Saturday, February 15, 2020

Choices MUST Have Consequences

Imagine two students:

One student puts in hours each day studying math, poring over textbooks and practicing his skills on math-related online games so he can get ahead.

The second student effs off after school. He's happy doing the bare minimum to pass.

Question: Who's more likely to get an 800 on the math section of the SAT? Who's more likely to take Calculus - or even Differential Equations - in high school?

Question: If the first student gets into MIT and the second student doesn't, is that just?

Currently, I tutor three students who attend our local magnet school. None of them are spectacular intellects. They're just extremely motivated and work very, very hard. Indeed, they all came to me for math enrichment years before their admission to said magnet; consequently, they are all years ahead of their local peers.

(And incidentally, all three are black and/or Muslim.)

Different behaviors lead to different levels of achievement. Up and down the evolutionary scale, there are some strategies that lead to reproductive success and some strategies that don't. A squirrel that doesn't busy itself gathering nuts in good weather is a dead squirrel. This isn't oppression. This is life.

The radical left, however, seems hell-bent on denying this reality. Indeed, a common theme that links many of the enthusiasms of the social justice warrior is a desire to protect people from the consequences of their own bad choices.

Consider, for example, the fat acceptance movement. Obviously, no one should be mocked or otherwise mistreated for being overweight. But to expect to be celebrated as if you are just as beautiful as someone who is fit and thin? This is a patently unreasonable demand -- and I say this as a chunky gal. While there are some medical reasons why people may have more trouble than usual controlling their weight, in most cases, a fat person is fat because of his lifestyle. And don't worry: I include myself in that category. I take meds that impact weight gain -- but I could still stand to exercise more and do a better job monitoring my diet. The fact that I'm not currently making millions as a bikini model is a natural result of my laziness, and I accept it. SJW's, however, think I'm being persecuted somehow -- because they want to protect me from the consequences of my own choices.

Consider too the left's extreme embrace of legal abortion on demand at any time for any reason. When challenged on this, of course, leftists always retreat to the motte of "rape/incest/medical necessity," but everyone knows that the vast majority of abortions are performed for the sake of convenience. Sorry, ladies, but if you're not ready to have a kid, there's something very simple you can do instead of murdering a human being who didn't ask to exist: shut your damn legs. It's called delaying gratification. People do it all the time without exploding -- and they end up happier in the long run. This is common sense -- except to radical leftists who, again, want to protect women from the consequences of their own choices.

I don't deny that certain observed disparities are partially the result of systemic issues. This is certainly true in education, one of my personal areas of interest. It's incontrovertible that, due to the incompetence of certain local school districts, some students aren't getting equal access to rigorous, knowledge-based instruction -- and yes, that injustice should be corrected. But leftist ideology overemphasizes the importance of the system at the expense of - well - true justice. It seems to argue that the imposition of any standards at all is tantamount to perpetuating "white supremacist, cisheteronormative patriarchy" -- as if the targets of its mothering instincts are somehow incapable of the self-discipline that has allowed others to excel. (Who, exactly, are the bigots here?)

No: In an ideal society, people of all backgrounds who practice the traditional cardinal virtues - people of all backgrounds who work hard and refrain from indulging their every passing whim - should enjoy the reward of living reasonably comfortably. And those who don't? Well, we shouldn't let them die in the streets -- but we also shouldn't coddle them or pretend their decisions have been equally adaptive. Why? Because ultimately, that's not fair. Outputs should be proportional to your effort; otherwise, why put in any effort at all?

13 comments:

  1. Agreed. Life choices always have consequences. Want to drink a lot and smoke a lot? Bee prepared for health issues and an early death. That is not bad luck. Some medical issues are bad luck, but some are foreseeable, but inored.

    ReplyDelete
  2. We are surrounded by idiots to demand "equality" rather than doing the hard work.

    America is lost.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 1. It's "pore" over, not "pour" over.
    2. Totally agree on the delayed gratification argument. According to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, 1% of abortions are due to pregnancies resulting from rape and 0.5% from incest. 0.1% to save the life of the mother. Eliminating the other 98% would be a great step forward.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree completely that lack of effort should not be rewarded. But I think it goes too far to say that "outputs should be proportional to your effort". We would not reward the student who studies math three hours a day in the same way as the student who plays video games three hours a day, in spite of the latter claiming that he's working just as hard. Your choice of which work to do also matters.

