So I kind of stumbled in to a re-read of Alisdair MacIntyre's After Virtue and am finding it well worth the surprise. Which is not to say I won't end up in high dudgeon at some point. After all, much of the work is an attempt to revive a kind of essentialism in moral discourse. All the same, as a diagnostician of so much of the ridiculousness of our public discourse, I find it difficult to disagree with his basic thesis.
So much of our talk rests in what MacIntyre calls "moral fictions". Among those are rights, a concept that once upon a time rested upon a metaphysic that imagined a human being apart from any and all social attachments; said imaginary "man" was granted particular things that made him "man" qua "man". No one accepts the underlying metaphysical anthropology anymore, except perhaps in rarefied circles of philosophy departments here and there. What we are left with, alas, is a vocabulary detached from any underlying support. At the end of the day, the screeching back and forth about "rights" is little more than the assertion of the primacy of untrammeled will-to-power (something Nietzsche recognized a long time ago, and of which he approved); it is the entitlement of the spoiled child, not wanting anyone or anything to interfere with his or her declaration of supreme autonomy.
Which, alas, is another fiction about which MacIntyre doesn't elaborate all that much. For all he understands the way these concepts are socially embedded, he doesn't take the next step (at least in his rather lengthy critique of so much contemporary moral discourse) and make clear that "the individual" or "man" (and here I put quotes around the word with some bit of double irony; maleness was the norm, so those who use the terminology were being unselfconsciously misogynist in their use of the word, and the contemporary drive to replace such terminology hides the basic sense that men are the norm, women an aberration) is as much a fiction as are the rights such a thing possesses. Of course, it's been years since I read the book, and I have forgotten how sweeping his criticism of the Enlightenment moral project really was; perhaps I've yet to stumble upon such a point.
In any event, especially with all the shrieking about "gun rights", I think it is important to repeat: "Rights" are a fiction, an invention of an age that believed there were these things called "men" who existed outside and prior to any social organization (it's there in our Declaration of Independence, a bit of business we pass over in silence, by and large, embarrassed by its historical falsity). Any attempt by state power to interfere with these "rights" were ipso facto tyrannical acts precisely because they interfered with the way human beings qua human beings are. That this entire formulation is fictitious from beginning to end should be clear enough given even a moment's thought.
The assertion by far too many they have a "right" to a firearm is not only a fiction; it is, in fact, morally vicious. It is little different in kind from a child throwing a tantrum in a store because her parents won't buy her a toy. Right has made it's final spiral to entitlement, and the assertion of rights is little more than the tantrum thrown by the privileged in the face of those who see such privilege as interfering with their equally legitimate claims to some social good with which that privilege interferes.
It is far too deep in our legal and political and social culture to eliminate the whole notion of "rights"; yet, I think it is important to make clear that even in their heyday, rights were never absolute, whether of life or property. The idea that owning a gun is on a par with speaking out against government activity with which one disagrees, or practicing one's religion without state interference is really quite vile. We should at the very least be clear that all the demands that our "rights" not be tampered with is little more than one large pout by people who have no idea how childish they appear.
So much of our talk rests in what MacIntyre calls "moral fictions". Among those are rights, a concept that once upon a time rested upon a metaphysic that imagined a human being apart from any and all social attachments; said imaginary "man" was granted particular things that made him "man" qua "man". No one accepts the underlying metaphysical anthropology anymore, except perhaps in rarefied circles of philosophy departments here and there. What we are left with, alas, is a vocabulary detached from any underlying support. At the end of the day, the screeching back and forth about "rights" is little more than the assertion of the primacy of untrammeled will-to-power (something Nietzsche recognized a long time ago, and of which he approved); it is the entitlement of the spoiled child, not wanting anyone or anything to interfere with his or her declaration of supreme autonomy.
Which, alas, is another fiction about which MacIntyre doesn't elaborate all that much. For all he understands the way these concepts are socially embedded, he doesn't take the next step (at least in his rather lengthy critique of so much contemporary moral discourse) and make clear that "the individual" or "man" (and here I put quotes around the word with some bit of double irony; maleness was the norm, so those who use the terminology were being unselfconsciously misogynist in their use of the word, and the contemporary drive to replace such terminology hides the basic sense that men are the norm, women an aberration) is as much a fiction as are the rights such a thing possesses. Of course, it's been years since I read the book, and I have forgotten how sweeping his criticism of the Enlightenment moral project really was; perhaps I've yet to stumble upon such a point.
