European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

Natural/Social Justice and Pragmatism

by Metatone
Wed Apr 2nd, 2008 at 04:38:39 AM EST

Diary rescue by afew - original post March 26

So the latest article by Malcolm Gladwell for the New Yorker is the usual combination of "story hook," verbose description and narrative and the obligatory musings on "normal distributions" vs "power laws". I happen to like his style, so I'd highly recommend you read the whole article, right now, but even if you don't, he addresses a very interesting issue.

In essence: we conceive of social safety-net provision in the form of helping those who are "down on their luck."

However, we're slowly recognising that some of the people who most persistently require various emergency interventions (and thus get the most money spent on them) can only be helped by very targeted (and much more expensive) actions. They are also often, to some degree the authors of their own demise.

This can be philosophically problematic, as Gladwell illustrates:

gladwell dot com - million-dollar murray

Gladwell leads off the the story of Murray Barr, who was an alcoholic homeless man in Reno. Eventually those caring for him tot up the cost of all the emergency interventions required every time he goes on a bender and endangers himself and others. He's soaking up over a million dollars worth of care (hence, million dollar murray...)

This of course leads to a particular kind of realisation:

Murray Barr used more health-care dollars, after all, than almost anyone in the state of Nevada. It would probably have been cheaper to give him a full-time nurse and his own apartment.

Which sounds rather pragmatic. And indeed, some people started to try it out:

"Take some of your money and rent some apartments and go out to those people, and literally go out there with the key and say to them, 'This is the key to an apartment. If you come with me right now I am going to give it to you, and you are going to have that apartment.' And so they did. And one by one those people were coming in. Our intent is to take homeless policy from the old idea of funding programs that serve homeless people endlessly and invest in results that actually end homelessness."

But here we stumble on a philosophical problem:

That is what is so perplexing about power-law homeless policy. From an economic perspective the approach makes perfect sense. But from a moral perspective it doesn't seem fair. Thousands of people in the Denver area no doubt live day to day, work two or three jobs, and are eminently deserving of a helping hand--and no one offers them the key to a new apartment. Yet that's just what the guy screaming obscenities and swigging Dr. Tich gets. When the welfare mom's time on public assistance runs out, we cut her off. Yet when the homeless man trashes his apartment we give him another. Social benefits are supposed to have some kind of moral justification. We give them to widows and disabled veterans and poor mothers with small children. Giving the homeless guy passed out on the sidewalk an apartment has a different rationale. It's simply about efficiency.
We also believe that the distribution of social benefits should not be arbitrary. We don't give only to some poor mothers, or to a random handful of disabled veterans. We give to everyone who meets a formal criterion, and the moral credibility of government assistance derives, in part, from this universality. But the Denver homelessness program doesn't help every chronically homeless person in Denver. There is a waiting list of six hundred for the supportive-housing program; it will be years before all those people get apartments, and some may never get one. There isn't enough money to go around, and to try to help everyone a little bit--to observe the principle of universality--isn't as cost-effective as helping a few people a lot. Being fair, in this case, means providing shelters and soup kitchens, and shelters and soup kitchens don't solve the problem of homelessness. Our usual moral intuitions are little use, then, when it comes to a few hard cases. Power-law problems leave us with an unpleasant choice. We can be true to our principles or we can fix the problem. We cannot do both.

This article interests me for a couple of reasons:

We're slowly getting academics publishing about the long chain of institutions and conditions that make for economic development in the third world. There's a growing realisation that the "failed states" are not just "too poor" or "too corrupt" compared to more successful neighbours. They often have a whole string of problems. The key insight, as with Murray Barr, it seems to me is that if you ever want to really help these countries out, you have to invest deeply enough to fix all the links in the chain. And that's a very different order of "aid" than we are used to conceiving of directing to either one country, or in the Gladwell example, one person.
There is a genuine tension, in a world of limited resource, between doing what will fix certain problems most efficiently and maintaining the signalling that a system is fair and equitable (and further that hard work and self-denial are rewarded.) I think this is the crucial tradeoff that has to be addressed in welfare policy. The right are the ones who emphasize it the most (being obsessed with rewarding moral rectitude) but the left have to engage with the problems of equity in pragmatically addressing some of these social ills. Otherwise, the constituency that supports programs can easily disappear.