    ReplyDelete
  5. They don't need to shut their legs, either. It's called "birth control." It's been around for decades, the condom even longer. I don't understand how anyone in this day and age gets pregnant unintentionally unless she's married to an abusive male who she can't escape.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True. But birth control fails occasionally, so abstinence is the only 100% way to ensure you don't get pregnant.

      Delete
  6. Its why socialism fails. Why work hard when its not going to benefit me and everyone else barely makes an effort? Everything falls to the least common denominator and we are all equally poor!

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Because ultimately, that's not fair. Outputs should be proportional to your effort; otherwise, why put in any effort at all?"

    There is no 'fair'. (There is no benchmark, it's just what we agree it to be, and usually, we almost never do, so 'unfair' is the base case in life.)

    There is also no known long-term cure for obesity as of yet, so the reaction to ignore the disease and get on with being happy in life is actually a healthy response to the demand of the impossible. (so your example is invalid, as a side note, hungry people are angry people and diets thus contribute a lot of unhappiness to society.)

    Regards effort --- the effort alone is the reward, the outcome just a nice consequence. (also see: 'The path is the way' problem by various philosophers). There is no entitlement to success, no matter how hard you work. Enjoying the effort is important, otherwise it's it's a waste of time if you are one of the 99% of non-geniusses.

    Feticide has been going on forever(see: Sylphum).

    Women commit feticide because they have no emotional or financial facility to be a parent. Some are trapped into being career women, others cannot find a reliable, motivated partner, some simply do not want children. Getting pregnant accidentally is stupid, but it happens. We have to deal with reality as is, not as we demand it be. Currently, Feticide is simplest solution. We barely can manage children in need in the current system, which is predatory in many cases, fostering etc. is a big business and the success rate is abysmal too, a lot end up homeless or in jail. A child that has been raised badly in their infancy by a incompetent parent is usually ruined, and adoption often fails badly.

    Unwanted children often grow up into people who cause a lot of problems and who in turn raise difficult children because parenting is a skill you learn from your parents. So forcing unwilling/unable people to parent will not increase the number of happy, well-adjusted people, but multiply the problem cases and in turn, society will disimprove.

    I think our initial problem is not the solving of the Obesity/Feticide problem, but of our discomfort of how we personally feel about it.

    In both cases we demand of the 'victims' that they make our empathy discomfort problem go away, by not having their problem in the first place.

    That's because we as individuals cannot offer solutions to some problems, and it stresses us to accept the tragedies we observe, so we come up with 'a' solution and then the stress we have moves over to frustration that our unrealistic solution is not executed by the other person (willfully or not).

    But we just added our empathy unhappiness to the list of unsolved problems and moved away further from a solution.

    Ideal society, well, yeah, it does not exist. However, I know what an 'Ideal Tailor' is however: Someone who can make well fitting, good-looking, affordable clothes for their fattest customers.

    And yes, being a parent is right now a terrible deal for most adults, then again, it always was. Feticide can only be minimized by improving that deal.

    But that'll happen naturally --- because currently the vast majority of children have parents who really wanted them, so the amount of competent parenting being passed on, and competent people being raised as a consequence is increasing and so, over time, it might well be that legalized Feticide is the solution to itself.

    (I prefer the term 'Feticide', to (ahem) name the dead baby.)

    (and yes, here I'm arguing for Feticide to be permitted, because I'm opposed to it, but banning it will lead to more 'cide' of all stripes.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. FYI- when I clicked through to this post, Google Chrome put up a pop up saying this is an unsafe site to visit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmm. That doesn't happen on my Chrome. Not sure why you're getting that message.

      Delete
  9. I'd go deeper. It isn't just a desire to protect people from the consequences of their bad choices -- it's an attack on the law of cause and effect. The left wants to sever cause from effect in every way possible.

    They want some people to be able to enact causes without suffering the effects (no consequences for bad choices), and to obtain effects without enacting the required causes (degrees without studying, income without producing). They want others to enact causes without gaining the effects (producing without gaining income) and to suffer effects for causes they never enacted.

    Since the law of cause and effect is really just the law of identity applied to actions, this is a rebellion against the fundamental nature of reality as such. What the left objects to is that things are what they are, and cannot be changed simply by wishing.

    ReplyDelete