Armchair philosophy time! As always, this is all just my own
ramblings. I’m not a philosopher by any
means, and it’s very likely anything I say has been said and discredited. I’m just trying to start conversations!
What defines an idealist? I hate to do the cliché thing and
say “The dictionary defines idealism as…” but, uh… the dictionary defines
idealism as “the practice of forming or pursuing ideals, especially
unrealistically.” An ideal is a scenario that is “desirable or perfect, but not
likely to become a reality” and an idealist is “a person who is guided more by
ideals than by practical considerations.”
We tend to think of idealists in an almost romantic way; they are “good
people” who want what’s best for the world, but are a bit naive in what they
think is realistic. The antithesis of an
idealist is a pragmatist, one who is more “grounded” in practical
considerations than idealistic.
A stereotypical way of viewing liberals and conservatives is
that liberals tend to be more idealistic (the positive implications being kind
hearted and wanting what’s best for the world, the negative being naive and
unrealistic) and conservatives tend to
be more pragmatic (cold hearted but realistic).
You know the saying: If you’re not liberal when you’re young you don’t
have a heart, and if you’re not conservative when you’re old you don’t have a
brain. If you look into this quote it’s
amazing how many times it’s popped up since the 1800’s. The funny thing about this statement is that
the majority of people tend to stay with whatever political affiliation their
parents had, so it seems it has less to do with hearts and brains and more to
do with comfort zones and closed-mindedness… but anyway.
The issue I have with the above definitions is: how do you
determine what is practical and realistic? When it comes to policy, isn’t it
only apparent that something was realistic or not after the fact, once it’s
clear whether or not it worked? I mean, none of us pursue a plan if we don’t think it’s realistic, do we? I believe
we all imagine ourselves as both idealists
and pragmatists, depending on the issue and how we’re framing it – We have an
image of the best possible version of
the world and the most realistic way
of achieving that scenario. I’ll come
back to this.
I want to draw an
important distinction between the best
possible version of the world and the best
imaginable version of the world. I
feel that the best imaginable version
of the world isn’t going to differ that much between individuals, no matter the
culture or beliefs, and it boils down to two things: Zero suffering and infinite
happiness. The only things that will
differ across individuals in their account of Heaven are the aspects that will
facilitate this infinite happiness and absence of suffering.
The other end of that spectrum would be the absence of
happiness and infinite suffering – Hell.
I bring these up to try to frame the possibilities of the world as a two-axis
Utilitarian spectrum, with suffering on the y-axis and happiness on the x. It is important to note that happiness and
suffering are two separate things entirely, not two ends of the same
spectrum. This is true both semantically
and psychologically. They are related in that they can influence each
other, but they are not the same thing.
Somewhere within this two dimensional space lie two points
that I will be referencing. The first is
where we are, or our world in its current state. The second is the best possible world (BPW). I am defining the BPW as a world that is actually achievable, where suffering is minimized (not necessarily 0) and
happiness is maximized. Basically I’m defining the BPW in utilitarian
terms, and if you’ve learned about utilitarianism as a system of ethics you
know there are problems with it, but I’m not really talking about ethics here
and I’ll keep it at a surface level. I’m
open to other definitions of the BPW, not necessarily in utilitarian terms.
So when I say we are all pragmatists and we are all
idealists, what I mean is that what we tend to disagree on is where in this 2D
space the BPW lies. In general terms, a conservative
might think it lies closer to where we are and a liberal might think it lies
closer to heaven. Our ideas of the BPW
have no real bearing on where the BPW actually
lies in the spectrum, but my argument is that the BPW is a thing that actually exists… not in the sense that “there
exists a world that is the best possible,” but in the sense that, logically,
there must be a state that is
obtainable, where we cannot move closer to Heaven within this space.
For simplicity’s sake, from here on out if I will treat this
space as a spectrum, despite what I said earlier. So when I say “increase happiness” I may
actually mean “increase happiness,” or I may mean “reduce suffering” or I may
mean both.
So when a conservative and a liberal argue over economic
policy, they’re arguing over methods of moving us closer to the BPW. A liberal might think that a more progressive
tax will get us there by funding social programs that make people happier,
whereas a conservative might think that it will reduce happiness by reducing
job availability. Likewise, a liberal
might think a state-funded healthcare system will increase happiness by
increasing healthcare availability, whereas a conservative may argue that it
will reduce happiness by limiting medical innovation.
Now all this I say with one large caveat: I am ignoring
selfishness in how it may motivate an argument or influence one’s claim of
where the BPW lies. A liberal may say “universal healthcare will improve
healthcare for all,” while thinking “I can’t
afford healthcare, I need someone to pay my bills!” Likewise, a conservative
may say “universal healthcare will
reduce medical innovation,” while thinking, “My employer covers my healthcare,
I don’t want to pay more taxes to cover those who can’t.” While followers of Ayn Rand may tell you that
selfishness leads to the BPW, I want to draw a distinction between a person who
pays lip service to the BPW and a person truly believes a course of action will
lead to the BPW. I don’t believe either
truly exists, and if we examine the whole of all of our thoughts and actions we
will find that we are a mix of the two.
However, when it comes to policy
making, the only arguments that should be given credibility are those that lead
to the BPW. We may not be able to
separate the altruist from the egoist within ourselves, but we absolutely can
separate them from within an argument.
An argument should be able to stand up to logic and empiricism on its
own, regardless of the motivations that created it.
I probably need to defend my claim that only policies that
lead to the BPW should be considered. Imagine
a politician saying, “While this law would benefit the overwhelming majority of
Americans, it adversely affects me specifically, so I will not be voting for
it.” How likely are you to vote for them? Likewise, when you are arguing
politics with your friends and family, do you ever say, “Yeah, I know this is the best thing to do for society,
but it doesn’t benefit me so I don’t
think we should do it.” No. Even if you
are self-aware enough to see that influence within you, you don’t bring it up –
you say something about trickle-down economics instead (I kid, I kid). Civilization exists because we recognize that often what is best for the whole
is detrimental to the individual. We don’t
steal because we recognize that a society that allows stealing can’t succeed,
and because we don’t allow stealing (unless it’s state-sponsored! There, now my
jokes are fair and balanced) we have a world where you can spend your life
making buttons and know that you’ll be fed because the system protects those
buttons from being stolen. Now that’s
not to say that selfish motivations can’t
be a part of the path to the BPW! But selfishness itself, by itself and for itself, should never be an
end-justification for a policy.
All this is a build-up to another word that is mocked by
self-proclaimed pragmatists: Utopia.
This will be the topic of Part 2, which I promise I will actually write
and have out in a reasonable amount of time, considering I can only do so much
job searching per day.
No comments:
Post a Comment