Perhaps this is all obvious to you all reading this, so why did I choose to make this diary? I suppose I feel rather strongly that we have to find a way beyond the problems of the "free riders" (from the right) and "universal provision, equal for all" (from the left) because our society (and our world) contains "catastrophic failures" and we continually fail to face up to how much those "catastrophic" situations cost us and how, in the long run, addressing them could benefit everyone, even those who might feel they are "cheated" because "you're giving money to those no good bums."

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. Search
. Search (Google)
. Archives (Wiki)
Art, Economics, Energy, Environment, EU Politics, Mech & Tech, By Country

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Natural/Social Justice and Pragmatism | 24 comments (24 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Natural/Social Justice and Pragmatism (4.00 / 12)

I think it's a false dichotomy, because it's mixing implied moral frames. The article touches on that but doesn't carry it through to its conclusion - which is that at least some of the moral frames that are being used are wrong and unhelpful.

There's no distributive reason why everyone shouldn't be given a key to an apartment and a small but adequate allowance at 18, with an option to trade up on evidence of talent and effort. (However those are measured.)

Part of the moral frame which makes this impossible is the implied consensus that 'people are lazy' and if this were done they would be 'unwilling to work.'The other part of the moral frame is that 'I am not my brother's keeper' - we have some small token collective responsibilities, but we're emphatically not supposed to be responsible for each other.

There's nothing about this morality which is set in stone. It would be possible to turn it around - instead of labelling 'capitalist failure' as unacceptable and deserving of punishment, 'acquisitive sociopathy' could be seen as immoral. As would other kinds of anti-social behaviour, including environmental destruction.

This soon triggers conditioned associations of oppresive socialism and images of projects and tower blocks.

But that kind of social housing was a band-aid which missed the underlying point, which is that spontaneous social contribution is infinitely more valuable and fun than the kind of regimented authoritarian approach common in communist countries - and also capitalist ones, using different methods.

We've never seen a culture which explicitly values what people choose to give spontaneously. So far every culture has assumed that contributions have to be mandated by force, by competition for status and position, and by punishment for failure.

Real freedom would mean exploring what was possible without that authoritarian overlay. And I wouldn't be surprised if common social problems - addiction, crime, other kinds of dysfunction - were massively less prevalent in that kind of culture.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Mar 25th, 2008 at 09:13:03 PM EST

Re: Natural/Social Justice and Pragmatism (4.00 / 7)

The false dichotomy I see in this diary is between helping everyone a litte -not enough- and a few people a lot. It is a false dichotomy because it rests on the assumption that there are limited resources. There are only limited resources because we've collectively agreed that there are. For some reason it is acceptable to suggest that the most desperate among us be denied the most basic necessities, but political suicide to suggest that the vast resources of the few be reallocated in order to provide those most basic necessities. Because we pass moral judgement on the poor. We secretly still believe they deserve it. They are morally less entitled.

I agree. Few people even in America will argue against public education. The whole idea behind public education was that it would give all Americans an equal start regardless of their background. Now we live in an age where a HS diploma is necessary but having nothing more is like the equivalent of grandma only having an 8th grade education. It's simply not enough. I suspect people without any college or vocational education are more likely to be the same people who will need the social safety nets we resent people for needing. So if we really think all people deserve an equal start regardless of their background, and if we hate having to come to the rescue of the destitute, why not collectively invest the money up front so that much fewer people find themselves reliant on public resources later on? Because poor people are ungrateful freeloaders. Dontcha know? They are just going to live off us like vampires and contribute nothing to society. This is the moral judgement we pass. Forget that the security of a garanteed -however small- income and a roof over one's head probably goes a long way toward preventing people from turning to crime and substance abuse in order to survive.

"This is nothing compared to how Putin rigged Eurovision."

by poemless on Wed Mar 26th, 2008 at 12:13:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Natural/Social Justice and Pragmatism (4.00 / 2)

They are just going to live off us like vampires and contribute nothing to society. This is the moral judgement we pass.

I grew up in culture that exemplified that moral judgement, and believed it myself for half my life. And yet, I've come to wonder: what does Paris Hilton contribute to society, other than a few punch lines for the evening talk shows? What has Richard Melon Scaife contributed, other than catapulting the self-fulfilling propaganda that justifies his wealth and privilege? Who are the vampires, and who are the victims?

