First, that a lot of people are too uneducated, stupid or uninformed to be responsible for the moral viewpoints. Hence why all blame should be foisted onto the "villainous leaders who manipulated."
Second, that your (our) moral viewpoint is the advanced... and the contrary presumably degenerate or primitive.
That kind of empathy isn't well received. It's condescension. At its worst, it's dehumanising... no moral agency.
Also, take note that they think the same things about you. The reason why you hold your foolish moral viewpoints is because you have been mislead, lied to and manipulated by media, university and Hollywood elites.
Idk if shame is useful, or legitimate as a way of mediating all this. But... I'm quite confident that condescension isn't a helpful posture. Better to start by recognising the actual opposition of viewpoints. Argue in earnest. Etc.
Ie: I'm not mad at you. You're not smart enough to know right from wrong. I'm mad at the people who spoon-fed you your stupid opinions.
It's not actually an empathetic posture, imo.
That's not only demonstrably false in lots of cases, it also doesn't advance discourse because now we're talking about potentially fictitious people with potentially fictitious beliefs that we just try to infer, instead of constructively arguing concrete points of view.
I claim that it's perfectly legitimate to think that certain other people are ill-equipped to make certain decisions. I believe in democracy because it is the least bad alternative, not because I somehow believe in the miraculously truthful insights of the general public.
More concretely, there's opinions that I disagree with but I respect that they are valid positions to be held, and there are opinions that I believe to be held out of ignorance. I don't know why I shouldn't be able to think that, and if other people want to believe that I'm ignorant, well they're free to do so and that doesn't affect my judgement generally (unless it comes from someone whose opinion I respect, of course).
That's of course different from the question of whether you should let people know that you think they're ill-informed. I agree that stating that overtly will probably not win you any sympathy.
Note that the sentiment is "condescension is not empathy", and empathy is what you need to approach this problem.
> I claim that it's perfectly legitimate to think that certain other people are ill-equipped to make certain decisions.
You then condescend. You are superior, the "general public" is too dumb ("ill-equipped") to "make certain decisions".
> That's of course different from the question of whether you should let people know that you think they're ill-informed
How would you know? You simply feel they are ill-informed, but it doesn't mean that they are. By assuming (implicitly) that you must be correct, you deny them the agency of figuring things out for themselves: Clearly they cannot have done so, they are simply too wrong.
I consider that an unproven assertion. A certain amount of empathy is certainly necessary to have a functioning society. But it doesn't seem to be the case that everyone has to be empathetic with everyone, and I don't think humanity has ever been at that or ever will be at that stage.
But even beyond that, "empathy" doesn't mean that you think everyone's opinion is equally right. Sometimes, empathy involves giving people hard truths that they may find hard to accept, but will be better for them long term.
> You then condescend. You are superior, the "general public" is too dumb ("ill-equipped") to "make certain decisions".
It's only condescending if you consider people's inherent worth to be tied to their intelligence or judgement. But that's something I disagree with: people who are right more often than others aren't morally superior, or inherently more worthy, or anything. They're simply right more often and it's therefore rational to listen to them more often.
Also note that I didn't say "dumb", that's your interpretation. Smart people have biases too, and being well- or ill-informed about a topic is not necessarily correlated to intelligence.
The general public is ill-equipped to decide whether P=NP or the Riemann hypothesis are true. That seems hardly controversial (and yet math departments continue to receive "proofs" of these statements from complete amateurs that usually don't even understand the problem correctly).
> How would you know? You simply feel they are ill-informed, but it doesn't mean that they are.
You never know anything, except for the fact that you exist. But that's not a reasonable state of being. At some point you have to start trusting your own judgement, especially when you know that you've done the research. That there are other people who disagree with your judgement doesn't fundamentally change that.
> By assuming (implicitly) that you must be correct, you deny them the agency of figuring things out for themselves: Clearly they cannot have done so, they are simply too wrong.
No, you're misunderstanding me. I don't claim that I'm a priori correct and that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong (if anything, I would consider my opinions to be more or less strong priors). That would indeed be ludicrous. But I do examine the arguments of other people, and in some cases have to come to the conclusion that they're a) factually wrong, or b) their argument doesn't make logical sense.
