This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Legitimacy & Israel
What is it that makes a state legitimate? It's amazing to me how many people simply take any existing state as legitimate, without asking whether it ought to be seen as legitimate or not. States commit horrific acts of violence and coercion daily, so this is an important question. How can we know whether such a state is actually justified in committing such blatantly awful acts?
There are, I think, at first appearance two popular theories of this: might makes right, and democratic moralism. The former theory is amoral, and the latter is moralistic. In practice, however, I think these are in fact merely two faces of the same coin.
On the one hand, the might-makes-right people say that the state is self-justifying. It exists, it has might, therefore obey it, end of discussion. This is unsatisfying in that it essentially dodges the topic of discussion. As such it is not really a valid answer to the question of legitimacy; rather it implicitly denies that there is any question to be had at all. Might makes right might be a good starting point for a science of state, which investigates how, in human history, states have emerged and become mighty, but it is inappropriate for the normative question that is the question of legitimacy (what type of state should there be?).
Now on the other hand the democratists say that the state is justified when it is popular. But why should that be? If you assume, empirically, that people have different levels of moral aptitude, then popularity immediately appears to be a formula to craft a wicked state. The only deeper justification is that popularity probably correlates with mightiness. But this is just a thin veneer over the first position.
So said Thrasymachus:
In the Gorgias, Socrates makes the link to democracy explicit, and Callicles agrees:
But Callicles then points out the absurdity of democracy:
I agree, rather, with Socrates (and Plato?) that the aristocratic rule by virtue is more just than the democracy. And likewise the most legitimate state is the state of Reason (or what was called philosophy). I believe in modern times, Francis Galton and Friedrich Nietzsche have shown us the way to establish a legitimate state.
Galton:
Now this brings me to Israel. Israel is a recent example of state foundation, by which I mean the art of creating a new state. It was founded in 1948 by a population made up largely of recent immigrants; for well over a thousand years Jews had been but a small minority in the region; for nearly two thousand there was no Jewish state.
Now, what kind of state is Israel? Obviously, it is Jewish. But it is also democratic. And it seems to premise its existence on the dwelling of the Jewish immigrants in the region. What inferences can we make here regarding probable hypotheses in the science of state? For one, we can guess that Israel and states like it depend on the influx of people into its vicinity for its sustenance. In other words Israel is predicated on the mass immigration of aliyah; the Jewish population grew from about 25,000 in the 1880s to about 630,000 by 1948, mostly through immigration. It is merely, then, the armed and coercive organisation of that population.
What sort of just foundation is that? Consider this: when one man declares himself sovereign, he is a laughing stock, like an ape. When a few men do it, they are criminals; yet when many men do it, I am supposed to profess that they are just?
I would prefer to keep my reason and see all such founders, not only Israel's, as laughing-stocks and criminals. Thus, I see Israel as the farce of state foundation. For before Israel we knew the way to the just state; yet it was the Torah and its aliyah which led to the foundation of Israel, a state not unlike all previous states, and all of its rivals in the region. There is nothing new or elevated about Israel. What is the higher purpose?
And if Israel is farce, who then is the tragedy? One does not have to look far; it is Israel's greatest ally, or should I say its uncle, old Samuel. For the United States was founded on philosophy, it was founded on higher ideals. But its ideals were flawed, because its philosophers were flawed, and so were its people. It started as an oligarchy, that saw itself as an aristocracy, and it never knew true justice. As Plato would predict, it degenerated to a democracy, and lost most of what apprehension of virtue it had, and now many say it is on the road to tyranny.
Imagine what could be done with North America if it were not already settled! That is the tragedy. And the farce is all the effort put in to crowding out the Muslims in Palestine, for nothing higher at all. The situation is so dire that people dream of settling Mars, a desert with no water and no breathable air, because at least it is not yet scourged by a state. Galton had the same dream:
Some will say all of this is silly because it is impossible. But we know true aliyah is not impossible; Galton showed us that much. If Israel were impossible, it would not be because of the Jews. It would be because of the gentiles. So too, if true Israel is impossible, it is because the true gentiles block the true aliyah of the true Jews. (Sozusagen). Ask yourself, are you a Jew or a Gentile? Is it just for the gentiles to stop the Jews? And how should Jews feel, if they are stopped?