Somewhere in cyberspace, the ghost of de Chardin is smiling.

by budr on Wed Apr 2nd, 2008 at 08:45:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Natural/Social Justice and Pragmatism (4.00 / 2)

You could argue that Paris Hilton is not a drain on society. People actually pay her to be a public bubble-head; she's an idiot so's you don't have to be.

In today's celebrity obsessed culture people think she is interesting and her behaviour is newws. It keeps people in jobs in magazines and on telly cos other less-famous airheads want to read about such people.

It just shows that it's easy to get rich if you're already rich.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Apr 2nd, 2008 at 11:21:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Natural/Social Justice and Pragmatism (none / 1)

She certainly gives the chattering class something inconsequential to talk about, and no doubt keeps some of them employed, but I doubt that she is actually living off the proceeds of her airheadedness. I think it more likely she lives off inherited wealth as unearned as the media attention she gets, and donates the gossip fodder for free. I suppose that's a public service of sorts.

Somewhere in cyberspace, the ghost of de Chardin is smiling.

by budr on Wed Apr 2nd, 2008 at 11:51:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Natural/Social Justice and Pragmatism (none / 1)

I read somewhere that she earnt a personal fortune of $70 million on the back of being a celebrity. Makes Jade Goody's £8 million seem platry, but JG probably has worse financial advice.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Apr 2nd, 2008 at 12:07:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Natural/Social Justice and Pragmatism (none / 1)

Sigh. It just shows that it's easy to get rich if you're already rich.

Somewhere in cyberspace, the ghost of de Chardin is smiling.

by budr on Wed Apr 2nd, 2008 at 12:24:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Natural/Social Justice and Pragmatism (4.00 / 10)

ThatBritGuy:

Part of the moral frame which makes this impossible is the implied consensus that 'people are lazy' and if this were done they would be 'unwilling to work.'

i bet many of those people who are 'lazy and unwilling to work' would work hard if their job had meaning and some amusement value, as well as a living wage.

some people are ambitious, but not necessarily in a commercial sense. with a dismal array of mcjobs to chose from, they become disenchanted and become lazy from that.

of course, one man's 'chilled' is another man's 'lazy'!

"These days, there's nothing more ridiculous than the truth." Leonard Pitts Jr

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed Mar 26th, 2008 at 04:13:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Natural/Social Justice and Pragmatism (4.00 / 4)

We've never seen a culture which explicitly values what people choose to give spontaneously. So far every culture has assumed that contributions have to be mandated by force, by competition for status and position, and by punishment for failure.

When were we looking for such a culture? What do we really know about all and every indigenous culture around the world? They were just run over by the 'progress' and forceful colonization, and then we assume Victorian relations of the most advancing, the privileged and the fittest everywhere. Even if a culture was lucky not to be wrecked by rich interests, people like to imitate the apparently most successful attitudes - so even if all cultures now are dominated by money making and individual primacies, that does not mean that all they fit into the same selfish 'nature' while they were more isolated.

If we wish to compare individual selfishness in cultures, noticing only similar patterns does very little of the job. Differentiation of cultures 'more selfish than others' or 'less selfish than others' easily turns politically sensitive, but if there is 'natural selection' for individual selfishness, differentiation is what matters. Are most peoples really so badly and progressively anti-social?

by das monde on Wed Mar 26th, 2008 at 11:18:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Natural/Social Justice and Pragmatism (4.00 / 4)

This diary contains a lot of meat...there's quite a few points I would like to make, so forgive me if this comment is rather scatter-gun.

There seems to be a confusion (conscious or no?) between equity and equality. It's a given in modern western countries that there should be a principle if not a practice of equity for all. It doesn't always work out, and this may be through deliberate failures, but even if we were sincere it would still be hard to achieve in the real world. Equality on the other hand is a very controversial idea, and the extreme example (provided that we agree some are more 'capable' than others) would be some form of communalism. It's difficult to argue for that, and unbound individualism is ideologically more seductive. The argument for 'limited' equality appears contradictory, but once it is framed as a set of miminums or basic requirements (like we are all equally entitled to food and shelter), it is easier support.

Provision of these basics doesn't need to prevent the 'normal' running of society, and certainly wouldn't bankrupt most advanced countries. The fact that in many places poverty is so common is nothing more than the result of policy decisions to do nothing about it. It doesn't even have to come direct from the state, in the sense that services are provided for the poor. Just putting in place policies to narrow the income inequalities will work well, though the UK's 'labour' government seems incapable of even that. The only limited resource is that of political will. But then, I'm sure you know this.

