I think "accident of birth" is meant not in the sense of an unintended or unfortunate occurrence but in the Greek sense of an "essence vs. accident" paradigm (I don't know if that's Plato or Aristotle or somebody else, but it's one of those guys). I.e. that the physical appearance of something does not necessarily align with it's essential form (a chair that breaks apart as soon as you sit on it has the accident of "chair-ness" but not the essence, because being a chair that holds no weight isn't truly a chair)
So the implication here is that an "accident" of birth is separate from the "essence" of a person, with the latter being decisive in determing their entitlements.
As you point out, this is still wrong, because the circumstances of birth obviously affects essence for all sorts of reasons and under even opposing paradigms. One of those that you don't mention is existentialism, as defined by Sartre ("a person exists before he can be defined by any concept"). Shitlibs would probably modify that slightly by saying a person exists and then by pronouncing the correct leftist shibboleths obtains a holy essence based on whatever power dynamics operate at any time. Or something like that; it's very confusing.
Very insightful comment, thank you. Somehow I doubt that those who use such terms these days think any deeper than "muh equality", because such thinking would, indeed, reveal all those contradictions. In fact, if the Telegraph in their coverage about the lords' privileges had dived into Aristotle or even Sartre, I would have much more respect for them.
“Accident of birth” probably meant what you said two hundred years ago, when this term first started to get commonly used. But nowadays, with people as dumb and illiterate as they are, probably nearly everybody citing “accident of birth” treats it like a surprise freak accident. They used other words back then that people don’t understand how to use now, like “awesome,” “terrible,” and “suffer.”
The “accident of birth” seems to be associated with a logically flawed idea of moral universalism: that all humans are equal in value and dignity, irrespective of who they individually are. This is wrong because if human are subject to some non-trivial universal principle in virtue of which are valuable and have moral status (universalism) then it must be possible for this principle to be realised/expressed by different individuals more or less faithfully, resulting in different degrees of value and status. The moral challenge is then to treat others in a way that does not undermine the expression of the universal principle in ourselves.
If we were all expressing the normative principle equally, in the same degree, then it would be a trivial principle, therefore not normative. A crucial aspect of universalism is that we all have choice, which is the entry level qualification for moral beings, and that our choices determine the quality of who we are, so reducing humans to fungible units of value implies that our choices have no consequence, that we are not even moral beings, therefore we are not subject to any moral principle.
I was totally blown away by " Far from being an accident, our birth is literally determined by the history of the cosmos. " I'd never thought too deeply on the "accident of birth" phrase but now I see how shallow it is. Thanks for writing this.
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you …” [I totally didn’t pull that quote from Reddit.]
Funny, that's part of my daughter's nighttime prayers. I couldn't tell you chapter and verse, but I definitely could've quoted it verbatim and it popped into my head before I saw your quote.
These sort of cultural touchstones used to be more universal, and it's sad that they no longer are.
Probably. The House of Lords has given up every other right without much of a fight for the past two hundred years. I don’t see why the last few ones would start now. Even their honorific titles are getting stripped away; they weren’t allowed to wear their coronets at King Charles’ coronation (coronations are the only occasion when they’re supposed to be allowed to wear them now) and wouldn’t have had their robes either, if Charles didn’t partially give in to their protests. Most of the Peers, back when they could still vote, were absentee lords who didn’t even show up to Parliament most of the time. It’s been a badly neutered organization with no spirit left in it for a very long while now.
No, it wasn't the intention. But I think it's worthwhile to think about issues like this in a new light, instead of defaulting to the now common position that birthright should be continually attempted to be minimized.
I think "accident of birth" is meant not in the sense of an unintended or unfortunate occurrence but in the Greek sense of an "essence vs. accident" paradigm (I don't know if that's Plato or Aristotle or somebody else, but it's one of those guys). I.e. that the physical appearance of something does not necessarily align with it's essential form (a chair that breaks apart as soon as you sit on it has the accident of "chair-ness" but not the essence, because being a chair that holds no weight isn't truly a chair)
So the implication here is that an "accident" of birth is separate from the "essence" of a person, with the latter being decisive in determing their entitlements.
