Of course luxury beliefs are true. But more importantly some luxury beliefs and the ones Henderson seems to comment on most, have had strong, proven consequences in the last few years. Do I need to mention San Francisco and Portland? How many years of evidence is needed?
I'm from San Francisco, and work along the Ivy Leaguers who can't help but support these beliefs Henderson describes to a T, even now. They supported and backed out BLM/Defund mayor and it was the working class that got blown out when businesses went under.
I could be wrong but I think Henderson’s concept of luxury beliefs is somewhat mischaracterized . I suspect that the author of this article makes more of Henderson’s concept than does Henderson. My understanding is that all Henderson was saying is there is a class of beliefs that you are unlikely to subscribe to or believe in unless your material circumstances are good and likely isolate you from the consequences of these beliefs becoming policy. You can only take this so far. I certainly don’t think that Henderson was rejecting nuance or truth. Something that’s true is true. It’s not a luxury belief. And yes one persons luxury belief could be another’s truth. I think Henderson s luxury beliefs concept is a useful generalization. It’s not an irrefutable, all encompassing law .Like a lot of concepts, it can be useful in characterizing or analyzing certain things. That’s all it is.
You slide from accurately describing luxury beliefs to an argument about whether they should be abandoned or rejected per se. Of course not. But even good social ideas have some collatoral price to someone, at minimum in the short term. Those people who are shielded from this price should at least not be allowed to bask in virtue for supporting them.
Walther makes a good point that "luxury beliefs" are incoherent when used as objective labels for ideas.
It has always seemed to me that using the term "luxury beliefs" was more of an accusation. That is, calling something a "luxury belief" is to say something about the psychology of the person holding the belief just as much as it is to describe the content of the belief. A "luxury belief" is something that one believes because it is 1) fashionable to believe and 2) its truth value does not affect the believer one way or the other, except insofar as it is might be fashionable to believe.
Agree it tends to have a judgmental or derogatory tone when applied to beliefs of specific people. But it is an interesting concept, and seems to usefully describe human nature.
Of course luxury beliefs are true. But more importantly some luxury beliefs and the ones Henderson seems to comment on most, have had strong, proven consequences in the last few years. Do I need to mention San Francisco and Portland? How many years of evidence is needed?
I'm from San Francisco, and work along the Ivy Leaguers who can't help but support these beliefs Henderson describes to a T, even now. They supported and backed out BLM/Defund mayor and it was the working class that got blown out when businesses went under.
I could be wrong but I think Henderson’s concept of luxury beliefs is somewhat mischaracterized . I suspect that the author of this article makes more of Henderson’s concept than does Henderson. My understanding is that all Henderson was saying is there is a class of beliefs that you are unlikely to subscribe to or believe in unless your material circumstances are good and likely isolate you from the consequences of these beliefs becoming policy. You can only take this so far. I certainly don’t think that Henderson was rejecting nuance or truth. Something that’s true is true. It’s not a luxury belief. And yes one persons luxury belief could be another’s truth. I think Henderson s luxury beliefs concept is a useful generalization. It’s not an irrefutable, all encompassing law .Like a lot of concepts, it can be useful in characterizing or analyzing certain things. That’s all it is.
You slide from accurately describing luxury beliefs to an argument about whether they should be abandoned or rejected per se. Of course not. But even good social ideas have some collatoral price to someone, at minimum in the short term. Those people who are shielded from this price should at least not be allowed to bask in virtue for supporting them.
Walther makes a good point that "luxury beliefs" are incoherent when used as objective labels for ideas.
It has always seemed to me that using the term "luxury beliefs" was more of an accusation. That is, calling something a "luxury belief" is to say something about the psychology of the person holding the belief just as much as it is to describe the content of the belief. A "luxury belief" is something that one believes because it is 1) fashionable to believe and 2) its truth value does not affect the believer one way or the other, except insofar as it is might be fashionable to believe.
Agree it tends to have a judgmental or derogatory tone when applied to beliefs of specific people. But it is an interesting concept, and seems to usefully describe human nature.
Interesting critiques of ‘luxury beliefs’; strike me as substantially true.
Closing seemed a bit flip.
Hahvad - ’86, ‘88