I feel I ranted half of your diary back at you, sorry. The books I've been reading recently have made me feel a similar way to you. Damn books...

Member of the Anti-Fabulousness League since 1987.

by Ephemera on Wed Mar 26th, 2008 at 08:51:29 PM EST

Re: Natural/Social Justice and Pragmatism (4.00 / 4)

Pro-market conservatives contributed a lot to enforcing the attitude of welfare use as easy 'smart' free-riding. In a large extent, it was a self-fulfilling projection. Most folks would not have gotten the idea of how selfish they could be 'sitting on welfare', if not for the laissez-faire cabal. While there is certain belief that public welfare is mostly an emergency support, abuses are much easier to spot and manage. It is like with developing money attitude for children - Americans formulate it as 'allowance' problem.

I could go as far as willfully formulate social welfare principles not primarily in humanitarian but rather in 'common good' terms. Social welfare is not quite a human right - it is indeedly some courtesy of the society, in a large degree for its own interest. Now, I would not bicker over exact measures and balances of common and individual benefits, or factoring out altruism. It is entirely fine to me that social welfare have both humanitarian and systematic advantages. But neither of these two aspects should take an absolute role while ignoring the other.

So, the society should help the impoverished not very much more than it gains merit - though the merit should be understood here very broadly. The more beneficiaries are aware that they help the society (and say, their children) with sensible enjoyment of their pensions or grants, the more stable is the commonly benefitial arrangement.

What to do with the Murrays that unkindly abuse the system and make problems to everyone? I do see here room for force from the society (or state), up to half-criminalization of the attitude. One measure would be to compel the Murrays live together and be dependent on each other. Certain outside support to these communities must be fitting, so the folks would have means to make progress, but much of the living must be figured out by themselves. That should not be very attractive, nor worse than the growing trailer parks near LA or NO. Communal forced but paid work is not unthinkable to me either - even if that would 'distort' the dear labour market.

by das monde on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 12:13:13 AM EST

Re: Natural/Social Justice and Pragmatism (4.00 / 4)

Great diary and comments. I've been chewing it over to see how I can possibly add to it. The example of giving apartments to homeless drunks does remind me of how people kick off in the UK when pregnant teenagers get bumped up the housing list, with claims of girls deliberately getting pregnant to get themselves a nice flat. Again, there is this moral judgement on these people.

Whether accidentally or deliberately pregnant at 16, it is frowned upon by society. So the idea of being 'rewarded' for such disgraceful and deviant behaviour forms part of the moral framing of who is worthy of welfare services and who isn't.

As others have pointed out there are different issues and ways of framing this debate that are not being clearly distinguished from each other. The argument around what all people should be entitled to regardless, the moral argument of who deserves such entitlement and what should happen to those who abuse the system or don't take responsibility for themselves, and then the issue of what is going to cost the state less?

A young single mother in a secure and safe flat is cheaper than a young single mother in a hostel or B&B without adequate facilities or access to healthcare and education for her and her child. But if we want to punish her for her behaviour and abuse of the system, then let her and her child suffer for it. As if it will make any difference to her so-called moral fibre...

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 06:55:37 AM EST

Re: Natural/Social Justice and Pragmatism (none / 1)

What emerges from this discussion is that a lot of social policy exists simply to punish people for not conforming to cultural norms -- and that we are willing to spend huge amounts of material wealth to enforce those norms. But there's a tension between our desire to enforce those norms (and to enjoy punishing people who defy them), and the social costs of that cruelty and controlfreakery. And also a tension with the conflicting values of forgiveness and altruism, which are just as important to our survival as humans as the enforcement of cultural patterns.

Can we imagine a society which didn't punish anyone? in which anyone's child was everyone's child, and there was no such thing as "illegitimate" or "undocumented"?

But then we'd have to imagine a society without patriarchy (without men's obsessive need to control female sexual and reproductive behaviour to ensure that "their" women only bear "their" children) and without nationalism (the obsessive need to control which people are allowed to live inside which imaginary lines drawn on inaccurate and irrelevant maps). Huge steps.

Is there any relationship between draconian cultural norm-enforcement and resource scarcity?

