Regarding the point about the public servant as fiduciary, I think even leaving aside the moral question of whether the contractor deserved to be paid, there's just a question of long-term versus short-term finances.
If this is a good contractor, whose services would be useful to retain again in the future, then stiffing them on the present contract is penny wise, pound foolish. Sure, you saved "the public" some money this year. But next year, and the year after that, and the year after that for as long as the stain on your reputation lasts, you'll have to hire worse contractors, or you'll be forced to pay up front, because all the good contractors know that working for your city puts them at risk of getting stiffed.
It is "the people's money" but the consistency with which this concern is made a primary concern will validate or invalidate this as an argument (excuse).
With regard to hoe-math: he is very good at what he does (trying to help men navigate the insanity of the modern dating scene) and has a lot of very nuanced takes on relationships, marriage, fidelity, dating, etc. I am sure what he said there was in response to something that had come up recently when he made that comment. And a point he often makes is that relationships take a lot of work together as well as individual work. Many people do not go into it with the correct understanding of how much work a marriage takes and often think their lives should be fun, and when they stop being fun, they ditch the person they vowed to stay with for the rest of their lives.
I would love for you to expand 7 into a full post if you can as I'm still not quite sure I understand the concept you're pointing at there. Maybe I just don't have the background material in revealed preferences?
Though I don’t agree with everything -the ability to put up with bullshit such as dress codes is an indication of personal maturity after all, given that maturity involves wisely choosing the hill to die on- this is a really great post!
> Have you ever noticed that almost all political philosophy- ideal or non-ideal takes the position of the state?
I think there are two understandable reasons why this might be the case. (There might be also other, more unsavory, reasons. But in the spirit of charity, I'll give two reasons that are pretty justifiable.)
Firstly, speaking from the perspective of the state lets you be more creative with your normative conclusions. If you're talking about what an ordinary voter should do, your options are pretty limited, because the power of an ordinary voter is pretty limited. Vote, spread awareness, volunteer for political campaigns, attend activist rallies and protests, write political screeds on Substack, donate to good causes. That's pretty much it, and it's not a very exciting conclusion to come to. But if you're speaking about what the state should do, you're at liberty to present any kind of unorthodox or interesting policy that you think would be good for society. A good example is in this very post, where you say that the state should implement social unemployment insurance! That's something you're saying the state should do. Approaching that issue from the perspective of an ordinary voter would lead to a big shrug, because they can't do jack about unemployment.
Secondly, I suspect that many people go into political philosophy because they have an idea of the way society should be (or are interested in investigating the way society should be). It's therefore natural to write from the perspective of the state, as the primary agent in shaping politics in society.
> If moral realism were true, we would be inclined to think morality should make sense. It should have some kind of inherent cohesion- “Serve God”, “Maximize happiness”, “Exemplify human nature”, or “Obey the categorical imperative”... But morality doesn’t make sense
I'm confused what you mean here. You give four examples of moralities that "make sense", and then say that morality doesn't actually make sense. But many people (and many moral realists) will say that the stance-independent moral facts of the world conform with the sensical principles you've mentioned, like "obey the categorical imperative". So for a moral realist, morality does make sense.
I oppose the University of Sydney taking action against the student for writing From the River to the Sea on a whiteboard. I disagree with the student’s position. I believe in Israel’s right to exist (though at times, like now, it really makes it hard). On a tangent, it did remind of the time I wrote on a blackboard, at the Institute of Technology New South Wales, back in 1973, a quote from an early novel by Samuel R Delaney, “You are trapped in that bright moment where you learned your doom”. Look I was 18 OK?
Regarding the point about the public servant as fiduciary, I think even leaving aside the moral question of whether the contractor deserved to be paid, there's just a question of long-term versus short-term finances.
If this is a good contractor, whose services would be useful to retain again in the future, then stiffing them on the present contract is penny wise, pound foolish. Sure, you saved "the public" some money this year. But next year, and the year after that, and the year after that for as long as the stain on your reputation lasts, you'll have to hire worse contractors, or you'll be forced to pay up front, because all the good contractors know that working for your city puts them at risk of getting stiffed.
It is "the people's money" but the consistency with which this concern is made a primary concern will validate or invalidate this as an argument (excuse).
With regard to hoe-math: he is very good at what he does (trying to help men navigate the insanity of the modern dating scene) and has a lot of very nuanced takes on relationships, marriage, fidelity, dating, etc. I am sure what he said there was in response to something that had come up recently when he made that comment. And a point he often makes is that relationships take a lot of work together as well as individual work. Many people do not go into it with the correct understanding of how much work a marriage takes and often think their lives should be fun, and when they stop being fun, they ditch the person they vowed to stay with for the rest of their lives.
A lesser bear would have made 12 posts out of the material in this one. Chapeau!
This is such a great post of ideas!
I would love for you to expand 7 into a full post if you can as I'm still not quite sure I understand the concept you're pointing at there. Maybe I just don't have the background material in revealed preferences?
I think there's an unintended word at the end of 6b
Though I don’t agree with everything -the ability to put up with bullshit such as dress codes is an indication of personal maturity after all, given that maturity involves wisely choosing the hill to die on- this is a really great post!
> Have you ever noticed that almost all political philosophy- ideal or non-ideal takes the position of the state?
I think there are two understandable reasons why this might be the case. (There might be also other, more unsavory, reasons. But in the spirit of charity, I'll give two reasons that are pretty justifiable.)
Firstly, speaking from the perspective of the state lets you be more creative with your normative conclusions. If you're talking about what an ordinary voter should do, your options are pretty limited, because the power of an ordinary voter is pretty limited. Vote, spread awareness, volunteer for political campaigns, attend activist rallies and protests, write political screeds on Substack, donate to good causes. That's pretty much it, and it's not a very exciting conclusion to come to. But if you're speaking about what the state should do, you're at liberty to present any kind of unorthodox or interesting policy that you think would be good for society. A good example is in this very post, where you say that the state should implement social unemployment insurance! That's something you're saying the state should do. Approaching that issue from the perspective of an ordinary voter would lead to a big shrug, because they can't do jack about unemployment.
Secondly, I suspect that many people go into political philosophy because they have an idea of the way society should be (or are interested in investigating the way society should be). It's therefore natural to write from the perspective of the state, as the primary agent in shaping politics in society.
> If moral realism were true, we would be inclined to think morality should make sense. It should have some kind of inherent cohesion- “Serve God”, “Maximize happiness”, “Exemplify human nature”, or “Obey the categorical imperative”... But morality doesn’t make sense
I'm confused what you mean here. You give four examples of moralities that "make sense", and then say that morality doesn't actually make sense. But many people (and many moral realists) will say that the stance-independent moral facts of the world conform with the sensical principles you've mentioned, like "obey the categorical imperative". So for a moral realist, morality does make sense.
Could you elaborate on the predistribution point? Is this government contracts / pork barrel spending / the like?
I oppose the University of Sydney taking action against the student for writing From the River to the Sea on a whiteboard. I disagree with the student’s position. I believe in Israel’s right to exist (though at times, like now, it really makes it hard). On a tangent, it did remind of the time I wrote on a blackboard, at the Institute of Technology New South Wales, back in 1973, a quote from an early novel by Samuel R Delaney, “You are trapped in that bright moment where you learned your doom”. Look I was 18 OK?