The case against the notion of historical objectivity is like the case against international law, or international morality; that it does not exist.
Sir Isaiah Berlin
Berlin was a philosopher and a political theorist.
I have a very vague recollection of some of his ideas, but from memory, the most interesting one was his dismissal of the idea that there was only one sort of right answer, or universally “correct” system of ethics. He was not talking about the physical world we inhabit, which can to some extent be defined by science or mathematics, but rather the inter-reaction of human beings which cannot be determined, or categorised using the same “rules”.
His work was naturally influenced by events at the time; the fight against Communism and Fascism, but one does wonder what he would have made of the present battle of ideologies.
It would also be interesting to see how future historians view these present conflicts, and which ethical values will they use to do so, but I doubt any of us will be around to find out.
Boadicea's Chariot 
Fine that, Ara. I’ve now got a headache too. Thanks.
Personally, I prefer Irving Berlin.
Anyhow, back on blog and rested by Fred and Ginger, I’m with Winston on ‘historical objectivity’ – ‘History is written by the victors’. Similarly in re ‘international morality’ – nice idea but it is never going to happen in the real world, in my opinion. National self-interest is a very powerful force and can warp any discussion in that field, again in my opinion.
But, I take a deep breath and worry about the ‘case against international law’. Exists, has to exist, certainly flawed and probably mainly unenforceable. Man and his institutions are, of course, incapable of perfection but international interaction is a fact of life and most of said interaction would seem to me to be dependent on some form of broadly agreed ‘international law’. Could be wrong.
While I’m at it, your ‘He was not talking about the physical world we inhabit, which can to some extent be defined by science or mathematics, but rather the inter-reaction of human beings which cannot be determined, or categorised using the same “rules’ would be like a red rag to a bull to my close personal friend and fellow Jock, several times removed by choice, Jamie MacNab, if he were here (that’ll be my opinion again).
Getting back to serious topics, I hope Holland win the final.
Araminta:
I think future philosophers will be unable to find ANY ethics in the present era, at least amongst the political classes!
Oh my, my headache has suddenly just taken a turn for the worse, gentlemen.
I’ll be back in half an hour, and two paracetamol later!
Holland, Mr Mackie; are they playing? smiley thing.
FEEG: no ethics at all? OK, I’ll deal with this later, once the painkillers have taken effect.
Every society I have ever heard of has devloped its own set of behavioural rules, from mere custom and practice via ethical standards to a corpus of law. Berlin was probably influenced by arguments about the ‘moral imperative’ which philosophers have debated ad nauseam: When we say people ‘ought’ to behave in a certain way, are we presribing a universal code or what?
Btw, JM, is Jamie still around and if so, why doesn’t he jump on the chariot?
OK, I’m feeling slightly better but yes, John, on refection, I think your preference for Irving Berlin, though understandable, reflects a certain lack of intellectual rigour! (joke).
Right, now I did think about a certain Mr MacNab as I typed the very sentences you quote, and I did think that this could be a tad controversial, but since he is not here, I thought I’d risk it.
Regarding the subject of international law; a friend of my daughter specialises in this, and she is close to a nervous breakdown. I’m not sure of the relevance of this, save the impossibility of attempts to actually enforce this necessary concept on the signatories to such, who seem to thing it is a Good Thing in theory, but in practice, do not seem to think the odd human rights abuse for example, is anything worthy of serious consideration.
All in all the non musical Berlin was being a bit harsh, in my opinion but more right than wrong.
Re your last para-
Will depend strictly upon who won!
Losers rarely write history.
Och, Ara. I don’t think I’ll ever get the hang of this ‘intellectual rigour’ thing myself.
But, ‘it’s nae loss whit a freen gets’ and you seem to me to be well down that particular road. May it rise up to meet you.
Janus.
Society does indeed develop its own code of ethics and etc, but how about the “moral imperative” of say Communism? This is not so much developed as imposed, and its declared aim is for the greater good of all, and equality.
Now this sounds all fine and dandy but it didn’t actually work out to be a Good Thing!
I don’t think Berlin advocated that people “ought” to behave in a certain way; quite the reverse; he very much believed in self-determination and liberty, but was aware of the pitfalls.
Hi Tina.
Which last para, but yes, it is usually the victors who live or have the freedom to tell the story, but this may not be the case in the future. God help those who have to decipher all the blogs and Twitters, or is that Tweets; the mind boggles!
Well it was a damned sight better for most Russians than Csarist Russia for a fair while. Less people starved to death which I think can be taken as an improvement.
Went downhill only after they started trying to keep up with the Americans in the space and arms races.
As most things are/were it was a good idea at the time!
Very little is from the standpoint of deja vue.
Can you imagine most Jews looking over the precipices of Masada at the Romans still thinking they had done the ‘right thing’? I expect it had appeared to be a wonderful idea a few weeks previously!
I rather prefer the ancient maxim-
Shit happens.
Why is it that the kraut intelligensia are so navel gazing and anal, they all appear to be.
I’m not convinced I’ll get the hang of the intellectual bit, John, never mind the rigour!
I’m consulting with my Scottish expert regarding the exact translation of the above; but I’ll choose to regard it as quite positive if I may.
