even tried.

Now we're getting to the nitty gritty.
Death penalty, that's a good one. I've come full circle on this, onto the anti-death penalty side.

I don't believe a government should be able to take a person's life, because once we authorize that, we come to the problem of whose life they will take. It shouldn't be up to them.
Lock them up, throw away the key.

But, now comes the problem... what about a guy like OBL? Is assassination not a form of the death penalty?

It's funny that though the rule of not "assassinating" anyone is still in place in the US, they just call them "targeted killings" now, and WH lawyers can explain it all away... not really, but enough that it's ok.

One thing I find interesting is why so many Obamites have remained relatively silent over this issue, especially when it was done to US citizens? Were the citizens in question Jihad A-Holes? Yes. However, the fact remains, we assassinated them.

 

[El_Machinae]

That's my crux. I think that killing someone assassination-style can be justified under the viewpoint of Self Defense. Now, clearly, lots of caveats, but I can see where sometimes you realize that the other person just has to die.

And, the death penalty could easily be a variant of that, but more for deterrence purposes than anything else.

So, like I said, I'd be fine with the DP if there was any type of real deterrence effect (plus other caveat). There's the minor issue of authorizing the government to kill citizens, which conflicts against my thinking we should limit gov't power in general, but I find I can be swayed by statistics and 'greater good' arguments.

 

[kochman]

They've shown that the death penalty is not really a good deterrent.

But yes, in self-defense, I believe you might have to kill someone... does a nation (as opposed to an individual) get to claim that though?
No one is upset when the hero in the movie kills the villain that won't rest until the hero is dead, the hero was forced into it, or into his own death. As a species we obviously choose life.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, that's my thinking. Now, due to my marital arts training (during my formative years), I buy into the meme of "The minimum effective level of force" required to protect either yourself or an innocent. And, sometimes the minimum effective force ends up being lethal.

I think a nation is allowed to kill in self-defense. Maybe not in defense of the nation, but certainly in defense of its citizens. And, there can be this confluence, where you kill a threat and deter another threat at the same time.
(for example, I have a double-barreled shotgun and six guys are coming at me. After fair warning, I shoot one of them and tell the rest to back off. I've killed one person in (pre-emptive) self defense and deterred five people).

Now, I'm also a believer in the concept of consent. At some point, the guy marching towards you consented to getting shot. And the guy on death row consented to live in a world where people are killed for the convenience of others.

 

[kochman]

Now, I'm also a believer in the concept of consent. At some point, the guy marching towards you consented to getting shot. And the guy on death row consented to live in a world where people are killed for the convenience of others.

Did he consent to being shot?
In a volunteer army, sure...