The Right Side of History: How Reason and Moral Purpose Made the West Great

by Ben Shapiro

An initial disagreement here is the idea from Sapiens that humanity and liberties does not stem from religion but rather from beliefs that humanity for its own sake is what warrants the creation and protections of human rights and liberties. Would result in similar ideology but it is a distinction worth tracking

Another thought is how Greek ideology felt dormant for several years as serfdom and kingdoms ruled by unelected royalty swept through Europe for millennia

Why nations fail points to strength of individual liberties and institutions as the key basis for this. Perhaps similar ideas under a different description?

Agreed- arrogant to think otherwise

? Need to understand definitions here.. Greek ideology on its own did not help the Greeks, and assigning the value of a philosophy to judeo Christian religion when modern basis of governments are formed under freedom of ideology and religion appears to be contradictory?

This might be true for a very narrow section of the population that has the luxury of placing enough attention and emphasis in political discourse and base their general sense of purpose and being from the outcome of these discussions. But it’s a luxury that very large swaths of the US population aren’t able to take, and definitely a no concern for the vast majority of the world’s population

Completely agree here

A psychological analysis, similar to the one made in Flow and Deep Work is that we are at our happiest and our best when we are focusing on an activity that engages our mental capacities, being in a state of ‘flow’

But it definitely can be- restricting happiness to one definition eliminates the happiness that those activities can bring if pursued from a mission driven perspective. Playing a round of golf with a focus of perfecting the precise movements and psychological efforts needed to improve is a very similar mission driven activity that would generate happiness. Similarly using it as an avenue of improving and enjoying the company of others (can be classified as ‘neighbours’ in Shapiro’s intro) would classify as that social interaction that the thesis claims is lacking. Same can be said for the ecstatic furthering of the mind by appreciating musical nuance and brilliance from artists, and enjoying that with a social experience that is religious in its own right, with thousands of people sharing that experience. While it would be difficult for either to be a true cornerstone to achieving happiness they can definitely play a big part of an individual’s ability to be happy, and rejecting this from the start I believe is not correct

Agreed- and that is also what a fully capitalistic model reinforces as well. Protection of your own group for selfish reasons and ignoring or actively taking advantage of other groups.

A non religious viewpoint which seeks to improve the human race has the same purpose. How is it that trying to advocate for religious values or views is a better approach than seeking to create a democratic society which is established to normalise (to the extent possible) the opportunities for all world citizens to be happy and fulfill their potential, rather than this being restricted to a small sliver of the population?

Second time this is mentioned but no idea what this means

This is the crux of the argument for the role of government. Shapiro agrees that there is a need for institutions to provide a platform to enable humans to thrive and ‘pick them up when they fall’ but separates these institutions from government. But if social institutions serve to help their own members, and there is a powerful force of self preservation and maximisation of the benefits that these organisations provide to its members, then such groups would inherently seek to reinforce power and influence structures that benefit their members. So if white Christianity is the social structure that enables their members to have these benefits they will naturally seek to maintain the parts of the social structure that benefit them the most, funnelling capital and resources for their own benefits rather than looking at their neighbours that live in the same communities but are not part of the same group. This then reinforces the difficulty of the benefits reaped by a capitalistic open society being open and available for all citizens.

But in a capitalistic system the way society is shaped will be established by its most powerful members, so without a very large role from government , the ability of the less powerful groups to rise and have similar benefits will be limited to non existent. Money and power is accretive, and with the best education, job opportunities, access to healthcare and good living infrastructure would always be the highest predictor of an ability to succeed

While tyrannical governments place themselves at the center of society and promise unrealistic benefits to society as long as citizens line up behind them, the problem with this predisposed view of society is that actual negative impacts that a free society offers go unfixed for long periods of time. Weak regulation has enabled banks to rip off individuals and trigger a financial crisis, child labor, unsanitary working conditions, destructions of natural habitants, segregation and lack of access to education, etc., all would go unaddressed if not for the power of government policy and regulation controlling these tendencies

Is the intent of the book to try to shape the discussion towards virtuous communities?

Divine meaning could potentially also be explained as purposeful outlook on life? If this is defined as a pursuit for improvement of others lives then the divinity can be a part of it but would still serve as a source of happiness alongside reason?

Associating the Jewish and Christian god with the wealth of western civilisation ignores that for a vas portion of time in the Middle Ages, the west succumbed into an extended period of infighting, stagnation and zero progress, whereas the Persian empire under the Muslim religion prospered and dominated the commercial, scientific and cultural spheres for many years. Linking religious views with success and wealth seen in post industrial revolution western civilisation is therefore a bit odd, unless the argument would be that Muslim also traces its roots from Judaism, but then why not mention it clearly?

Who exactly does this?

Linking monotheism with scientific advances is also a bit unclear.. if the path of discovery is driven by a sense of unity then why did the mayans and Babylonians have immense scientific discoveries and the catholic realm not? Einstein wasn’t driven by a religious perspective of unity created by a single god, and neither was Da Vinci or other renaissance thinkers. Was a scientific drive really linked to scientific advances then?

Yea, but assigning Judaism and it’s offspring of religions the credit for this does not seem right?

This is undoubtedly true

Wasn’t this in large part the name of religion, led by the Catholic Church?

And our final cause is the use of reason: “the work of a human being is an activity of soul in accord with reason.”

