8 ms·
CS Lewis has a speech about the ingroups and corruption. His thesis is that the mere desire to be "in" is the greatest driver of immoral behavior: "To nine out
by praptak 8mo ago
CS Lewis has a speech about the ingroups and corruption. His thesis is that the mere desire to be "in" is the greatest driver of immoral behavior:
"To nine out of ten of you the choice which could lead to scoundrelism will come, when it does come, in no very dramatic colours. Obviously bad men, obviously threatening or bribing, will almost certainly not appear. Over a drink, or a cup of coffee, disguised as triviality and sandwiched between two jokes, from the lips of a man, or woman, whom you have recently been getting to know rather better and whom you hope to know better still—just at the moment when you are most anxious not to appear crude, or naïf or a prig—the hint will come. It will be the hint of something which the public, the ignorant, romantic public, would never understand: something which even the outsiders in your own profession are apt to make a fuss about: but something, says your new friend, which “we”—and at the word “we” you try not to blush for mere pleasure—something “we always do.”"
https://www.lewissociety.org/innerring/ https://www.lewissociety.org/innerring/
- rramadass 8mo agoAlso Lord Acton - “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.”
- brazzy 8mo agoActon was, by the way, an ardent supporter of the Confederacy. In his opinion, the federal government curtailing the independence of states was a more significant act of oppression than slavery.
- delaminator 8mo agoI think there's a war about that wasn't there?
- brazzy 8mo agoYeah, and he didn't like the outcome. Salient quote (from a letter to Robert E. Lee): "I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. The institutions of your Republic have not exercised on the old world the salutary and liberating influence which ought to have belonged to them, by reason of those defects and abuses of principle which the Confederate Constitution was expressly and wisely calculated to remedy. I believed that the example of that great Reform would have blessed all the races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo. "
- delaminator 8mo agoWell, he wasn't wrong.
- XorNot 8mo agoWhining about States rights to enslave people is certainly a take. Particularly when in context, the war was caused by the South acting to usurp abolition in the North via the legal system (i.e. Dredd Scott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott) The importance and applicability of "states rights" is always oddly narrow.
- b40d-48b2-979e 8mo agoThe importance and applicability of "states rights" is always oddly narrow. It's also always ignoring the declarations of secession that all explicitly name slavery as the motivation.
- wat10000 8mo agoThe Confederate Constitution was mostly a copy of the US Constitution. One place where it differed is that it forbade any state from abolishing slavery. So the whole "states' rights" thing is obvious baloney.
- bell-cot 8mo agoIf you're familiar with English history, then it's more understandable that Lord Acton (Catholic, and born a mere Baronet) was against powerful central authorities. And at least according to Wikipedia, Acton's positions on the Confederacy and slavery were very mainstream for English Catholics of the day.
- watwut 8mo agoHe was pro powerful central authority, as long as that powerful central authority is pro-slavery. He was against it when it prevented oppression.
- bell-cot 8mo agoWho is this "he" you are describing? Because your "he" bears minimal resemblance to the (extensively documented) Lord Acton.
- b40d-48b2-979e 8mo agopositions on [...] slavery were very mainstream Thankfully we also had figures like John Brown to fight the good fight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist)
- bell-cot 8mo agoTo clarify - John Brown was an American, with a Puritan/Calvinist background, born to fairly humble circumstances. Very unlike Acton. And Britain's record on slavery is both far more complex, and far less bad, than many modern ideologues might have us believe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa_Squadron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa_Squadron
- spigottoday 8mo agoCorruption empowers, and absolute corruption empowers absolutely. It seems to me that some people adopt this perspective.
- ChrisMarshallNY 8mo ago> "Half of the harm that is done in this world Is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm; But the harm does not interest them." -T.S. Eliot
- bsenftner 8mo agoIn undergrad I did a formal Philosophy / Sociology study, where we were looking at human motivations. The research indicated that prestige is the number 1 driver of human motivation. Gaining prestige "trumps" ethics. Nobody likes to hear that.
- sigwinch 8mo agoNo, but I don’t think ethics is #2. Someone intrinsically motivated might be technically competent, autonomous and self-confident about his/her goals. I might skip your meetings about ethics; I might be too busy.
- derbOac 8mo agoI think this is one reason it is important to cast unethical behavior in terms of lack of competency — that someone has to break the rules to get ahead because they're not competent enough to do things fairly or ethically. Empathy, while important in my opinion personally, often doesn't matter to certain people. So you have to decrease the prestige associated with unethical behavior, above and beyond it being unethical per se.
- DFHippie 8mo agoThis. I think so much of the fascism and corruption afoot in the world comes from people who believe they deserve things they are incompetent to get. Their sense of entitlement is in conflict with their competence and unrestrained by concern for others. To soothe their ego wound they project their faults onto the person who has what they want. "It isn't my failure; it's your trickery!" Now instead of shame and impotence they feel righteous anger.
- macintux 8mo agoI don't know that it's necessarily incompetence. The idea of "overproduction of elites" pops up frequently: https://www.niskanencenter.org/are-we-overproducing-elites-and-instability/ https://www.niskanencenter.org/are-we-overproducing-elites-a... You may be supremely competent but unlucky enough to be born at the wrong time, to the wrong family, competing with the wrong people, to rise to the level that you feel you deserve.
- PaulHoule 8mo agoI'd note that it is common for fraudsters to prey on members of ingroups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affinity_fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affinity_fraud
- EdwardDiego 8mo agoMLM vendors looove religious stay at home parents (usually, but not always, mothers) for precisely that reason. And in my country there's been several ponzi schemes that targeted people through churches, because Dave is such a good Christian, he tithes every Sunday, he wouldn't at all mislead us about this exciting investment opportunity!
- lo_zamoyski 8mo agoAbsolutely. In an ideal setting, elites model excellence and serve as an example for others to follow. In practice, things are never so pure, and in bad cases, quite bad. This is why we may speak of the fish rotting from the head down. The general populace takes its example from what is taken to be its elite, even if in objective terms, that "elite" is a total failure. You see this with political opinions. People generally don't think very deeply about politics. They generally reflect the political sensibilities of the in-group they aspire to remain part of or aspire to join. It's a signal. A reasonably intelligent person can make the distinction between signal and genuinely informed opinion, but often, and especially among the poseurs, it's not about the truth value of an opinion. It is about the signal. This is the very definition of bullshit: something said with total indifference to its truth value, and only valued for its instrumental usefulness.
- graemep 8mo agoI think this is absolutely spot on with the Epstein thing. Powerful individuals just helping each other, giving each other information and money, or facilitating or ignoring exploitation because it is "what we all do". Especially effective when the group believe (maybe implicitly) that they are "better" and entitled to put their interests before those of the public. Even more so when there is a huge advantage to be gained by being part of the group. Join my networking group, pass on some info in return for money or vice-versa, turn a blind eye to abuse even if you are not involved....