24 ms·

"If objective ethical values exist, we'll have to give up tribalism to realize them." I didn't see a definition of "tribalism" in the article. I see references

"If objective ethical values exist, we'll have to give up tribalism to realize them." I didn't see a definition of "tribalism" in the article. I see references to the "January insurrection" and vague references to other "far-right" things. If you go back to Plato's Euthyphro, you see the character Euthyphro on his way to testify against his own father for mistreating a criminal. This is a very early "moral" moment in our intellectual history; it was practically inconceivable that a son would take such a position against his own father. I'd feel comfortable calling it "anti-tribalist," and it isn't so obvious whether Euthyphro is pursuing the right course. If you look at the laws of practically every developed country, there is no "tribalism." Given the vagueness of the authors target, I suspect what he'd rather say is that we have to give up things like nations, borders, ethnic identities, sex-based sport leagues, and so on. If he bothered to spell out in detail what he means by "tribalism," and not simply let the reader's imagination carry the burden of supplying the target, I suspect his proposal wouldn't have made it out of his own mouth.

thomascgalvin 5y ago
> If you look at the laws of practically every developed country, there is no "tribalism." The laws may not be tribalistic, but their enforcement certainly is. Take, for example, drugs. This report from the U.S. Department of Justice[1] indicates that arrests for the selling of drugs disproportionately targets black people by 33%, and arrests for possession of drugs disproportionately targets black people by 26%. The same is true of voter suppression laws. For example, the closure of voting places in minority communities, which lead to people of color waiting, on average, 29% longer to vote than white people[2]. The January insurrection is also a perfectly valid example of tribalism. A majority of Republicans falsely believe that this crime was perpetrated by Democrats, Antifa, or even the Capitol Police themselves[3]. We cannot have a serious discussion about the morality of armed insurrection when tribalism causes such a large number of people to reject reality wholesale. [1]: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rdusda.pdf https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rdusda.pdf [2]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.00024.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.00024.pdf [3]: https://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/article/republicans-blame-democrats-antifa-and-us https://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/article/republicans-blame-d...
- logicchop 5y ago
  Just commenting about your first point (disproportionate arrests of black people for drugs). I looked at your link. I read it. Did you read it? The end summarizes its own alternative (non-prejudicial) explanation for the gap. In a post about an article wanting to secure a "universal morality" I would be wary relying on statistical data that has an abundance of plausible explanations, especially when it's meant to be deployed against something on the scale of 'our very moral existence.' If the issue were "tribalism" you would expect minority groups to be persecuted to some extent greater than the non-minority group. But in the US, there are other minority groups besides blacks, and they tend to have a lower incarceration rate than whites. I'm not sure how to square that with "tribalism."
- bena 5y ago
  You're not going to get anywhere with him. Look at the language. It's an obvious tell. He doesn't talk about black people or people of color, no he talks about "blacks" and "whites". He'll never admit that the insurrection on 1/6 was a result of tribalism because it reflects poorly on the tribe he's chosen to be a member of. People expose themselves through language.
- Grim-444 5y ago
  If anything your comment is as tribalistic as one could get. Black and white viewpoints on topics, presenting your picture of reality as the correct one, with no alternative explanations allowed, cherry picking data and examples that help confirm your ideology while conveniently ignoring those that don't. You'll never admit that anything your side does could be seen as similarly "bad", just as tribal, etc. If anything, you're the one defining sides, pronouncing that either people believe the same thing as you or they're just evil people that have rejected reality wholesale, which completely eliminates all shades of grey in the issues, all discussion, all discourse.
- danShumway 5y ago
  > The laws may not be tribalistic I get what you're saying overall, and I agree with most of it, but you're giving too much credit with this statement. Some laws are tribalistic in America. It's not just that drug laws disproportionately target Black Americans in their enforcement, they were in their original forms designed to do so. The whole history of segregation and voter suppression is laws that were designed to hurt others, largely in the pursuit of tribal power. Voting suppression is inherently tribal, the whole point of voter suppression is to limit the voting power of other demographics or tribes. The current push for anti-trans legislation in multiple states is also being driven by tribalism. Keeping trans people out of bathrooms and sports didn't suddenly become an emergency to anyone because of any brand new risk or development or scientific discovery. There's no reason why this would be more pressing to Republicans now than it would have been 4 years ago. The major increase in legislation now is because it's a culture war, because it makes Democrats mad, because it's a backlash to the progress trans communities have made in securing rights, because it hurts people who are different who are symbolic in people's minds of power shifts and changing demographics. On an individual level, things get more complicated. You can't use tribalism to explain everything. But on a broad, society-wide level, it just seems absurd to me to say that tribalism has no impact at all on American laws. I mean, heck, forget about America: if people don't think that classism, party-loyalty, all of these tribal instincts affected how Britain has approached Brexit and what debates people had about Brexit, then they really aren't paying much attention to how laws get made and policies determined. Culture, in-groups, and out-groups all influence law.
mantas 5y ago
> If you look at the laws of practically every developed country, there is no "tribalism." There may be no tribalism inside of developed countries. But there's lots of tribalism between groups of developed countries and the rest of the world. Forcing all sorts of laws and customs on what they see as lesser countries. Sort of colonialism 2.0.
- nanagojo 5y ago
  There is actually tribalism in the form of economic equality. Rich people only hang out with rich people. Poor only with the poor, etc. What does a rich person need to do to be segregated from society? Simply go to a expensive restaurant or country club.
  - bumby 5y ago
    There’s a distinction in the article, I think, in that tribalism is rooted in anti-egalitarianism that your comment doesn’t address. You can go to different restaurants without thinking less of another person. Differing tastes/hobbies/actions is not enough to meet the criteria of tribalism, less we fracture into “pineapple on pizza vs no pineapple” tribes.
    - mantas 5y ago
      Eventually it is different tastes in expressions, different hobbies as customs and different political actions.
mariusor 5y ago
> If he bothered to spell out in detail what he means by "tribalism," He did though: > Under conditions of real or perceived out-group threats involving competition for scarce resources, for example, the disposition for tribalist and exclusivist responses is triggered [...] I suspect that the existence of country borders and ethnic identities is safe as long as they don't support themselves on the fear of the "outside world" and the "other".