And yet, what of the overwhelming evidence that suggests there is more charity and reciprocal-altruistic sharing among people living in relative resource poverty than in relative abundance... that is, until a certain level of bankruptcy, or the "Ik threshold" at which humane behaviour disappears entirely and survival is an individual obsession (we revert from pack animals to solitary scroungers)...

head hurts. must get out in fresh air...

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Wed Apr 2nd, 2008 at 02:19:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Natural/Social Justice and Pragmatism (none / 0)

I wouldn't go outside. There might be nasty men out there.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Apr 2nd, 2008 at 02:21:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Natural/Social Justice and Pragmatism (4.00 / 5)

Social policies that favor real estate speculation contribute to homelessness by keeping decent housing out of reach for many.

If we had a decent housing policy and a medical system that was affordable and which provided continuity of care for the mentally ill we wouldn't be having this discussion.

by John Culpepper on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 at 09:35:22 PM EST

Re: Natural/Social Justice and Pragmatism (none / 0)

metatone, just like there s a lot of research of economists now pushing the idea of complexity and complex prescriptions for complex problems in poor complex countries (getting rid of the Washington consensus, I call it), there is also a lot of people,at least in Spain, studying the so-called minimum basic stependium.

A fixe quantty of money to every person per month would eliiante all the tax and investment and persnal grants supports and redirect it to a minimum pay-check to every-single person plus a small room.

Everybody would have a room and a money for food/clothes... everyone. and that's it.. nothing more, no more support for the unviersity or for investment or for well, anything.. In this way, everybody has his own life solved but if you want more.. then you pay it and fight for it.

People studying it encompass left and rigt-wing economists. But then it cahnges the reference moral frame.

So in a sense them roal reference frame is ours.. and we could certainlyd ecide to change it.

Not that I support nor disapprove the idea of the minimum pay-check (I still do not know).. I just point out its existence ad the ability to change the frame reference.

A plesure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed Apr 2nd, 2008 at 07:08:49 AM EST

Re: Natural/Social Justice and Pragmatism (none / 1)

This touches on similar themes to InWales essay "Poverty of Opportunity".

All societies create an underclass, not of people in povery, such as happens in India and elsewhere, but of people who for one reason or another cannot be helped without massive intervention. It doesn't help that the more social darwinian a society, such as those who have fallen for the spell of "Anglo-disease", the more it creates a crueller society with larger groups of people who are beyond ready help.

Also, in modern societies education has become an imperative for buy-in, without it you simply cannot participate in the benefits. This is much less true of more agrarian or labour intensive systems.

But without education in the crueller systems, once you "opt" out there is almost no way back. This leads to criminal activity simply to survive, especially as poverty itself becomes criminalised in some form or another.

Most such people, street alcoholics and drug addicts, die quite quickly of problems related to lack of care or die in situations related to their illegal activities. Once past school age their deaths are not reported and often not recorded. There are many ways to disappear. And our societies seem comfortable with such a self-correction.

Can you help drunks ? No. Should we help drunks ? If they ask for help, I'm unconvinced it makes a difference beforehand. We certainly can't force them to dry out and anything else we do is irrelevant.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Apr 2nd, 2008 at 11:34:58 AM EST

Re: Natural/Social Justice and Pragmatism (4.00 / 6)

Helen:

All societies create an underclass, not of people in povery, such as happens in India and elsewhere, but of people who for one reason or another cannot be helped without massive intervention. It doesn't help that the more social darwinian a society, such as those who have fallen for the spell of "Anglo-disease", the more it creates a crueller society with larger groups of people who are beyond ready help.

It's the Social Darwinism which is the problem, not the drunks.

Who's a bigger binger - someone with a flat paid for with public money, or someone who gives public money to their friends to pay for a war?

One of the characteristics of Social Darwinism is this kind of moral inversion. You can see it everywhere - moral problems are framed as a single issue, usually along the lines of 'We spend money or we don't' or 'We prosecute or we don't' while much more fundamental systemic problems are barely mentioned.

Drug abuse is another one that rolls around regularly. Currently the scare is that skunk is 'up to fifty times more powerful' than it used to be.

I don't particularly like weed, and it does seem to push some people towards some combination of apathy and paranoia.