But when done with a perspective of helping with the "handicap", people are more receptive than you would expect. I've made this argument on twitter once and maybe it was because of the criticism of the "elitist" down punchers but found myself for the first time gaining maga followers, the very people who's intelligence I insulted.
Kid Rock's ode to MAGAism includes lyrics like:"NO I’VE NEVER BEEN THE SMARTEST (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agvibm7Wqy4)
These people know they have a handicap when it comes to academic intellect and are looking for others who will respect the struggle that comes with that.
People don't vote for Trump because they think he is smart, but because he respects the lack of academic smarts, because he is for them a refreshing example of success and respect without smarts in a world where it's increasingly difficult to achieve and people will cancel you if you are unable to reason at that academic level of morality.
I definitely here your point on non-intellectual populism. There's no requirement for everyone to be an intellectual and a worldview that does require this is also elitist.
Otoh, I don't see many people reacting well to the moral handicap frame either.
Personally, the route I usually go down is to (1) acknowledge that we disagree and (2) show that I can articulate their view respectfully. This is also a basis to move from. I don't think it's the structure or or content of the argument that matters... it's softer aspects like signaling respect, friendship and such.
I don't think this is about making a perfect argument though. I think it takes a complex, multi-year "conversation."
Imo, there's a lot to be learned from feminism. Pissing people off, being the object of hatred and derision was always going to be on a feminist menu. There was never going to be a way forward for feminism that didn't deeply offend and insult a lot of people.
It doesn't end there though. The conversation goes on. Sometimes the femenists walked away from some of their arguments. Often, society conceded feminist viewpoints after years of deriding them.
They didn't expect it to be respectful and pleasant at all times. Maybe you have to go through phases of tension to eventually come back together later.
At some point the “academic smarts” have to demonstrate success, otherwise people will rightfully discard them. Decades of constant failure from supposedly elite people in every possible field have lead to a reaction where people just don’t trust them no matter what they claim. Name your issue, and I guarantee someone with very good credentials who was very confident in their advocacy is responsible for its current state.
The problem isn’t that the “proles” are stupid, but rather that the educated aren’t nearly as smart as they think they are. Nearly every person I know who has poor critical thinking skills and accepts the first thing they hear without question is college educated, and there are many conspiracy theories commonly believed by educated people.
That’s a big claim to make without offering any examples.
The "villain" is whoever happens to be unpopular or undesired. Vulnerability is spun as a vice or saving grace in the interests of the shamer and his agenda. To paraphrase Cardinal Richelieu, it only takes a few words for one to find a reason to hang a man.
"Advanced morality" - what's that? Can you teach me?
Afaik, morality begins (and ends) with the Golden Rule 'do unto others'.
"Treat others as you would like others to treat you (positive or directive form)"
"Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated (negative or prohibitive form)"
Besides, the unqualified versions of The Golden Rule are subject to exploits around not observing the Veil of Ignorance.
After all, I believe that everyone whose name is “Rene” must by right have the money of all others. I do unto you as I would have you do unto me: I.e. we both behave according to the precept “if I am a Rene and you are not then I will take your money; and if you are Rene and I am not then I would give you my money”.
A universal law for the ages. I shall treat you as I would have you treat me. Now, if you don’t mind, stand and deliver.
"Do unto others..." isn't a compressed file that expands into generic rules for every situation. (If life was simple enough to be covered by a set of generic rules we wouldn't have evolved these huge calorie-guzzling brains on the ends of our spines, eh?)
You might think the situation is too broad or complex etc, but your calorie-guzzling brain can work the many and various context-dependent scenarios out. For every wrong there is a right answer. We live in a moral world.
Luckily, its not your job to sort the world out. You can only work on yourself and ensure your actions are aligned with morality.
PS I would reply sooner, but as I have received so many downvotes I get a message to slow down, that I am posting too fast.
What I am trying to say is that the golden rule and its applicability is far from obvious. You can consider interpreting it correctly the most basic "advanced morality" you asked about.
> Should I disregard the fact other people might be insecure about it, because I don't mind people "doing unto me" such jokes?