Janus, good evening. Yes he is around, both on WordPress and MyT. I wish he was here too if only to annoy and entertain me with his superb and unrivalled abilities in the field of obfuscation (my opinion). Always a joy!
Ah, Tina.
Good idea at the time, but very little scope for well, people like you for example. I suppose that had one been spoon-fed that particular dogma then one’s life may well have been different.
What price freedom? Good to have a choice though perhaps?
We do, and even if it only a choice between NuLab and the Coalition. 🙂
CO, good evening and great to see you as always.
Masada is an interesting one to pick. Off to see if there’s a blog in there somewhere. Been there twice as an avid fan of both the ruthless efficiency of the Roman Empire and the fierce independence of the Zealots.
PS: Tina.
Berlin was not actually a member of the “kraut intelligentsia”, strictly speaking, he was born in Latvia, of Jewish parentage.
The family, so I am told by the Great God Google, were in Petrograd at the time of the 1917 Revolutions, but later left and fled to England.
FEEG.
I’ve considered your comment #2, and my very weak response, of which I am sure Berlin would not approve it that; are you ready for this, it is a classic case of the end justifies the means.
Certain politicians may well be deluded or indeed deranged, but I think they are convinced that their way is right.
Sad but it is not so much a lack of ethics but just subverting them to their own ends. Misguided certainly, but not necessarily fatal to democracy.
Not a problem. It gave me one as well but two Nurophen sorted it.
I’m feeling a lot better too, Toc. 🙂
WE WANT JAMIE MACNAB! SCARED, ARE YOU? GET OVER HERE AND FIGHT LIKE A NORTH BRITON! 🙂
Ara, the main objection to international law is that different folks pull different strokes and nobody can morally justify imposing any particular set of behavioural values on anybody from a different culture. We may not approve of certain customs under Islam (for example) but who is to say they are ‘wrong’ in an absolute sense? They feel the same about our meat!
On the question of ‘Morality’ – I think the KISS principle should apply. Most societies agree on the basic dictates of “Thou shalt not kill, steal, etc…” I do not think that such things as whether one wears a head dress, eats certain meats, etc comes under the heading of morality – rather it is, in my view, no more than petty tyranny.
It may once have been true that only the victors write history – that is clearly being overturned in the rush to make those ‘victors’ pay for the past.
As for international law… the so-called Court of Human Rights, in the rush to extend its powers, is biased and loses all ‘moral’ authority when it upholds the rights of known criminals against the rights of victims.
I am not just speaking of terrorists. That Court upholds the right of the British Government to steal from millions on a weekly basis…
Morality like anything else, is all to do with survival of the species. The lives of individuals are irrelevant. It is the growth in numbers that is important. If a brand of morals help a species (race, ethnic group, community etc) to prosper, then it can be deemed to be sound. Christianity for all its faults, dogmas and eccentricities was morally a good thing, since it led to a growth in numbers of its members. It is now in decline and will be seen as being increasingly immoral by the competing religion, Islam. Islam will almost certainly be the new moral imperative. Morality lies in our genes (or jeans if you prefer).
A comment earlier by someone suggested that Russians were happier with post-czarist communism until the space race (affected their living standards?)
Perhaps Stalin’s millions deported and murdered in his purges didn’t make the history books in Russia at the time, but let’s not forget the words attributed to Stalin himself:
“Who’s going to remember all this riff-raff in ten or twenty years time? No one.
Who remembers the names now of the boyars Ivan the Terrible got rid of? No one.”
I think I’ll go with WIlliam of Ockham on this one.
Coincidental C & P from another blog which I happened to visit this morning – saved me typing it all out myself 🙂 http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/2010/Q3/mail630.html
Oops, used html symbols there in error. Should read:
Thanks for the additional comments.
Back later when I have more time!
Intentionally or otherwise, that link takes you to an interesting page that quotes an article I read in the Economist this week. Average IQs vary from population to population, with parts of Asia having the highest (105 in China and Japan) while Equatorial Guinea (59)and other parts of Africa and the Caribbean have the lowest(Jamaica 71). Britain is 100. Scientists have apparently found an explanation for this. It all boils down to disease and standards of living. So, if we take the average Equatorial Guinean and raise him from birth in Japan, his IQ should improve by 46 points.
Funny how it is OK to say that a community has a low IQ as long as you blame it on environmental rather than hereditary/genetic factors. James Watson the geneticist who won the Nobel Prize for unravelling DNA was pilloried recently and had his reputation destroyed for claiming that certain races had lower IQs than others. It turns out, if we are to believe this report, that they do, but race, apparently, has nothing to do with it. Personally, I don’t think that it matters what the reason is as long as it is recognised as being the case because then something can be done about it. Allowing a man with a low IQ to preside over a democracy of 50 million people is unlikely to benefit the citizens of that country. Neither his nor their IQs are likely to improve while he is in charge, if indeed disease is the cause of a low IQ in the first place.
I suggest that the UN step in and manage any country where the average IQ of its population is below 95.
http://www.economist.com/node/16510958
Sipu, that’s social dynamite! it will be interesting to see these data correlated with other indicators like ‘contentment’. 🙂 How come China is so high when their disease quotient is high and their standard of living low?