As you point out, this is still wrong, because the circumstances of birth obviously affects essence for all sorts of reasons and under even opposing paradigms. One of those that you don't mention is existentialism, as defined by Sartre ("a person exists before he can be defined by any concept"). Shitlibs would probably modify that slightly by saying a person exists and then by pronouncing the correct leftist shibboleths obtains a holy essence based on whatever power dynamics operate at any time. Or something like that; it's very confusing.
Very insightful comment, thank you. Somehow I doubt that those who use such terms these days think any deeper than "muh equality", because such thinking would, indeed, reveal all those contradictions. In fact, if the Telegraph in their coverage about the lords' privileges had dived into Aristotle or even Sartre, I would have much more respect for them.
“Accident of birth” probably meant what you said two hundred years ago, when this term first started to get commonly used. But nowadays, with people as dumb and illiterate as they are, probably nearly everybody citing “accident of birth” treats it like a surprise freak accident. They used other words back then that people don’t understand how to use now, like “awesome,” “terrible,” and “suffer.”
The “accident of birth” seems to be associated with a logically flawed idea of moral universalism: that all humans are equal in value and dignity, irrespective of who they individually are. This is wrong because if human are subject to some non-trivial universal principle in virtue of which are valuable and have moral status (universalism) then it must be possible for this principle to be realised/expressed by different individuals more or less faithfully, resulting in different degrees of value and status. The moral challenge is then to treat others in a way that does not undermine the expression of the universal principle in ourselves.
If we were all expressing the normative principle equally, in the same degree, then it would be a trivial principle, therefore not normative. A crucial aspect of universalism is that we all have choice, which is the entry level qualification for moral beings, and that our choices determine the quality of who we are, so reducing humans to fungible units of value implies that our choices have no consequence, that we are not even moral beings, therefore we are not subject to any moral principle.
I was totally blown away by " Far from being an accident, our birth is literally determined by the history of the cosmos. " I'd never thought too deeply on the "accident of birth" phrase but now I see how shallow it is. Thanks for writing this.
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you …” [I totally didn’t pull that quote from Reddit.]
Funny, that's part of my daughter's nighttime prayers. I couldn't tell you chapter and verse, but I definitely could've quoted it verbatim and it popped into my head before I saw your quote.
These sort of cultural touchstones used to be more universal, and it's sad that they no longer are.
Do you think the entitled Lord are going to give up their power without a fight?
Probably not. But the progressive zeitgeist is so strongly aligned against them that at least their direct, official privileges might go.
Probably. The House of Lords has given up every other right without much of a fight for the past two hundred years. I don’t see why the last few ones would start now. Even their honorific titles are getting stripped away; they weren’t allowed to wear their coronets at King Charles’ coronation (coronations are the only occasion when they’re supposed to be allowed to wear them now) and wouldn’t have had their robes either, if Charles didn’t partially give in to their protests. Most of the Peers, back when they could still vote, were absentee lords who didn’t even show up to Parliament most of the time. It’s been a badly neutered organization with no spirit left in it for a very long while now.
“When Wellington thrashed Bonaparte,
As every child can tell,
The House of Peers, throughout the war,
Did nothing in particular—
And did it very well!
Yet Britain set the world ablaze
In good King George’s glorious days;
Yet Britain set the world ablaze
In good King George’s glorious days!”
Sounds about like our Senate. Bunch of old lazy people that should be retired.
"It's all by accident, you didn't earn it, so give it to us or we'll rape and kill you."
Although I agree with the metaphysics, I don't find this to be a compelling argument against ending a birthright system, if that was your implication.
No, it wasn't the intention. But I think it's worthwhile to think about issues like this in a new light, instead of defaulting to the now common position that birthright should be continually attempted to be minimized.
I think the birthright aristocracy is a node to a society’s elites in order for all the rest of us to have a democratic assembly.
*nod