I think fascism is more popular today than it was in the 1930s. — Athena

HI Athena,

I think it may be time to start reconsidering your clearly either, dishonest, or delusional takes on the world:

When comparing the 1930s to the 2020s in terms of global fascism, the 1930s unequivocally show far more examples of established, state-controlled, globally impactful fascism.

Here's why:

1930s: The Zenith of Fascism's Global Power and Influence

Established Fascist States: This decade saw the rise and consolidation of major fascist regimes with immense global impact:

Italy (Mussolini): Already in power since the 1920s, Mussolini's Italy served as the ideological blueprint for many other fascist movements.

Germany (Hitler/Nazism): Hitler came to power in 1933, rapidly transforming Germany into a totalitarian Nazi state with an aggressive expansionist foreign policy. Nazism shared core fascist characteristics but added extreme racial ideology.


Japan (Militarism/Fascist-like tendencies): While not strictly "fascist" in the European sense, Imperial Japan exhibited many characteristics of fascism, including extreme nationalism, militarism, expansionism, and authoritarian rule.

Spain (Franco): Francisco Franco's Falange, heavily supported by fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, won the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) and established a long-lasting authoritarian regime with strong fascist elements.

Widespread Fascist Movements: Beyond these core states, significant fascist or fascist-leaning movements gained traction and posed serious threats to democracy in many other countries, including:

France: Croix de Feu, later the French Social Party, was a large and growing right-wing movement.

Britain: The British Union of Fascists (BUF) led by Oswald Mosley.

Eastern Europe: Various authoritarian and nationalist regimes with fascist sympathies emerged across countries like Hungary, Romania, and Poland.

Latin America: Fascist-inspired movements also appeared in countries like Brazil (Integralism).
Direct Threat to Global Peace: The fascist powers of the 1930s were actively engaged in military aggression and expansion, directly leading to World War II. This included Italy's invasion of Ethiopia (1935), Japan's aggression in China, and Germany's annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia.

While there are serious concerns about the rise of far-right, authoritarian, and nativist movements in the 2020s, it's crucial to differentiate them from the state-controlled fascism of the 1930s:

Conclusion:

The 1930s clearly demonstrate a greater presence of global fascism in terms of established, state-backed regimes with aggressive expansionist aims and widespread, powerful movements that directly contributed to a world war. The threat was existential and manifested in complete state overhauls in several major powers.

Why? — Jeremy Murray

I have been over this. It's becoming really frustrating(not you personally - but note if anything seems terse, it's not on purpose):

You can massage any action to be pulling you toward virtue. Catholics condemning gays as a way of trying to directed them away from Hell would be virtuous to them. Allowing each individual to simply shoehorn 'virtue' in to their moral system is extremely dangerous. It may be why its so popular - it requires next to no critical thinking and practically no self-accountability. There are those who do it 'properly' as such. But the dangers are so much heavier than the potential benefits.

We aspire to improve — Jeremy Murray

Which is a totally subjective, easily-hijacked concept. I'm am uncomfortable with it, as a moral motivator. "Don't hurt people if you can avoid it" for instance, seems both demonstrably better, and easier to follow. "Aspire" without content is empty anyway, so I guess my gripe is a little premature. Its not even a decently-actionable concept without the "toward virtue" aspect which I've gone over.

I see a kind of moral laziness in relativism, or at least, relativism-by-default. — Jeremy Murray

I understand what you're saying, but there are no arguments which support anything else as, at least, a metaethical way of framing things (well, none i've seen - and the papers objecting to relativism appear some of the worst i've seen get published (Carlo Alvaro for instance). Intuitively, this is my exact position. Intellectually, it is clearly bankrupt (on my view).

This sense of morality being 'thinking the right things' seems dangerously omnipresent at the moment. — Jeremy Murray

Ding ding (on my view). This is absolutely the correct objection to that type of relativism (which isn't relativism, it's just self-involvement; not a serious moral thought to be found in those types).

