Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

The Road to Hell

Entry 2127, on 2021-05-12 at 17:57:28 (Rating 4, Politics)

There's an old proverb, which states that "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions". The meaning should be obvious, but there are some variations, so here is my interpretation: trying to do what the person sees as the right thing often leads to the worst possible result. Taking this further, it might be said that the people who think they are right and moral are in fact the most dangerous and harmful.

This shouldn't be taken too far, because there are plenty of roads to Hell which are the result of bad intentions, and there are plenty of good intentions which don't result in following that road to Hell. So, it might be better to say something like this: just because you think you are doing the right thing doesn't mean that the results of your actions won't be highly problematic.

Also, if it wasn't already obvious - although I think it is - I'm not talking abut the literal, mythological location of Hell here. I'm referring to Hell in the metaphorical sense of really bad outcomes.

So, assuming we should take this ideas seriously - and I think we should - what are some examples of good intentions leading to bad outcomes? Well, to find these I would suggest looking at our old friends the social justice warriors, who are full of good intentions, many of which will inevitably lead to Hell, assuming they haven't already done so.

For example, if I offered the phrase "black lives matter", would anyone disagree? I would certainly hope not. And, if there was a genuine problem with police violence against blacks, or systemic racism, or other institutional bias, I would expect that most people would want to do something about it.

But there are two problems with the BLM movement's reaction to this issue. I think that many of the movement's adherents do have good intentions (although many others don't), but the outcomes have been very much on that road to Hell. Not only have the activities of BLM lead to death, injury, and massive destruction - often affecting the exact people they claim to be representing - but the divisiveness generated by their radical actions has arguably made race relations in the US much worse.

Here's another example. The Metoo movement was created to tackle an issue which did exist, although the extent of it was highly debatable. There were almost certainly some people who had behaved badly and needed to face the consequences, but again it almost inevitably got out of control and affected many innocent people, as well as again creating a divisive and unfair environment which decreased fairness in society.

And here's another, very topical example: most people want gay, lesbian, trans, and other people with unconventional gender identity to be given a fair place in society. I certainly do, but I don't want that alleged fairness to extend so far that it becomes unfair to others.

Of course, the current example of this is the possible inclusion of New Zealand trans weightlifter, Laurel Hubbard, in the Olympic team, making her (yes, I'll use the preferred pronoun, because there's no good reason not to) the first Olympic trans athlete. So it's nice that someone with a difficult life gets a chance to do what she is good at, but what about the consequences for others?

Because Laurel Hubbard is not really a woman. I know that is harsh, as well as being very politically incorrect, but it is true. She is a man who prefers to be a woman and who is making an approximation to being one. In many situations that is fine, but in sport, where men enjoy a big advantage in most cases, that is not fine, because it unfairly disadvantages others.

As as the classic libertarian maxim goes: people should have the freedom to do whatever they want, until it interferes with other people's freedom. Then we need to look at the justification for that action (not necessarily rule it out completely, but consider the validity of it given that if affects others).

So the "big picture" situation really is that people want to help those they think of as underprivileged - especially when they feel some personal guilt for that situation (either justifiably or not) - but that well-intentioned action generally not only often makes life worse for the group that the help is intended for, but also makes it worse for just about everyone else as well.

In fact, the only people who really gain any benefit from this system are the people initiating the action because they (usually falsely) think they are some sort of moral hero who has "done the right thing". In other words, the actions intended to help the disadvantaged group usually just make the person initiating the action feel better, while making the world worse for everyone else.

This is not always the case, of course. There are genuine cases where social change was necessary, and pressure groups helped that change to occur. For example, few people would claim that giving women the vote, or stopping slavery weren't good ideas. But once every group is given equal protection in law it becomes a bit less certain whether other changes are justified.

For example, the BLM movement is almost totally bogus. Most stats clearly show that there is no systemic racism against blacks by police. Are some cops racist? Sure, both white and black people can be racist, and some are. Is there a systemic problem? Not according to the stats, and we should generally trust the stats ahead of anecdotes.

So while political action against slavery and against segregation laws is generally justified, violent and destructive rioting against a problem which doesn't exist isn't. But BLM are so sure they are doing the right thing, encouraged by many media sources (who are often the real problem) that the obvious flaws in their arguments, and the obvious immoral activities they engage in, are seen as justified.

If they had a more cynical attitude and recognised their protests for what they really are - a power grab and an excuse to harm society or to loot and vandalise property with no consequences - then they might actually act less destructively. But for the people who are convinced they are morally right, anything can be justified. And any objection to their activities comes from an opposition which they see as being morally wrong. It's a difficult delusion to escape.

So yes, the road to Hell really is paved with good intentions. And with bad delusions.

Comment 1 (6663) by Anonymous on 2021-05-13 at 13:29:01:

Oh dear, another negative, pessimistic tirade. Look, you really can't condemn a whole movement (or the idea behind a movement) based on the behaviour of a minority of people who claim to represent that movement. Sure, some people rioted and caused damage. Should the idea behind the movement (in this case BLM) be condemned by a minority of thugs who happen to attach themselves to a protest movement? The Behaviour of those *individuals* should not be excused, but you cannot necessarily link that behaviour to the movement - it's very convenient for you to do so, but I don't believe it reflects reality.

Just wondering what you based this statement,ent on: "but the divisiveness generated by their radical actions has arguably made race relations in the US much worse". Have you ever lived in the States or visited it for any length of time in a non-tourist capacity? Do you understand the society and culture beyond what you read online?

I do agree with you about Laurel Hubbard. The "unfairness to others principle" does kick in here I think. If I was a female (biological female?) I would feel pretty angry about having to compete with an individual that has a physical advantage based on biological gender.

Comment 2 (6665) by OJB on 2021-05-13 at 19:59:53:

I think you can condemn a movement based on negative aspects, if the negative outweighs the positive. BLM has almost no positive aspects at all, but a lot of very obvious negative aspects. It's like saying I shouldn't condemn Naziism because most Germans in WW2 didn't participate in the Holocaust (yeah, I know about Godwin's Law). And the "thugs" who "attach" themselves to the protest movement would be better described as the BLM rioters whose basic methods involve theft, murder, and assault.

Sure, I agree that I haven't spent a lot of time in the US. I am basing my opinion on reports from many sources (both left and right oriented) and on reports from many parts of the country. It's possible that I have got the wrong impression from a few thousand kilometers away, but sometimes that is the best way to see the "big picture".

OK, we agree on the trans issue. That's something! Keep working on it and you might eventually discover that BLM isn't what the MSM is trying to portray it as.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.