Quote of the day: On dispassionate analysis
From Tyler Cowen, comes this beaut:
A while ago a few people drew a contrast between a more dispassionate style of (blog) analysis and a more explicitly moralizing approach. I would frame it differently. Pluralism reigns and there are many different moral values of import. The moralizing approach tends to leave a writer stuck in emphasizing a single value or a single comparison of values. The so-called dispassionate approach is more likely to lead the writer to see a broader range of values and moral trade-offs. The moralizing approach is most of all impoverished when it comes to…morality.
And I can’t think of a more dispassionate, and incorrect, post than Tyler has made 🙂 Seriously. The West, that once great civilisation, is as much in a moral bankruptcy as it is an economic one: we have all been let down by people like Tyler who may have been able to do something about it.
I keep quite a passionate blog.
I have to respectfully disagree – remember that the conclusions drawn from passion are a subset of the conclusions you arrive from with dispassionate analysis. As a result, such analysis allows us to understand what assumption we are making when we rail for something specific! That is a great thing.
No, tell me how passion or dispassion changes facts: right versus wrong? It doesn’t.
Perhaps trouble is you don’t believe in the right versus wrong bit. That amoral utilitarianism again 🙂 Noting the dictionary definition of amoral is neither moral nor immoral, but I would dispute that also: amoral is immorality by absence.
You can only objectively view facts by putting passion to the side when doing analysis.
Again, any conclusion based on passionate rhetoric is a subset of the set of conclusions you get from dispassionate analysis – standing back from your emotions allows you to gain a greater appreciation for the assumptions that are being made.
I think it dangerous if you kid yourself you can work in some type of vacuum like that, Matt.
You can’t reach a conclusion without value judgments – but you can do your best to create a transparent framework before attempting to reach a conclusion. Starting with a conclusion is a lot more dangerous IMO 😉
So, a rock is immoral?
Boom.
That is all.
A rock doesn’t have sentience ba-boom
Which means…
(Ka-flucking-blooey!)
This picture is very beautiful. And the article you written is really interesting. Thank you for sharing this post.