A new essay from Ta-Nehisi Coates on his experience in learning French has drawn a lot of commentary about privilege. I specifically want to address a post from Freddie deBoer, because I think he brings clarity on some things, but I find his final conclusion that socialism is the only morally acceptable system wrong.
This is I think his core correct insight:
There is no space where privilege ends and legitimate accomplishment begins.
And this is the core flawed conclusion he draws from this:
Instead, we should recognize the folly of tying material security and comfort to our flawed perceptions of other peoples value
In all this discussion people are mostly talking about intellectual or economic achievements, but this isnt the only kind. I think a useful way to think about these kinds of achievements is to contrast them to virtues.
We all have a spectrum of positive and negative factors, both nature and nurture, that affect our ability to achieve things. But we all face a similar spectrum of factors affecting our ability to be virtuous. If you give to charity, or volunteer a lot, or are a good father or husband, or are honest, or are kind, etc, is this about what you choose to do and the actions you choose to take, or about factors that are outside of your control? Are these behaviors just about how your parents raised you, the community you grew up in, and importantly, how behaving in these ways makes you feel? Why should moral accomplishments be chalked up to our free will and choices while economic and intellectual ones be legitimate accomplishment?
The answer is of course that the murkiness Freddie sees exists in all these areas. And yet, should we not praise good behavior? Should we stop praising honesty because, like work ethic of someone who finished med school, we cant in a rigorous way distinguish when honesty is just a product of how they were brought up?
I would say no, in both cases we should praise the achievements and think of them as such. To me it is simply common sense we should praise honest people. I would say the same applies to those with economic and intellectual achievements, but to folks like Freddie that is not the case. Much like I dont know how to explain to someone why telling the truth is praiseworthy if they dont see it, I cant really explain to Freddie why having a good work ethic or the other characteristics that help make someone economic or academically successful is praiseworthy if he doesnt see it. I can only draw parallels and ask what the differences are.
But what I do think should be visible to all is that holding aside all of these philosophical difficulties, praising moral behavior and having an economic system that rewards the creation of economic value is instrumentally valuable. A world that praises charitable behavior despite humanitys widely differing propensities for it means we have more charitable behavior and are all better off, including those without such propensities. And a world that rewards the creation of economic value despite humanitys widely different propensities for it means we have more economic value and are all better off, including those without such propensities.
See the original post here:
Is There Such A Thing As An Achievement?