You seemed to show awareness that people might be insecure - so you have the information you need to exercise your judgement in this case. And every case will be resolvable if you want, via the application of reason. But this is a free will universe - you can ignore the information that you have, but then, you also know what that means.
If you want to say whatever-it-is isn't obvious, that's fine. You don't have to follow what I say. In truth, what I (or the golden rule say) isn't important - words are pliable if you want them to be and work at it. You already know what is right and wrong, what intent your actions have behind them - the words are merely decorative; an attempt to communicate.
My view is that we judge ourselves. If you think you can kid yourself and via word games so you can have you cake and eat it, go ahead - but you have been told. There is a difference between nascence and ignorance - ignorance is a choice. All the best.
The so-called Platinum Rule is presented as a better alternative to the Golden Rule, but it should be viewed as (and relegated to) something more like "fine print". There's an important reason for this:
The Golden Rule actually promotes empathy. It gives you a simple tool for understanding situations: Put yourself in the other person's shoes and ask what you'd want. This is something that you, and others, are likely to be somewhat capable of.
The Platinum Rule, by contrast, discourages empathy (under the guise of the reverse), by telling you to emphasize difference between yourself and the other person, and making them more unknowable, more Other. It also, in practice, tends to promote suspicion, fear-of-offense, and, as a result, inaction: "I would like it if someone did this for me. But maybe they wouldn't? Maybe they'll be mad for some reason? I hear those people have strange beliefs and fiery tempers. Ok, I'll just mind my own business."
Fine, yes, in extreme border cases, it's worth pausing and considering "platinum rule"-like considerations. But even there I contend that you're better off using the Golden Rule's mantra, and putting yourself in the other's shoes; then all the second-order effects can be included in those "shoes".
In short, from an emotional perspective, the Golden Rule simply works better.
Instead the situation can be a bit like --
You're trying to build a bridge. And you have this good way to do it, using Newtonian mechanics.
And then somebody comes along and goes, "but achktually, 'General Relativity', you idiot; who let you near bridges?" Not that they themselves could possibly calculate the loads using a full General-Relativistic treatment. And then, everybody gives up: The bridge stays unbuilt, and warring camps form on opposite sides of the river.
This gets at another problem with the "Platinum Rule": It is, fairly explicitly, a way for a person to say, "your consensus about how to be good is wrong; I am better". In this way it's an elitist idea: "I'm so smart; my ethics are superior to the rubes'". The Golden Rule, by contrast, is leveling.
Life comes at you fast. You need good simple mental tools -- mantras -- that help you to cultivate the correct emotional states. When you catch fire, you don't have time to calculate stoichiometry; you "Stop, Drop, and Roll".
The Golden Rule is like that for ethics. It's one of the very few things that actually works.
> Flanagan calls shame accompanied by progressive values “mature shame”
I would argue that shaming used to promote your political views is often the most damaging kind of shaming because on top of being the most divisive, it is likely counterproductive, an offputting move that damages your brand and often creates a powerful backlash against it.
Now there's some subtlety here. It depends who you target in your shaming. The article does mention that shaming is considered more acceptable when punching up than punching down, which I would agree with, but you have to be very careful how you define that. Some people tell themselves they are punching up, when they are clearly punching down. One group this is clearly not privileged are the uneducated people who have always struggled at learning and understanding the world, who's grasp of morality is limited and requires weekly reminders by moral leaders, who fall for internet conspiracy theories, who have no chance of having the academic understanding of race and gender that seems to be increasingly asked of people. These people who struggle in educational settings, are comparatively handicapped, often don't have access to good stable jobs, are the first to become unemployed during recessions so are some of the most vulnerable people out there even when they are white.
Advanced morality about things like race and gender is complex and not within everyone's reach. Advanced empathy involves multilevel recursive counterfactual meta-cognitive logic ( https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/K4eDzqS2rbcBDsCLZ/unrolling-... ) and sometimes, academic understanding of past history. Asking some of these people to understand these things is asking people in wheelchairs to run and run away they will. If you shame them for their handicap they will fight back.
It's fine to shame the villainous leaders who manipulated these people for their evil ends, but if you shame the people for falling into the traps, you actually push them further towards those evils.