That’s a very interesting concept.. if there is one master plan then wouldn’t the next conclusion be that no matter what our actions are there is no real free will? How to assign value and weight to our own actions if a master plan is already in place? You’d have to do a leap towards arguing that under the master plan umbrella there is still room in identifying a unifying telos for individuals and society, and live via a set of actions which would pursue that telos with the belief that they would fit in or satisfy the grand purpose of the master unifying plan. Is the true belief that would bring about happiness rather a philosophy which sets as the foundational thought that our actions have real consequences and impact on the world around us, and that there is no true master plan, therefore assigning more weight to the decisions and life we lead? Isn’t this the real reason why we would live a virtuous life, because there is no clear future expect for the one that we as humans and intelligent beings create for ourselves?

Isn’t what makes Homo sapiens special the ability to modify the world around us, thereby breaking any structural physical forces that might have led planet earth and the broader universe in motion? Out intellectual ability has allowed us to actively and in an accelerated way modify the world around us, which has inevitably led to a near catastrophic destruction and put us in the brink of triggering a truly fatal blow to our own habitat. Isn’t this the true strength of our species and what goes against the thought of a unifying plan led by the metaphysical world?

Chill dude.. freshmen use it to hook up with each other and find parties, not to ‘denigrate Western society’. And a lot of the technological advances that led to the iPhone were government funded, so in reality the one power that would hold back from this played a key role in the development of the necessary technology for the iPhone ?

Interesting.. so in this train of thought the conflation of Jesus as the one source of reason could be naturally used as a forced substitute for scientific advancement. If the one rule proclaimed by Christianity is faith without the need of deep understanding or pursuit of knowledge, then any activity trying to discover unanswered questions would be considered heretical and against the foundational aspects of Christianity

Very clever way of linking modern western civilisation back before Catholic reign by pointing at the supremacy of the Catholic rules as a cause of slowdown and decadence, whereas Greeks and Judaism philosophies drive towards a much different type of society

If this is the supporting argument for superiority of western countries over eastern it is widely narrow and does not really argue with reality. This battle occurred in France, after Muslim tribes had sweat through all of Northern Africa and into Spain, covering a territory from India and the borders of China to Spain, controlling more commercial routes and money than even the Roman Empire at its height did not closely match. Saying that their defeat in France shows military superiority of the west is a bit maddening in how weakly supported it is

Another seeping statement ignoring literary, cultural and philosophical advances of the Persian empire show a reading of history that conveniently fits the worldview of the author?

Really? Shapiro is probably more in tune with the mental attitudes of America as it relates to politics but this seems way too extreme for it to be true of the majority of the population

Fresh idea here that actually does link religious pursuit as a key part behind science. The explosion of wealth and power of western societies on the back of monetary riches is a bit different but at least the idea that science was driven behind religious pursuits definitely changes common views held today

Why do purpose and religion have to go hand in hand? Does purpose have to be based on celestial/religious beliefs or pursuits or can valuable purpose be derived from the search of the betterment of humanity via application of science and advanced thinking?

Interesting thought exercise to compare and contrast Aristotle and Machiavellian philosophies

Incredibly appealing message to remove the hierarchical structure and removal of common society of Catholic priesthood and instead preach for the capacity for anyone to become as close to God as they wish

Pretty dark thought process to lead to a democratic idea of what government should be

This would link well with evolutionary sciences and the studies of the genetic and physical development of human kind in perfecting the abilities to cooperate and work in small communities

Interesting extrapolation from this to how African Americans fundamentally believe in the direct shaping of government towards a permanent state of discrimination and unequal rights and opportunities - if they fundamentally believe in this then according to this doctrine they would be in all their rights to rebel against this. The fact that democrats tried to align themselves with the movement for policitcal convenience does not mean that the movement against government itself is not its true core

The notion of all men having equal freedom and independence sprang originally from the Biblical notion of man being made in God’s image, admixed with the Greek tradition of individual reason, and passed down generation after generation, transmuted over time into the understanding that not only are human beings made in God’s image with will and reason, but with the liberty to exercise that will and reason in accordance with the pursuit of virtue.

men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” In Locke, that phrase had been “life, liberty, and property.”

‘The best humans will do’ is slightly arrogant and assigns a mass weight to a society existing for only 300 years of human existence with a blend of various ideals. If this is stated as fact, when a truly unknown quantity of ideas and philosophies can and will spring from the minds of humans, locks yourself in a rejecting state of anything different rather than a pursuit of either ongoing improvement or a truly transformative idea that would actually create a better society. While an argument can be made now on American values creating the best society vs other philosophies and ideals, extrapolating this to eternity is a clear mistake

The goal of spreading liberty abroad is at a continuous threat from nationalism and self interest for the betterment of Americans against what would maximise the liberties of all humanity

Very napoleonic pursuit

This snippets of such a wide range of philosophers are extremely interesting and helpful

This is the beginning of an argument that humanity is not able to create a robust moral code without having hydro Christian values as their base - so the idea of a moral code of improving each other’s lives and maximising the wealth and happiness of society on a humanitarian basis would not be able to sustain itself. However, if a belief based on the Bible is what generates this moral code, why wouldn’t a separate ideology be able to create the same or similar values and honor codes via which humans can leas their lives? I’m not yet convinced by this line of thinking

If you blend a mindfulness and deep knowledge of the mind with a material dual purpose moral code, don’t we get to the same position?

Did he really suggest this? Can’t link where exactly from Kant’s small texts above he would consider all lies to be immoral but rather that we have a moral code within us that would guide our decisions? If that would be truly what he meant the surely a moral code would lead to a conclusion that lying to fulfil the moral purpose in our own selves would be appropriate?

Whole heartedly disagree with this ideology. Humanity through consciousness is the only being that through the power of our own minds can actually modify the environment around us

Some shades of our society which treats certain individuals as deities- mainly celebrities or specific leaders- could be taken as correctly foreseen by this