Implicit in the idea of moral evolution is the idea that there is an optimal state that morals evolve to. Things like ‘don’t steal, don’t cheat, don’t lie, use honest weights and measures.’
Those things come from somewhere higher, and they produce something approaching an optimal state when performed. Hayek doesn’t go there, but the implication is relatively clear in his work, at least as I see it.
Time to buy a copy of Road to Serfdom. I read lots of Hayek about 10 years ago for school.
A pleasure to read your essays. Reason and logical thinking are on display. Reminds me of my Constitutional Law Professor who was an avid believer in European Socialism but still spoke and tested on the concepts of limited government and how socialism destroys the Constitutional framework.
Hayek's on my readin' list but havin' not tackled'im yet--much appreciated all yer sharin' of his work!
What's so strange ta me is that quite a few of the destructive thinkers today--socialists, SJW's, "we are all Gazans now-erz," an' other such, many of whom attack others an' seem ta judge them ostensibly by--they tell us--HIGHER moral an' ethical standards (lol!)--seem ta have bizarrely compartmentalized (com-part-MENTAL-ized!) reason--i.e. they are not completely devoid of it but the version they have applies in some areas quite well an' in others--not--brutally not! They may be great parents an' yet can verbally slice off & dice up friends who don't conform ta their "enlightened" beliefs! They may be honorable professionals (honest in their work / hard-workin' / capable...) an' awful to their famblies (we have some'a them in ours who literally disowned us "vaxx-sceptics" --indeed we are now designated as bein' in a "cult" for our position n the matter...).
Wonderin' how Hayek might navigate these bifurcated humans who are selectively reasonable an' selectively unhinged? (This may ALWAYS have been true of human nature but it's become heightened an' highlighted in the past 5 years... maybe more....?)
Cannot figger these folks out fer the life of me--some are former friends that just seem ta have gone offa the deep end. AND they span the gamut! Some are dedicated atheists, others liberal joos, some devoted christians-- clearly the social order attempted by the "reason-able" 10 commandments in judeo-christian thinkin' didn't serve as a strong enough remedy against uncivilized behavior...
My answer would be is that they never had the principles they claimed. During COVID how many libertarians cheered (or remained silent) for the government subsidized and forced vaccines? Far too many.
To be fair, though, we are all evolving in our classrooms and can be "unhinged " at times. However, when see people stubbornly hold on to their errors, then we have reason to question their moral development.
Hayek's rule would be is that the more you disdain or withdraw from the market, the more your moral development will be impaired.
I do appreciate that clarity Barry--perhaps it's true--that their principles were really mushy from the git-go--possibly I just hadn't noticed... We often "think" we know who are allies are an' then--git disappointed (sorely). I just cannot understand the cruelty... so mebbe yes, a lott've morally impaired humans--ones that I used ta call my friends an' even fambly!!!-- An' yup, speakin of libertarians, yes, many silent on the vaxx issue plus they've been horrible ta Walter Block... like gerbils eatin' their own!
important point ya make--holdin' on "to their errors"--while many of us have changed our thinkin' (multiple times!), some just dig in their heels deeper... how to move a nation (fast!)?
thanks again! happy ta hear these distillations of Hayek!
I believe the fracas is intentionally overblown. It serves the side that is trying to replace Modernism with Post Modernism. It is the tactic mentioned by Saul Alinsky in Rules For Radicals. It is annoying.
Have a question: i presume one has to add time to morals plus human interactions to get reasoning. If true, how can one assume that ideas of socialism are failed since we only had 150 years or so to test them? Clearly, “successful” systems had 1,000s of years to evolve, should we give socialism some time?
Vitaily, The concise answer is that socialism cannot evolve because it is a made controlled system. The answer will be further clear as we read The Road to Serfdom.
Excellent piece here.
Implicit in the idea of moral evolution is the idea that there is an optimal state that morals evolve to. Things like ‘don’t steal, don’t cheat, don’t lie, use honest weights and measures.’
Those things come from somewhere higher, and they produce something approaching an optimal state when performed. Hayek doesn’t go there, but the implication is relatively clear in his work, at least as I see it.
Time to buy a copy of Road to Serfdom. I read lots of Hayek about 10 years ago for school.
Excellent work, as usual.
A pleasure to read your essays. Reason and logical thinking are on display. Reminds me of my Constitutional Law Professor who was an avid believer in European Socialism but still spoke and tested on the concepts of limited government and how socialism destroys the Constitutional framework.
Hayek's on my readin' list but havin' not tackled'im yet--much appreciated all yer sharin' of his work!
What's so strange ta me is that quite a few of the destructive thinkers today--socialists, SJW's, "we are all Gazans now-erz," an' other such, many of whom attack others an' seem ta judge them ostensibly by--they tell us--HIGHER moral an' ethical standards (lol!)--seem ta have bizarrely compartmentalized (com-part-MENTAL-ized!) reason--i.e. they are not completely devoid of it but the version they have applies in some areas quite well an' in others--not--brutally not! They may be great parents an' yet can verbally slice off & dice up friends who don't conform ta their "enlightened" beliefs! They may be honorable professionals (honest in their work / hard-workin' / capable...) an' awful to their famblies (we have some'a them in ours who literally disowned us "vaxx-sceptics" --indeed we are now designated as bein' in a "cult" for our position n the matter...).
Wonderin' how Hayek might navigate these bifurcated humans who are selectively reasonable an' selectively unhinged? (This may ALWAYS have been true of human nature but it's become heightened an' highlighted in the past 5 years... maybe more....?)
Cannot figger these folks out fer the life of me--some are former friends that just seem ta have gone offa the deep end. AND they span the gamut! Some are dedicated atheists, others liberal joos, some devoted christians-- clearly the social order attempted by the "reason-able" 10 commandments in judeo-christian thinkin' didn't serve as a strong enough remedy against uncivilized behavior...
My answer would be is that they never had the principles they claimed. During COVID how many libertarians cheered (or remained silent) for the government subsidized and forced vaccines? Far too many.
To be fair, though, we are all evolving in our classrooms and can be "unhinged " at times. However, when see people stubbornly hold on to their errors, then we have reason to question their moral development.
Hayek's rule would be is that the more you disdain or withdraw from the market, the more your moral development will be impaired.
I do appreciate that clarity Barry--perhaps it's true--that their principles were really mushy from the git-go--possibly I just hadn't noticed... We often "think" we know who are allies are an' then--git disappointed (sorely). I just cannot understand the cruelty... so mebbe yes, a lott've morally impaired humans--ones that I used ta call my friends an' even fambly!!!-- An' yup, speakin of libertarians, yes, many silent on the vaxx issue plus they've been horrible ta Walter Block... like gerbils eatin' their own!
important point ya make--holdin' on "to their errors"--while many of us have changed our thinkin' (multiple times!), some just dig in their heels deeper... how to move a nation (fast!)?
thanks again! happy ta hear these distillations of Hayek!
I believe the fracas is intentionally overblown. It serves the side that is trying to replace Modernism with Post Modernism. It is the tactic mentioned by Saul Alinsky in Rules For Radicals. It is annoying.
Have a question: i presume one has to add time to morals plus human interactions to get reasoning. If true, how can one assume that ideas of socialism are failed since we only had 150 years or so to test them? Clearly, “successful” systems had 1,000s of years to evolve, should we give socialism some time?
Vitaily, The concise answer is that socialism cannot evolve because it is a made controlled system. The answer will be further clear as we read The Road to Serfdom.