Again, I'm not formally trained, but aren't these three moral systems the primary moral systems, generally speaking? What system, if any, would you endorse? — Jeremy Murray

Yeah pretty much. There's essentially four equal parts in professional philosophy.. roughly like 25% deontology (or some form of); 25% some form of consequentialism; 25% Virtue Ethics (its slightly higher for VE actually, i'm just simplifying) and the final slice for "alternate". So i"m not exactly in bad company.

I don't really have a 'system'. What I think its 'right' applies to me and only me. I can try to enforce this where i think it is relevant but I am under no illusions that I should be persuasive, or be listened to. I do not expect anyone else to embody my moral thinking which is case-by-case. I do not have 'principles' as I do not think morality is actionable under principles without so much leeway they become pointless 'starting points'. For which we can use intuition anyway.

HI Athena,

I think it may be time to start reconsidering your clearly either, dishonest, or delusional takes on the world: — AmadeusD

I think if you want me to read what you say, you'd better say it in a way that makes me want to read it.

I no longer care if you do or not. It became clear the only thing I can do with those exchanges is point out how utterly delusional they are with facts and move on. If you don't want to read a post because its directly critical, why even respond at all. Sheesh. Figured facts about history correction an erroneous high-level belief would be your bag...

Hey man, sorry it takes me so long to reply. I re-read loads of this thread to try and get a better sense of things before replying to you here.

This is pretty long, sorry! Feel free to skip some if you need to, but whatever you do, take the length as a compliment!

I have been over this. It's becoming really frustrating(not you personally - but note if anything seems terse, it's not on purpose): — AmadeusD

Heck no. I admit, I have some adapting to do to TPF. I find some of the discussions fascinating, even the super irritating ones, but I'm not used to keeping up with arguments in this much depth. I'm gonna try mixing up my posting habits, keep on top of things, because I don't want to waste anyone's time. These posts take work. Some people bring their A game to this site and I'd like to step up.

I think I may have neglected the word 'universal' in the OP.

I don't believe that any moral system could ever be universal. It feels to me as if your responses have been towards that premise.

My argument is not that my moral orientation is 'right'. My argument is that without an 'aspirational' element, moral systems become static and irrelevant, or at least, ineffective. I think this is best seen on a personal level - how many people can you think of immediately if I ask you to think of people who are overtly woke but personally appear ammoral, or perhaps, immoral?

They don't have to do anything virtuous at all, it seems, but espouse the groupthink. A default position for the morally lazy.

Allowing each individual to simply shoehorn 'virtue' in to their moral system is extremely dangerous. — AmadeusD

I am not advocating this. This is not virtue ethics, to my mind? Of course, one could easily do just that rhetorically, but I'm talking genuine principles rather than rhetoric.

I have been working on an idea all year to help me explain the moral insanity of the universe that I currently see. I missed most of the past half decade battling the black dog, and generally avoided people. I feel like I missed a lot of the gradual, day to day changes. Obviously, this is anecdote from an unreliable narrator, but experiencing the new normal when it comes to moral discourse, in my super progressive neighbourhood / profession / city / country, was jarring.

Without a moral system that requires effort, one that remains in flux, we are stuck with the static relics of
a past that cannot keep up with our rapidly evolving world. Wokeness has calcified in place. How often do woke ideas surprise, or change, or evolve? To my mind, never. Wokeness is a clown car stuffed with an ever-growing collection of identities. It doesn't grow, it swallows. It encompasses.

Without the concept of a moral system that one should aspire to, that one can learn, practice and improve upon, people become worse at morality.

So my argument is not for virtue ethics. It is for belief in ethics, with the premise that virtue ethics might better be able to respond to our increasingly uncertain era. It might be more agile.

Aspiring towards goodness, I guess. Man, I put it like that, it sounds vague as hell, but it's an attitude first. You can convince me of alternative 'best practices' for sure.