To be plain, since the above is metaphor (which I think has value in itself): I am not talking about actual Jews or gentiles. Zionism showed that a scattered people can migrate and found a state within a few decades; Galton showed what kind of state would be worth founding. By «true Israel» I mean a state founded on reason and on Galton's eugenics rather than on scripture. By «true aliyah» I mean the migration of the people who want such a state to a place where they can found it. By «true Jews» I mean those founders, and by «true gentiles» the existing states and peoples who would stop them. So the question I am asking is: would it be just for existing states to block the founding of a better one, and would its founders be wronged if they were blocked?
It seems to me that you are conflating a few aspects of statecraft and loading them all onto the term of "legitimacy." At first, you discuss theories of where the authority of a state comes from. As in, what makes a state a state, as opposed to a voluntary federation or some other form of organization. You correctly identify the state as the locus of organized power in a region, with both the state's capacity for coordinated action ("might") and the consent of the governed as relevant factors of a state's ability to efficiently operate. States have laws, and part of what separates a good state from a failed state is its ability to enforce said laws and promote whatever its model of an ideal society is.
However, you also discuss matters of moral appropriateness, and, to me, this seems entirely divorced from the concept of what a state is. In my view, it does not matter the ideals upon which a state is founded - a bunch of channers could come together and make Kekistan and it would have just as much legitimacy as Indonesia. It would be younger, with less of a felt legitimacy due to its age, but it would be, definitionally, a state.
No, you do not need to profess that they "are" just. Perhaps there are moral questions about the means by which a state was founded or about the morals of its current actions. However, there is nothing morally relevant about the mere existence of a state qua state. As a practical matter, though, it is in your interest to recognize them as a state, as a large group of people declaring themselves sovereign and self-governing is a nearly tautological definition of what a state actually is. The difference between a state that is a laughingstock and a state that is broadly recognized has to do with history, cultural associations, and, as you rightly identify, both its might and the consent of the governed. The moral status of a state, its actions, and the philosophical lodestone of the state are secondary considerations. A state can be a colonial state, a "rogue" state, a morally repugnant state, but a state nonetheless. Native Americans do not dispute the fact that America is a state even if it was founded by purging their communities.
In other words, it seems appropriate to me to discuss whether or not a state's actions are just, but the notion of whether a state exists or not has little moral relevance. It is purely a matter of practicality. I'm reminded of this clip - Israel does exist.
It is neither just nor unjust to block the founding of a state. That question requires more specifics: why is the new state being created? By what means is the new state claiming territory and establishing itself? Are there geopolitical impacts?
If Australia wants to split into East Australia and West Australia, on its face there is no reason for that to be morally relevant. However, if West Australia proclaims that once founded, the military will kill everyone under 5'0" to make a eugenic superstate, that becomes morally relevant, and the decision to intervene in the state's existence is downstream of that effect. Silly example, but I think you get me.
This may be a nit, but, if that's consent, then let Ghislaine Maxwell go. I much prefer to say popularity, or maybe acquiescence.
Again a nit, but, functional or working, not good.
Maybe these are not nits. When all we have are words, isn't it important to use the right ones? As I said elsewhere, it seems like modern « philosophy » is an absolute minefield when it comes to little blemishes like these. It adds up to a totally false picture.
I implied it is quite divorced, yes.
I use legitimacy as a moral term. I think you mean existence. States can exist, but be illegitimate (or rather they can be more or less legitimate on a continuum.)
I think you have misread me to a great degree. Nowhere did I say that illegitimate states do not exist. Specifically, did you miss this line:
Here I clearly draw the distinction that you are grasping at.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link