thomascgalvin 5y ago

> If you look at the laws of practically every developed country, there is no "tribalism." The laws may not be tribalistic, but their enforcement certainly is. Take, for example, drugs. This report from the U.S. Department of Justice[1] indicates that arrests for the selling of drugs disproportionately targets black people by 33%, and arrests for possession of drugs disproportionately targets black people by 26%. The same is true of voter suppression laws. For example, the closure of voting places in minority communities, which lead to people of color waiting, on average, 29% longer to vote than white people[2]. The January insurrection is also a perfectly valid example of tribalism. A majority of Republicans falsely believe that this crime was perpetrated by Democrats, Antifa, or even the Capitol Police themselves[3]. We cannot have a serious discussion about the morality of armed insurrection when tribalism causes such a large number of people to reject reality wholesale. [1]: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rdusda.pdf https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rdusda.pdf [2]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.00024.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.00024.pdf [3]: https://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/article/republicans-blame-democrats-antifa-and-us https://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/article/republicans-blame-d...

logicchop 5y ago
Just commenting about your first point (disproportionate arrests of black people for drugs). I looked at your link. I read it. Did you read it? The end summarizes its own alternative (non-prejudicial) explanation for the gap. In a post about an article wanting to secure a "universal morality" I would be wary relying on statistical data that has an abundance of plausible explanations, especially when it's meant to be deployed against something on the scale of 'our very moral existence.' If the issue were "tribalism" you would expect minority groups to be persecuted to some extent greater than the non-minority group. But in the US, there are other minority groups besides blacks, and they tend to have a lower incarceration rate than whites. I'm not sure how to square that with "tribalism."
bena 5y ago
You're not going to get anywhere with him. Look at the language. It's an obvious tell. He doesn't talk about black people or people of color, no he talks about "blacks" and "whites". He'll never admit that the insurrection on 1/6 was a result of tribalism because it reflects poorly on the tribe he's chosen to be a member of. People expose themselves through language.
Grim-444 5y ago
If anything your comment is as tribalistic as one could get. Black and white viewpoints on topics, presenting your picture of reality as the correct one, with no alternative explanations allowed, cherry picking data and examples that help confirm your ideology while conveniently ignoring those that don't. You'll never admit that anything your side does could be seen as similarly "bad", just as tribal, etc. If anything, you're the one defining sides, pronouncing that either people believe the same thing as you or they're just evil people that have rejected reality wholesale, which completely eliminates all shades of grey in the issues, all discussion, all discourse.
danShumway 5y ago
> The laws may not be tribalistic I get what you're saying overall, and I agree with most of it, but you're giving too much credit with this statement. Some laws are tribalistic in America. It's not just that drug laws disproportionately target Black Americans in their enforcement, they were in their original forms designed to do so. The whole history of segregation and voter suppression is laws that were designed to hurt others, largely in the pursuit of tribal power. Voting suppression is inherently tribal, the whole point of voter suppression is to limit the voting power of other demographics or tribes. The current push for anti-trans legislation in multiple states is also being driven by tribalism. Keeping trans people out of bathrooms and sports didn't suddenly become an emergency to anyone because of any brand new risk or development or scientific discovery. There's no reason why this would be more pressing to Republicans now than it would have been 4 years ago. The major increase in legislation now is because it's a culture war, because it makes Democrats mad, because it's a backlash to the progress trans communities have made in securing rights, because it hurts people who are different who are symbolic in people's minds of power shifts and changing demographics. On an individual level, things get more complicated. You can't use tribalism to explain everything. But on a broad, society-wide level, it just seems absurd to me to say that tribalism has no impact at all on American laws. I mean, heck, forget about America: if people don't think that classism, party-loyalty, all of these tribal instincts affected how Britain has approached Brexit and what debates people had about Brexit, then they really aren't paying much attention to how laws get made and policies determined. Culture, in-groups, and out-groups all influence law.

mantas 5y ago

> If you look at the laws of practically every developed country, there is no "tribalism." There may be no tribalism inside of developed countries. But there's lots of tribalism between groups of developed countries and the rest of the world. Forcing all sorts of laws and customs on what they see as lesser countries. Sort of colonialism 2.0.

nanagojo 5y ago
There is actually tribalism in the form of economic equality. Rich people only hang out with rich people. Poor only with the poor, etc. What does a rich person need to do to be segregated from society? Simply go to a expensive restaurant or country club.
- bumby 5y ago
  There’s a distinction in the article, I think, in that tribalism is rooted in anti-egalitarianism that your comment doesn’t address. You can go to different restaurants without thinking less of another person. Differing tastes/hobbies/actions is not enough to meet the criteria of tribalism, less we fracture into “pineapple on pizza vs no pineapple” tribes.
  - mantas 5y ago
    Eventually it is different tastes in expressions, different hobbies as customs and different political actions.

mariusor 5y ago

> If he bothered to spell out in detail what he means by "tribalism," He did though: > Under conditions of real or perceived out-group threats involving competition for scarce resources, for example, the disposition for tribalist and exclusivist responses is triggered [...] I suspect that the existence of country borders and ethnic identities is safe as long as they don't support themselves on the fear of the "outside world" and the "other".