Allowing each individual to simply shoehorn 'virtue' in to their moral system is extremely dangerous. It may be why its so popular - it requires next to no critical thinking and practically no self-accountability. There are those who do it 'properly' as such. But the dangers are so much heavier than the potential benefits. — AmadeusD

Who do you see doing this? People don't seem to even be aware of alternative moral concepts such as VE. The average person today is either a utilitarian (often, a moral relatavist outsourcing their morality to experts), or deontological (usually premised on religion). I think both of those, badly practiced, require no 'critical thinking and practially no self-accountability' as well.

I understand what you're saying, but there are no arguments which support anything else as, at least, a metaethical way of framing things — AmadeusD

I'm just an interested layperson when it comes to philosophy, and I find this stuff fascinating, so my thinking is sort of evolving in this thread even, but I guess I am advocating for people to chose to improve their morality, via practice, whatever method makes sense to them, while also sort of figuring out that virtue ethics might be a path for me personally, having come to a point where I can find no meaning aside from choosing to make a choice.

So yeah, personal stance. (As always, hit me with any recommendations that come to mind)!

This is absolutely the correct objection to that type of relativism (which isn't relativism, it's just self-involvement; not a serious moral thought to be found in those types). — AmadeusD

I've been calling it a 'default' relativism, and agree with you that it's not serious moral thought, although I imagine those you describe would object.

Hence the need for new conversations about morality. On a personal level, in terms of personal beliefs and actions, I think any moral system is better than none at all, generally, but see this as a personal choice.

To me, the problems of deontology are most obvious in terms of informing social policy - whose deontology?

Utilitarianism seems deontological as well, in a sense, because this too promotes a 'correct' moral action, assuming you can calculate the moral math. So, again, difficult to trust given the current candidates doing this sort of math. This feels very progressive / liberal to me, the idea that we can turn things over to experts who 'measure' unmeasurable outcomes.

Virtue ethics seems the only path that allows for rapid change, at least, on the social side of things. So, we try and get leaders who are best equipped to make hard decisions, and empower them to make those decisions. This seems to necessitate more forgiveness for making mistakes, because the premise of the 'right' choice of action is secondary - the right person to make the right choice is primary, and that involves moral practice.

I'm trying to apply this to the culture wars in my own head, and please tell me if I'm missing anything, but if we had people capable of breaking from tribal orthodoxy in positions of cultural and political leadership on Oct. 7th, perhaps we don't get the moral shit show of protestors worldwide supporting terror.

Am I right that virtue ethics might therefore be more agile than utilitarianism or deontology, and perhaps valuable in a world of social media + smart phones + AI, which just doesn't seem to have the time for utilitarian think tanks and experts to work through the permutations?

In broad strokes, I think of utilitarianism as the lefty default, and with many lefties being moral relativists, they seem happy to outsource moral thought to experts - a trend DEI types were happy to exploit.

I think of the religious as deontological, again broadly, and see 'right and wrong' as more representative of the right.

But woke true believers seem to be fire-and-brimstone hardcore religious fundamentalist at times. Hard deontologists, somehow?

This is the unholy alliance on the left - true believers drive the beliefs of default moral relativists, happy to outsource moral thought (too much cognitive dissonance) to technocratic experts, true believers themselves.

Which is all fine with our neoliberal leadership, who fancy themselves too smart to fall for culture war claptrap, and face no pressures to improve on the genuinely central drivers of inequality, the neoliberal world order that has them on top.

It was exploring how deeply woke McKinsey is that I made that final connection, but I'm borrowing here as well from John McWhorter and a bunch of those Nonesite Marxists, Adolph Reed Jr., Cedric Johnson
and others.

Re-reading that list and thinking about other possible names to add, I can't help but note that it appears only black academics can critique wokeness from the left.

Yeah pretty much. There's essentially four equal parts in professional philosophy.. roughly like 25% deontology (or some form of); 25% some form of consequentialism; 25% Virtue Ethics (its slightly higher for VE actually, i'm just simplifying) and the final slice for "alternate" — AmadeusD

If I ever teach high school philosophy again, I'm borrowing that breakdown, a handy way to think broadly.

What are some of the more interesting 'alternates' you have come across?