In any event, especially with all the shrieking about "gun rights", I think it is important to repeat: "Rights" are a fiction, an invention of an age that believed there were these things called "men" who existed outside and prior to any social organization (it's there in our Declaration of Independence, a bit of business we pass over in silence, by and large, embarrassed by its historical falsity). Any attempt by state power to interfere with these "rights" were ipso facto tyrannical acts precisely because they interfered with the way human beings qua human beings are. That this entire formulation is fictitious from beginning to end should be clear enough given even a moment's thought.
The assertion by far too many they have a "right" to a firearm is not only a fiction; it is, in fact, morally vicious. It is little different in kind from a child throwing a tantrum in a store because her parents won't buy her a toy. Right has made it's final spiral to entitlement, and the assertion of rights is little more than the tantrum thrown by the privileged in the face of those who see such privilege as interfering with their equally legitimate claims to some social good with which that privilege interferes.
It is far too deep in our legal and political and social culture to eliminate the whole notion of "rights"; yet, I think it is important to make clear that even in their heyday, rights were never absolute, whether of life or property. The idea that owning a gun is on a par with speaking out against government activity with which one disagrees, or practicing one's religion without state interference is really quite vile. We should at the very least be clear that all the demands that our "rights" not be tampered with is little more than one large pout by people who have no idea how childish they appear.
11 comments:
Wow. That is really stupid. You believe it is "pouting" because anyone might desire the means of protecting their own life and property, two other rights you don't see as having ever been "absolute"? What possible support might you have for such an incredibly idiotic point of view?
Since they were invented in the 17th century, how could they be absolute? What's stupid is someone who knows nothing coming along and pretending to comment about something with the pretense of knowing something.
What's stupid is having a gun in a home, especially one with children, as it's as much as 43 times more like to be used to kill a family member, or be used in a suicide, as it is to be used for protection. So, please, by all means, get a gun and put yourself and your family in grave danger.
And Art? This is the result of the kind of attitude you're expressing. Had that old guy taken a moment to think, not to react in fear, and most of all not owned a gun, a young man would be alive.
Instead, he decided to be a macho man, didn't he, protecting his allegedly God-given right to property by killing a 22 year old man who had accidentally pulled in to his driveway.
He's a real hero. Oh, wait. No he's not. He's a murderer.
There's a moment in the show "The West Wing" when President Bartlett is giving yet another tiresome lecture, to a group of college students, I think. His line is, "We hold these truths to be self-evident," they said, "that all men are created equal." Strange as it may seem, that was the first time in history that anyone had ever bothered to write that down.... "
It's a cute line, but stupid, and not surprisingly, we see that's MA's conception of the matter. He's pretty sure that those rights were well known before the 17th century, just no one in the preceding 7000 years of human civilization bothered to write it down.
I guess they were just busy?
What's stupid is pretending that rights endowed by God are invented by man, simply because one cannot find them written down previous to our nation's founding. "Invented"? Well known or not, that has always been the fact. Indeed, the rights weren't so much invented as acknowledged. I'll even go with "discovered" as a more accurate representation of the case. An honest person need go back only as far as Genesis to find the truth about the right to life and the reason for it.
"What's stupid is someone who knows nothing coming along and pretending to comment about something with the pretense of knowing something."
sez you. But then you say
"What's stupid is having a gun in a home, especially one with children, as it's as much as 43 times more like to be used to kill a family member, or be used in a suicide, as it is to be used for protection."
Do you have any idea of where that statistic originates and how it has been refuted? Do you understand that most people killed by family members are killed by people with criminal records or prior histories of abusive behavior? Do you know that the study that came to that stat didn't include cases where a gun was drawn but not fired? Can you tell me more about arc welding?
And yes, I've seen the link about the old guy. Sure. But honest people don't jump on the first aberration and pretend it is typical to make their case. I'm sure it helps your delusional belief that gun owners are paranoids, but the numbers don't bear that out even a little bit.
Actually, Art, most gun owners are regular folks.
Like me.
