14 comments on “Eh?

  1. It does. Ritchie’s problem is it reflects morality at the individual level – and we are vary greatly in this respect, rather than the morality of the Courageous State and its Emperor Guardians.

  2. “Economic utility is a subjective measure that must reflect morality”
    Hmm.
    But if you also believe that “all morality is subjective, or it is not morality”
    it rather brings us back to Square 1 doesn’t it?

  3. Might as well have said futility deflects from mortality which would explain his constant outpourings.

  4. @ Ironman: ““all morality is subjective, or it is not morality”. I’m intrigued. Is that indeed Ritchie’s position?

  5. Churm

    Shall we just call it something he wrote once. To hold him to only one position on a binary question is probably unduly restrictive.

  6. Churm

    That is indeed Richard’s position. I once tried to press Richard on this point.

    He seemingly takes a very relativistic line on morality, considering it just a matter of individual opinion. Which makes his campaigning over what he considers to be immoral somewhat of an egotistical or self-interested task, to say the least.

    I recall I put it to him that people would probably agree that there are some objective moral truths, such as “it is immoral to murder for fun”, but he was suddenly rather too busy to discuss the point.

  7. I was very disappointed in the Jolyon blog that Richard guest posted. I was expecting a pack of critical hyenas savaging him, but it seems that Jolyon got the editing scythe out to any juicy comments by the time I got round to reading it.

  8. As I have often said, the people we call the left, or “centrists”, or “the establishment”, or “progressives”, are not marxists, or socialists, or whatnot, they are moralists. The regime we live under is a moral tyranny, and its individuals are implacable moral absolutists. This is the battlefield we are fighting on.

  9. BraveFart

    I disagree…and so will you, I’m sure

    If you go to Jolyon’s next post on editing his blog, you will see Ritchie complain bitterly at the refusal to engage in the truths he offers (or something like that) and then deliver an unbelievably impertinent lecture to Jolyon on who he should and should not allow to comment. He goes so far as to tell Jolyon that serious people won’t bother to comment.

    Yes Jolyon edits fiercely to keep his blog as technical and unemotive as he can and yes Ritchie doesn’t like being held to the same standards as everyone else.

  10. what he and his kind usually mean is “it must reflect *my* morality and anyone who disagrees is a neo-liberal and can therefore be ignored as I have decided their morality is immoral”

  11. Ironman

    Thanks, I did read that next blog which is great fun as you say.

    The best comment being the 11.31 October 2 post from Jolyon himself, when he says he has already edited comments for personal attacks made against Murphy and for personal attacks MADE BY Murphy. Priceless!

  12. I like Jolyons blog. I may disagree with him on some aspects, but he is willing to debate and be disagreed with and also makes reasoned responses.

    I can’t help feel that when Richie promoted him as a kindred spirit that Jolyon actually started the blog to provide a genuine alternative to the tax research shitstorm, rather than a supporting force.

  13. Ian B

    Absolutely quite right. It’s the whole “more Methodist than Marxist” trope. Hence Harold Wilson’s “This party is a moral crusade or it is nothing”. And, as we all know, Methodism had its roots in Lutheran Pietism.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.