And I was curious about VE being higher than the other two, I assume this is just the nature of the profession? Everybody studies the Greeks?

I certainly don't see much evidence of virtue ethics in 'the wild'. I see tribal conformity and almost no disagreement, which is only likely in a virtue ethical model? At least today, given the risks of differing from your tribe? The permanence of your mistakes, now?

I don't really have a 'system'. What I think its 'right' applies to me and only me. I can try to enforce this where i think it is relevant but I am under no illusions that I should be persuasive, or be listened to. — AmadeusD

Fair point. You are obviously thinking about your 'relativism'? and therefore doing 'morality' well by my thinking. It's the considering of the questions that is important. You clearly do that more than most people. Perhaps philosophy itself can serve the purpose of a belief system.

Morality is just practicing morality, maybe? Always trying to chose morally, even if that is inherently a personal act?

Hey man, I've been meaning to write you back for a while, but I started reading "The Parasitic Mind" by Gad Saad, and he really dislikes postmodernism ... I thought I'd be more informed replying if I finished that first!

100%. History, and the best folks history could muster, are tools (if not wisdom), and we are robbing students today of so many great ideas and turns of phrase and experiences, in the name of trendy dalliances like patriarchy, and socially constructed body parts. Bring on the new ideas, for sure, but don’t throw out Shakespeare and Aristotle because a few things they said might offend certain western suburban sensibilities. — Fire Ologist

Yes!

Oddly, my kids always liked Shakespeare. The ESL kids maybe the most, perhaps because they were already used to decoding strange words? It was something of a right of passage. It was fun. The performances were great. And yet, Shakespeare is increasingly rare.

. But teenagers don’t need to be over-taught that challenging authority is a goal; most of them will challenge authority by nature as teenagers. My sense is that, if we reify the challenging of authority, and throw out all of the authorities and institutions before they get their own chance to rebel against them, they don’t ever really get past adolescence — Fire Ologist

Agreed again.

Better to give them a master and teach them to kill — Fire Ologist

I might steal this too ...

But in the end, the good is less about what you think and can teach, and more about what you do. And regardless of any religious beliefs, some people just do a lot of good. — Fire Ologist

I have a weekly phone conversation with my uncle, and when we talk social issues, he often challenges me to articulate a positive vision rather than just ranting about moral relativism and neo-liberalism. How about starting with aspiring to be more like the people who do a lot of good?

The post-modern is so relativist, they can be or value anything, including their own total self-contradiction, and with straight face be the right kind of absolute dogmatist when the mood suits them. — Fire Ologist

Going back to your previous post, this is where you, me and Saad all seem to align.

When the moral goal post of can be moved, there may as well be no goal post. — Fire Ologist

I remember asking my favourite prof of all time how to wrestle with relativism as a progressive. He replied that one should be 'whole-hearted and half-sure'.

To me, the goal post is out there. Just not sure of my vision yet.

I enjoy your posts man!

Hey man, sorry it takes me so long to reply. — Jeremy Murray

No trouble!! I sometimes go a couple of weeks without replying here. It takes some effort and time that I don't always have. No harm/no foul my man :)

I don't want to waste anyone's time. — Jeremy Murray

That's quite a hard thing to do, despite what Banno and 180 might say :P

I don't believe that any moral system could ever be universal. It feels to me as if your responses have been towards that premise. — Jeremy Murray

Definitely part of it - most theories are intended to become a universal (i.e realists are of the opinion moral facts can be understood, which is a form of raciocination, being a universal human trait (barring aberration)). It's unique (and something I run with) that theories for morality cannot be universal. Looking for such is a "waste of time" as it serves no moral purpose to do so, under any theory, really.

My argument is that without an 'aspirational' element, moral systems become static and irrelevant, or at least, ineffective. — Jeremy Murray

I see what you mean. Thanks for that clarification. Yes, I think that is true, but I also think that is, roughly, baked-into moral theories. They require that you aspire toward their ideal description of any given decisions/act. No?

