Tags
absolutism, alliance, allies, ally, America, animal rights, animals, argument, arguments, awareness, Bloom, capital punishment, capitalism, change, change over time, communism, compassion, compromise, consequences, conservative, conservativism, consideration, conversation, conversations, coronavirus, covid, covid-19, cultural imperialism, culture, death, death penalty, debate, debates, diplomacy, diplomatic, discussion, discussions, disease, empathy, enemy, ethic, ethical, ethics, execution, federal government, female genital mutilation, FGM, freedom, freedoms, government, ideal, idealism, ideals, incremental, incrementalism, international, international relations, kindness, left, liberal, liberalism, libertarian, libertarianism, liberties, liberty, Machiavelli, Machiavellianism, mask, masks, minorities, minority, moral, moral philosophy, moral relativism, moral superiority, morals, mutilation, Paul Bloom, philosophy, politics, practical, pragmatic, pragmatism, principle, principles, progress, progressive, progressivism, psychology, radical, rational, results, revolution, right, risk, self interest, selfishness, social, social awareness, socialism, society, stance, stances, stand, stands, state, strategy, tribal, tribalism, united states, United States of America, utilitarian, Utilitarianism, vaccinated, vaccination, vaccinations, vaccine, vaccines, vegan, veganism, vegetarian, vegetarianism, virus
Some people can get so caught up in the principles and the purity of their ideologies—“Capitalism is evil!”, “Defund the police!”, “Socialism is just a dirty word for communism like the Soviet Union!”—that they create a ton of noise, and not much of a signal.
I’m a proponent of practical solutions. Obviously, tackling the world’s problems is not an easy endeavor. That’s not to say “otherwise, they’d all be fixed”. I think that’s a trite response. There are competing interests vying for resources, power, status, gain (or fear of loss), etc. I’m not saying that everything is zero sum—I think that mentality also tends to present an oversimplified way of looking at the world—but it’s precisely the nuance of situations (and how we look at those situations) that creates both complications and opportunities. It’s possible that people will see things very differently. It doesn’t necessarily mean they’re “wrong”; however, if the aims of another party directly contradict or circumvent your values, I think you should challenge those assertions. Part of this is about testing to find out whether the claims of another person or group stand up to scrutiny, but another part—even if you don’t accomplish your own aims—is to not be complicit or contribute to a program you feel is morally wrong.
In a philosophical discussion group that I attended yesterday, I found myself in the minority by defending the idea that willful ignorance is not necessarily defensible. It may be UNDERSTANDABLE or rational, but that doesn’t make it the most ethical position to take. Society needs people to speak out about how things work firsthand. We need whistleblowers because we are, largely, sheltered from the horrors of certain realities. Even if we are aware of them on some level, it’s much more convenient to not confront the uncomfortable feelings that might arise in us if we questioned such conventions. That’s exactly the point, though. Being aware of the conditions in a slaughterhouse, confronting the morality of capital punishment by actually thinking about what it means to kill a person, understanding the suffering others endure if they get infected with a deadly disease because you took a stance on your “freedom” to not get vaccinated (as long as you are medically able) or to not wear a mask: these are only a very small number of uncomfortable scenarios. They are not unrealistic nor are they confined to theoretical possibilities.
I don’t believe it’s helpful to talk about ideas such as “eliminating greed” or lamenting the selfishness of individuals. Yes, people often act in their self-interest. People can, and often are, tribal. That’s a protective, evolutionary mechanism. Would you really have it the other way? A book I read a few years ago, by Paul Bloom, entitled Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion, underscores this point. It can still be very selfish to assume you know what others are feeling because you think that those people’s feelings and motivations are most likely to mirror yours. That’s not necessarily the case. There are more accurate ways of assessing the interests, needs, and desires of other people than using empathy as a guide. Compassion is slightly different, and, as cliche, as it sounds, most interactions could use more of it. It’s not even that difficult to be cognizant of another person! Being consciously considerate (even within the bounds of a conversation) could take effort, but think about how much better people would feel if we treated each other just a little more kindly.
To circle back a little bit, to me, this doesn’t mean compromising on your core convictions. Accepting the idea of a certain degree of moral relativism is not necessarily the opposite of absolutism. I may have mentioned the concept of female genital mutilation in previous blog posts. It’s always wrong. Period. I’ve been accused of “cultural imperialism” for advocating for a zero tolerance policy of such horrific practices. Really? The emotional damage done to people’s fragile psyches or the imagined racial or regional superiority put forward by me, a white American woman condemning torture, is MORE DANGEROUS AND DAMAGING THAN MUTILATION? No. Get your priorities straight. This is an example of where I do not advise compromise. (I think all forms of mutilation are morally wrong and indefensible, regardless of gender. I used a specific term to refer to a specific practice for purposes of clarity and more immediate comprehensibility.)
In some cases, a radical overhaul of a system is necessary. In many cases, however, there will likely be casualties and unforeseen circumstances if such a revolution were enacted. Plus, from a rational or scientific point of view, changing so many variables at once does not necessarily allow you to isolate what works and what doesn’t, at least not very easily. An incremental approach to change is often derided by those who see “the system” as corrupt, unjust, self-reinforcing, and self-enriching for the privileged (possibly amoral) few. Again, it’s about stakes, implications, urgency, and possible harms. The oft-repeated mantra about “not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good” is an important guiding principle. To me, however, it doesn’t mean, you don’t try. You don’t abandon your ideals for convenience. I think you should try to make the world a better place by contributing what and how you can, and aiming high. It’s all well and good to pontificate, but blaming everyone else, and just sitting around complaining and doing nothing is merely virtue signaling or wallowing in self pity. After more than a year of hearing this almost daily from people, my patience threshold is much lower.
I’m proud of being an idealist. I also want to advance actual results, and, hopefully, not unnecessarily alienate people in the process—especially those who would or could be my natural allies. I generally don’t like seeing other people as a means to an end. That’s why utilitarianism should be used with caution. Also, being diplomatic with people is not only nicer, but it may work out for you better in the long term.
Here’s some of my life advice: Promote your principles. Be proudly progressive. Also, be practical. Pragmatism is a hallmark of those who accomplish goals, and improve the lives of many people, often for the long term. Plus, people like (and tend to remember) pithy alliterations. At least I do.