Hello Araminta, the Berlin quote I have used a few time is ‘Freedom for the pike means death for the minnows’. How true. Following Rickrants advice I visited this site, but foolishly asked for my own blog, by mistake. It was this site I intended joining.
Evening tk
Apologies for the delay in approving your comment (they are all auto approved now) I have a rather good excuse though, I was at the football.
😉
Hello TK, I recognise that avatar, thank you for the comment and it is a pleasure to see you here.
Yes, excellent quote. 🙂
Nice to see you here Tom. I know that you will enjoy it.
Hi Sipu.
Interesting comment, but one wonders what sort of IQ test they used in this survey and how representative it was.
I haven’t been able to find which particular infectious diseases were on the list.
IQ could be the new excuse for regime change, if we are to believe this has any validity.
Bravo.
I doubt that Berlin would disagree with your comment #25!
OK, then Soutie, I suppose that was a reasonable excuse!
Hope you enjoyed the day. 🙂
Thanks CWJ.
Good to see you here and yes, good point.
Hello Ara, magnificent, absolutely magnificent, flawless organization, wined and dined, transportation provided and the football was brilliant, a great match who says that these 3rd / 4th playoffs can be drab affairs (oops it was me 😦 )), I could go on but I’ll compile my usual report perhaps tomorrow with the detail.
Thanks for asking.
Yo, good to hear it, Souts!
I would not disagree with you except to say that given most politicians total disregard of hoi polloi and their total self interest, I cannot see how any system of ethics applies to them.
Hi FEEG.
I suppose, charitably, they may be guilty of a certain sort of arrogance which means they put their own interests first, and the next most important consideration is the re-election of their own party. The arrogance is that they think they know what is best for the country, but I think your somewhat cynical interpretation may be more accurate.
On the intelligence thingy, we’ve been here before. I still maintain that the basic equipment remains important: I play tennis, but, no matter how hard or for how long I practice, I’m never going to win Wimbledon; I drive a car, but I’m never going to beat Louis Hamilton; I play golf…
Research seems to show that, in general, Ashkenazi Jews are more intelligent than the rest of us…
What is subjective morality, though? For that matter, what is objective morality? Berlin’s opinions are worth considering and to an extent had historical relevance but remained contingent on previously accepted norms which no longer really carry much weight. While there have always been societal problems, for example, there was still a sense that there was right and that there was wrong — this is not so much the case, any more. The triumph of Rousseau’s belief that the inner person is essentially good and that the true villain is the evils of society warping the essentially good person has probably done more to undermine social stability and cohesion than just about anything possibly good.
Chris, “What is subjective morality, though? For that matter, what is objective morality?” Easy peasy! Subjective: I know what is right for me. Objective: I know what is right for society. OK?
Dearest Araminta – I have read your post and the subsequent comments. I have developed a headache as a result and need to lie down somewhere dark. Thank you.
OZ
OZ, no stamina, that’s your trouble. 🙂
Janus – Guilty as charged. 😦 However, in my defence, it turned out to be a very long day yesterday and I must admit to being more than a little fragile this morning. I am preparing black pudding and fried egg on toast washed down by a big cup of strong tea and hope to feel much better later.
OZ
Sorry to read of your demise, OZ. But yesterday was probably the right thing to do – subjectively speaking, eh? 🙂
Janus – Subjectively, it seemed a good idea at the time and now my whiskers are covered in egg yolk and breadcrumbs. Oh, my heady blood!
OZ
Oh dear, Oz. Or Oh, dear Oz!
I hope you are feeling a little better now.
If you had a problem reading it, just think how I feel! One always thinks at the time this is such a good idea, but this is not necessarily so! 😉
Hi Christopher.
Regarding your comment #42. Yes, Berlin’s work has a relevance and should be considered in the light of the time, as should most philosophers and historians. I agree with Berlin, in that there is no such thing as true objectivity.
In fact Berlin takes this further and suggests that if one achieves this state of objectivity, it is at the cost of one’s essential humanity. It is simply not possible.
Good question, Janus!
If my post didn’t do it, and frankly he could have waltzed onto this post and marmelised me, then what more can one do!
Araminta – Hoovered the pool and painted the last bedroom. All shipshape for arrival of brother cub later this week. Just watched the lithping, effete Sthpaniards lift the World Cup. Bugger!
OZ
You appear to have developed a lisp, Oz. 🙂
Isn’t Paul the Octupus so so clever!
Agreed and gutted, OZ.
But, to be fair, the Cloggies did over-clog and the better team on the night probably did win, I suppose.
More importantly, I reckon Jamie MacNab is just a big feartie, Ara.
No, John, I shall just have to raise my game.
Mr MacNab, bless ‘im is just not fooled by my feeble attempts. Boo hoo.
Plan B! Give me a a couple of days! 🙂
Spain won the World Cup.
Ara, I’m surprised your Isaiah Berlin didn’t do the trick. What we need id some serious trick-cyclist stuff – any offers?
Chris, yes – and the Dutch did themselves no credit.