Who do you see doing this? — Jeremy Murray

One extremely good example (though, I understand potentially contention) is Islam. The teachings of Islam (and conversely the behaviour of conservative-radical Muslims who adhere) are virtuous, by their lights, in almost every way one would want virtue to manifest. But this is clearly not what Anscombe had in mind.

The average person today is either a utilitarian (often, a moral relatavist outsourcing their morality to experts), or deontological (usually premised on religion). — Jeremy Murray

Huh. Hte most common refrain I hear from anywhere really is "I just try to be a good person". It's rare for someone to come with some 'principled' morality when asked, in my experience. Interesting take on the other two - they seem to be true deliberative systems. I can't see them as lacking a need for critical thought. Divine Command seems the best candidate there.

As a catch-all comment on the sections I missed between those last two replies, I would say I think we are fairly close on how we see 'woke'. But I also hasten to add that this seems to be a result of stupid people doing 'woke'. Those who are 'woke' who can have a reasonable conversation don't seem to fall into these traps. I think its a maturity issue, rather than a particularly pernicious ideological one. That said, there's an added non-moral position which is the whole "in or out" mentality which seems more to do with logistics and avoiding drawn-out analysis than a moral deflection.

I am advocating for people to chose to improve their morality, via practice, whatever method makes sense to them, while also sort of figuring out that virtue ethics might be a path for me personally, having come to a point where I can find no meaning aside from choosing to make a choice. — Jeremy Murray

So, in reverse: Great. That's a good way of working through things Imo, and coming to self-directed conclusions. I do not think people are able to 'improve' their morality without understanding that morality is subjective. Otherwise, it couldn't be improved. It would 'be' and we simply aspire to a rubric. I am an emotivist ethically, and morally I do no follow 'named' systems as best I can tell. Most here have been surprised and even taken a-back by my position.

To me, the problems of deontology are most obvious in terms of informing social policy - whose deontology? — Jeremy Murray

Kantian, usually. Deontology tries to take inarguable obligations and turn them into rules, as best I can tell. So the "who" relates to "everyone" in the system. I reject it, too.

Utilitarianism seems deontological as well, in a sense, because this too promotes a 'correct' moral action, assuming you can calculate the moral math. — Jeremy Murray

The thing Utilitarianism gives us, though, is room to be wrong or to disagree. Utilitarians can simply have different weight on different elements of a calculus. They may come up with totally different utils for the same actions/outcomes. This makes it more flexible imo, and more directed toward actual reality than principle. Deontologists would give up Anne Frank. Utilitarians would not.

Virtue ethics seems the only path that allows for rapid change, at least, on the social side of things. — Jeremy Murray

I agree, but in light of how 'virtue' works socially, I think its more a performance game in practice. Some of the problem wth 'woke' is found here.

Re-reading that list and thinking about other possible names to add, I can't help but note that it appears only black academics can critique wokeness from the left. — Jeremy Murray

I would add a few: Glenn Loury, Susan Neiman, Elisabeth Roudinesco and Ben Cobley. So, not just Black writers. But I see what you mean, and I take your point quite well. The concept that you cannot speak on a topic you aren't directly, and personally embroiled in is both pernicious and clear false. It is the other way around.

And I was curious about VE being higher than the other two, I assume this is just the nature of the profession? Everybody studies the Greeks? — Jeremy Murray

I think it's more that more and more philosophers have come to the realisation that while they may accept that there are moral facts, these are descriptive, not prescriptive. Therefore, the other theories to hand cannot be worked adequately under that weight. If the descriptive facts are what we need to go by, we can't be 'principled' because the facts have, do, and always will change.

I certainly don't see much evidence of virtue ethics in 'the wild'. I see tribal conformity and almost no disagreement, which is only likely in a virtue ethical model? — Jeremy Murray

Really? Moral disagreement seems to be hte order of the day, locally, globally, politically, socially.... Can you expand on what you mean here?

Morality is just practicing morality, maybe? Always trying to chose morally, even if that is inherently a personal act? — Jeremy Murray

I think this is all the term 'morality' can capture.