It isn't the owning that's the issue. It's the childlike insistence that absolutely nothing must interfere with a man and his metal penis. Not a school full of dead kids, not a theater full of dead patrons, not some loon in Alabama killing a school bus driver or some cops in Philly because he's afraid Big Bad Obama's gonna take them all away.
It isn't gun ownership that's the problem, it's the rampant demonstration that YOUR GUN is more important than the lives of your fellow citizens.
I don't know why you continue to bring up dildos in a discussion about guns.
I also don't know why you insist that the desire to possess a weapon conflicts with the desire to keep kids safe when obviously the reverse is true. It is crystal clear that by denying the law-abiding their means of self-defense, they and/or their loved ones are vulnerable to criminals and the insane. A more accurate way to reflect reality would be expressed in this statement:
It's the childlike insistence that absolutely nothing must interfere with disarming the law-abiding members of society. Not a school full of dead kids, not a theater full of dead patrons, not some loon in Alabama killing a school bus driver.
BTW, neither that theater nor that school were "full" of dead people. There's no stopping a lefty from exploiting tragedy with dishonest hyperbole to further an agenda.
I bring them up, Art, because all you gun nuts - something I distinguish from responsible gun owners - seem to care just a little bit too much about your little metal dick extensions.
Seriously.
As for exploiting a tragedy with hyperbole, what do you call an organization that gets dimbulbs like you to start screeching about tyranny and gun-takeaways after 20 kids are murdered?
I'd ask if you have any shame, but I know the answer to that.
No, Geoff. Who are you kidding? You bring it up because you like to type or say the word "penis". What's more, you like to demonize those on with whom you disagree, especially if they lean right-wing.
Seriously.
The NRA doesn't "get" anyone to "screech" about anything. That would be those who would demand impotent laws and the repeal of the 2nd due to the actions of a very few, none of whom are law-abiding gun owners. What is shameful is the exploitation of this tragedy to deny freedoms to those who, unlike the shooter, have not abused their freedom. What is shameful is trying to accuse people like me of exploiting the situation when all we are doing is resisting the efforts of the true exploiters who created the situation in the first place. So, shame on you. The shame is yours whether you accept it like a man or not.
How sad that you can't even admit the possibility you're being manipulated. Name a person in a position of power and authority who is advocating banning all guns. Name a person in a position of power and authority who is recommending authorities go door to door to confiscate weapons. Name a person in a position of power and authority who wants to set up a national database of gun-owners that can be used to to facilitate the second claim.
None. The only person saying that is Wayne LaPierre of the NRA. He screeches and the echo chamber choruses it out for all the world to hear.
With over 1100 dead by gunfire since Newtown, inaction is a sure-fire way to keep the body count rising. While LaPierre gets foot-in-mouth soldiers such as yourself to drain oxygen and intelligence from the room, and the various Neros fiddle while Rome gets shot up, I am wondering how it is possible to do anything constructive. Between the Nazi apologists attacking the President for a rather bland statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day to the Black Helicopter crowd and their Red Dawn fantasies insisting that dead kids are the price we have to pay for freedom, the amorality of the American Right is on stark display.
So keep typing, Art, because all you do is demonstrate the fundamental lack of any ethical sense that is part and parcel of the American Conservative today. That and the willingness of its adherents to mimic whatever talking points are out there.
The question regarding who wants to ban all guns is a dodge. Though Diane Feinstein comes immediately to mind, the notion that an incremental move toward a total ban is not beyond the realm of possibility. Indeed, should a ban on "military style" weapons be enacted, it wouldn't be long before other bans are proposed as deaths by firearms continue. Incremental steps are often employed to achieve a greater goal and no group employs this concept as much as progressives do. In this, YOU are the one that is being manipulated as you fall for this nonsense that somehow a ban of any kind is what is needed to stem the violence that is really quite rare.
As to databases, they already exist by virtue of the need for FOID cards and the registering of weapons bought. How willfully naive to suggest that they could never be used to confiscate weapons in this country. Thoughtful people don't wait for bad things to happen before acting. They also don't insist on acting in ineffective ways, such as banning weapons to reduce violent behavior.
But then, you see what you want to see as your irrational hatred for all things right wing manipulates your position. You see nazi and racist apologists behind every tree. And you dare suggest that it is I who mimics talking points. Typical.
Post a Comment