Category: Economics

Freedom and Flourishing: Why We Need Both for a Good Life

5/5/2021

Freedom enables individuals to flourish in different ways, allows for growth of opportunities, and supports personal development by enabling individuals to exercise wise and well-informed self-direction.

My guest, economist Winton Bates, argues in a new book that Western freedom was more or less a happy accident of history. Loose it, and we may not get it back again.

We discuss the future of freedom, progress, personal growth, and a lot more in his new book, Freedom, Progress, and Human Flourishing.*

Support Common Sense Ethics to see even more videos like this: https://www.patreon.com/commonsenseet...
https://ko-fi.com/commonsenseethics

*Affiliate link, I may earn a small commission.

0 Comments

Read These 5 Books For a Deeper Understanding of Politics

7/31/2020

0 Comments

This being an election year in the United States, and given the dismal state of political discourse, I felt inclined to share this list of 5 books that have changed my perspective on politics.

These books are part of the reason that I stopped looking at politics in partisan terms. (The other reason is that I've worked to develop a more Socratic temperament where I try to look at the other side(s) of any argument.)

A partisan perspective is actually a severe handicap when it comes to examining politics, because partisanism creates a false dichotomy where we tend to ignore alternative or conflicting information. When we think that "This is my party/preffered media outlet and I agree with what they do and say," this mindset compels us to just scratch the surface of what is really going on.

If we want a real understanding of politics, we need to dig deeper, and that's where this list comes in. Here are the best 5 books to read for a deeper understanding of politics:

0 Comments

How the Left-Right Political Spectrum Decieves Us

9/16/2017

2 Comments

Observe most political debates and you'll see people arguing based on how far to the "left," or the "right," they are. This left-right spectrum is uncritically applied as a basis for classifying types of governments and political ideologies - it has become the only popular framework that we have for evaluating politics. Seems harmless enough, right?

Except that the left-right spectrum is really a false dichotomy that renders the positions of both "sides," contradictory, while helping to control public debate. There are serious problems with the left-right spectrum as framework for understanding politics. A critical look reveals that the spectrum is incomplete, incoherent, leads to unnecessary polarization, and reinforces belief in hierarchy.

We need to confront the fact that the positions of both "sides," are riddled with contradictions. On this extremely flawed basis, people attack the so-called other side as though politics were some kind of team sport. In order to end such narrow and destructive partisanism, let's start thinking about whether the left-right spectrum is accurate rather than just assuming it is. (Hint: it's not, as we will see).

2 Comments

Are You a Disordered Philosopher?

3/18/2017

13 Comments

Would you really want to take advice from an extremist? How about someone who doesn't care about virtue? If you admire Carl Marx, Ayn Rand, and other disordered philosophers, this is exactly what you are doing.

The notion of disordered philosophy as argued by Terrance Hoyt is quite relevant at present. Disordered philosophies have polarized public discourse to the point where political and economic policy issues are now considered strictly moral: "Look for any policies talked about with intense moral language, that allow no compromise, and are all-or-nothing in their implementation," Hoyt states.

Marx and Rand represent opposite ends of the political spectrum and their respective philosophies have had untold influence. Both produced an extremist brand of thought based on a "morally pure," vision of society. And neither fits the description of a "good man," (or woman in Rand's case) based on Aristotle's criteria of inward focus on virtue. Disordered philosophers are not truly concerned about virtue or the good; they are essentially egoistic.

More disturbingly, philosophical personality types (I'm including myself here) seem to be at higher risk of becoming disordered philosophers as evidenced by a new book, When Reason Goes on Holiday. As thoughtful people concerned about virtue, what can we do to avoid falling victim to disordered philosophy? How can we identify and counter disordered philosophies which lead to increasing polarization and destabilization?

13 Comments