Richard bares his soul
Posted by Christie Malry on February 26, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Right here, Richard Murphy has a funny turn and bares his soul. It's a very rich post, and it has some good stuff in it. However for the time being I'll call him on one thing.
He admits he has only limited training in economics and so isn't much of an economist. He then asks us to think of him perhaps as a moral philosopher. As someone who does have a fair amount of training in philosophy, I can tell you - dear reader - that he's even less of a philosopher.
There's a fatal flaw elsewhere in his post where he states it "is obviously not true" that human beings are rational. Yet this doesn't stop Richard Murphy himself from undertaking a priori logic.
It's the hypocrisy that upsets me the most - he believes that we are all frail, useless, weak human beings, yet Richard is somehow immune from his own medicine.
Aside from the narrow view that Murphy (and Prem Sikka, also) is a hypocrite for criticising the accountancy profession to which he voluntarily chooses to renew his membership each year, I would not have him down as a hypocrite. A hypocrite presents a view contrary to the one in which they believe. To give the man his due, I don't doubt that Murphy sincerely believes in what he says. It is just that he simply does not understand that a good deal of what he says is drivel. It is the sincere belief in this misplaced superiority that is disturbing. I do not have any training in philosphy but others point to Dunning-Kruger.
If he could only learn to listen, instead of flying off the handle at the tiniest slight, he would actually be more persuasive. Certainly a lot more interesting too.
Point taken on hypocrisy; although Richard doesn't always present what he believes - apparently at a conference some time ago, while he was mostly well-behaved during the event itself, he was merrily posting to his blog slagging off the other attendees and organisers. He's now off their Christmas card list. At least Prem never 'behaves' himself - something that I do admire in him.
I'll get back to the rest of his comment, because there are some really good bits in it.
I note your claim to greater philosophical training than I have had: it's an easy boast. I've noted I have no formal training in the subject.
But then I note your argument. It is that if someone (in this case me) says people can be irrational then they must either (and it's not clear which either a) be irrational at all times or b) not use rational argument.
As logic goes that's pretty poor.
As evidence of accurate observation of life it's poorer.
If this is the best I can be criticised for, can I suggest you try again?
PS I do really believe what I write. And ad hominem attacks don't stick. Nor are they professional. I note the link is to a firm of regulated tax advisers governed by professional ethics.
The argument's as follows:
You have said it's obviously not true that people are rational.
Therefore, if we say that people are a set P, the members of P do not behave rationally. Which I suppose means given a set of inputs they cannot reliably deduce the behaviours that will result in the best outcomes either for them individually or as a group. This could be because they misinterpret the inputs, cannot decide on the outcomes or cannot determine the behaviours to get them there.
You are a member of P. Are you unrepresentative of the set or are you subject to the same foibles that you ascribe to your peers? If you believe you're unrepresentative of P, how can you know you're right?
You should probably aim the ad hominem concerns at me, not 'Andrew'. I'm certainly not a firm of regulated tax advisers; I'm a chartered accountant just like you. Our code also requires professionalism, but I don't think that means we always have to be nice to each other.
By the way, I did mean what I said about the quality of the rest of your comment. You should promote the bits about the tax charge and what audit is to the front page; don't hide them in comments.