But its social effects are insignificant compared to coke, which is the drug of choice on Wall St, in the City, and in Washington and parts of Westminster, and in the media, and produces very obvious emotional and psychological damage very quickly.

In context coke abuse is a very much more serious social problem. I don't think we'd be in half the mess we are today if it were tackled seriously.

Inexplicably though, while police are always happy to raid a housing estate looking for weed farms, when was the last time a trading room was raided? Or an ad agency?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Apr 2nd, 2008 at 11:54:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Natural/Social Justice and Pragmatism (none / 0)

Who's a bigger binger - someone with a flat paid for with public money, or someone who gives public money to their friends to pay for a war?

There is no equivalence between those two positions. It's apples and oranges. I have no problem with the first, but I'm not sure that was the question. It was more like "shouldn't we be giving street people flats as being cheaper than expensive medical intervention ?"

To which my reply was yes, so long as it gives them a step up into society, given the obvious fact that many street people just need that small help to entirely change their circumstances.

But with drunks and drug addicts I'm not sure we can help them, whatever we do. Short of imprisoning them until they reform, which is depriving them of their human right (to destroy themselves)

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Apr 2nd, 2008 at 12:30:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Natural/Social Justice and Pragmatism (none / 1)

well with drug addicts, we can help, go back to treating the situation as a medical rather than criminal problem, supply Heroin through the NHS or equivalent, and so remove what connections there are with the criminal underworld. this will have the nock-on effect of reducing street crime and burglary. On medical quality heroin it is quite reasonable to expect people to have normal productive lives. (at the same time go a long way towards cu8tting jail overcrowding)

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Wed Apr 2nd, 2008 at 12:57:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Natural/Social Justice and Pragmatism (none / 1)

Yes, the heroin thing is correct, but that's unique. Methadone substitution is a classic case of target related irrelevance.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Apr 2nd, 2008 at 02:22:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Natural/Social Justice and Pragmatism (4.00 / 2)

is a drug addict's habit morally distinguishable from a SUV addict's habit?

farming opium is probably less environmentally destructive than extracting and processing oil, and contributes less to toxification and climate destab.

the drug addict ruins his/her health more quickly; but sedentarism (car-addiction) also takes its toll with WHO predicting that car-related deaths will soon outclass war and contagious diseases in worldwide premature mortality stats...

the drug addict presents no risk to others except when his/her need drives him/her to robbery to obtain money for the next fix. of course, the smash-n-grab raid on Iraq by the US and its jackals is the holdup needed to get the next fix of oil for all the SUV addicts, so...

addiction, generally, can make people dangerous to others as well as harming the addict him/herself.

some addictions we recognise, and can name (and stigmatise or feel sorry for or whatever). others we are not allowed to name, or are supposed to accept under false flags and consider their costs "inevitable" and outside the realm of moral or ethical discourse...

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Wed Apr 2nd, 2008 at 02:25:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Natural/Social Justice and Pragmatism (none / 1)

DeAnander:

is a drug addict's habit morally distinguishable from a SUV addict's habit?

That was exactly my point.

We're so used to framing some behaviours as medical or moral issues and some as commercial opportunities that we haven't even begun to think clearly about causes, effects, and - most of all - priorities.

Oil addiction has turned into a cultural illness which is far more damaging to everyone's health than giving a few drunks a few flats.

This isn't just for internal consumption. Possibly the single most important that needs to be done to create progressive change is to start chipping away at the dominant moral frames and replacing them with more functional and relevant ones.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Apr 2nd, 2008 at 03:37:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Natural/Social Justice and Pragmatism (none / 1)

Helen:

There is no equivalence between those two positions.

The point is that one issue is considered newsworthy background noise we're supposed to put up with, while the other has the tabloids shrieking about evil people stealing our money.

It's that 'stealing our money' that's the clue, and the baseline for the moral equivalence.

It's not so much apples and oranges as wood and trees.

Helen:

But with drunks and drug addicts I'm not sure we can help them, whatever we do.

There are programs that are at least reasonably successful, and other approaches could be developed if the funding were there. In context success rates seems reasonable, if not spectacular - comparable to some other kinds of medical intervention, at least.

Still - prevention is better than cure. People drink for all kinds of reason, but social stresses are surely an important trigger.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Apr 2nd, 2008 at 10:23:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Natural/Social Justice and Pragmatism | 24 comments (24 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]