- We totally approve of causing pointless pain to certain individuals, even though torture is known to be ineffective.
- Everyone is either a rapist, or implicitly supports rape and sexual assault.
- We enslave and murder because we like the way meat tastes.
- We enslave people, and we think it's okay because they get paid enough to feed themselves.
- In the future, everyone will look back at this era and see something horrible about us, and they will be right.
The elder god represents ourselves. (source)
And
yet, we might still wish to argue for some of these propositions. For
example, it is entirely true that torture is pointless, and yet supported by most Americans.
And I would say that sexual assault is so widespread that it is
frequently accepted as normal. And even if you do not agree with these
statements, you might have your own sharp critiques about society.
One
of the strongest cognitive biases is the belief that I am a good
person. This bias extends to society at large. If society is so evil,
and I am a part of society, then I am evil. I am not evil, therefore...
In my post giving general advice on how to argue,
I said that the belief in one's own goodness is such a strong cognitive
bias, that it's better to work around it than to directly counter it.
Here we have the same dilemma. If I wish to argue, for instance, that
capitalism is slavery, should I skirt around the moral horror, and
reassure people that I am not condemning them as the ultimate evil? Or
should I play up the horror, saying, "that's why it's so important to address this issue"?
And
what should we tell ourselves? Are we complicit in the moral horror
that is modern society? Or are we on a righteous crusade to defeat
evil? Or should we assure ourselves that society's not totally evil, and that it's just this ordinary problem that we're trying to solve?
The weeds represent enslavement, torture, and rape. Image source unknown.
Our approach to moral horror can be informed by our ethical system. Here, I will discuss utilitarianism, which judges actions based on how well the consequences align with our preferences, and deontology,
which judges actions based on the quality of the actions themselves.
It's common for people to use utilitarianism in some situations (eg
cost-benefit analyses) and deontology in other situations (eg any talk
about "rights").*
*Note I am not saying
that this is logically inconsistent. Many utilitarians believe that
things like rights can be justified on utilitarian grounds. I am merely
observing the fact that, on the surface level, some ethical arguments
look utilitarian, and some look deontological. I'm suggesting that it is the surface level which is relevant here, rather than the underlying ethical justification.
Consider the cause of animal rights.* Despite "rights" being in the name, a lot of animal rights philosophy
is explicitly utilitarian. It is not based on an animal analogue to human rights so much as it is based on animal suffering.
Though one of the philosophical critiques of utilitarianism is that
implies that all moral actions are obligatory,
in practice it makes moral actions less black and white. There's a
sliding scale--if you simply reduce the amount of meat you consume,
that reduces harm. This allows us to focus on small steps to improve
the world, rather than focusing so much on how everyone who isn't vegan is evil, and even vegans are complicit.
*Disclosure: I am not a vegetarian.
The
situation is different when we talk about rape and sexual assault. The
fundamental problem with rape is that it is a violation of consent.
This is, on the surface, a deontological argument. It is based on the
intrinsic quality of rape as an action, rather than on the consequences.
The
fact that we think of it this way allows us to draw some hard lines about what's right and wrong. But it also plays up the moral horror whenever we
talk about rape culture. It's hard for me to talk about how common
sexual assault is in nightclubs, because that is horrifying. It's hard
to talk about the many ways that partners and society can soft-pressure
people into having sex that they don't really want, because that is
like saying many of your friends are practically rapists.
On the other hand, there are benefits to taking a more black and white view, in a world where people constantly exploit gray areas to justify assault and blame victims. Or consider a world not too long ago where US had legalized slavery. If people at the time had been horrified by the society they lived in, they would have been right.
On the other hand, there are benefits to taking a more black and white view, in a world where people constantly exploit gray areas to justify assault and blame victims. Or consider a world not too long ago where US had legalized slavery. If people at the time had been horrified by the society they lived in, they would have been right.
So
here's my question: If it would give our poor psyches a break, should
we consciously adopt more utilitarian approaches to the big issues
afflicting society?
6 comments:
Though one of the philosophical critiques of utilitarianism is that implies that all moral actions are obligatory, in practice it makes moral actions less black and white.
Indeed. Utilitarianism would be all-obligation only with perfect information about all the consequences of every action. As you note, in practice, without perfect information, many actions are optional, because we can't distinguish between the effects of alternatives.
The fundamental problem with rape is that it is a violation of consent. This is, on the surface, a deontological argument. It is based on the intrinsic quality of rape as an action, rather than on the consequences.
On the surface, perhaps. The deeper utilitarian argument is that this particular kind of violation of consent is wrong because it causes unacceptable suffering in the victim. Other kinds of violation of consent, such as forcing people to pay debts, we do not consider imposing unacceptable suffering, or, more precisely, we judge ameliorating the suffering of the creditor to be better than imposing the suffering of the debtor by forcing them to pay.
If it would give our poor psyches a break, should we consciously adopt more utilitarian approaches to the big issues afflicting society?
First, why should we give our poor psyches a break? We could just toughen up and do what we have to do. But as I noted before, the psychic harm is not from considering ourselves evil per se, but because to be blamed is to be subordinated. We have a lot of big problems to fix, which should be ennobling.
I pose it as a question because I think this is a valid answer.
Further comment: I think it's notable that you don't think it is worth it just to give our psyches a break, but you do in fact see the problems in pragmatist/utilitarian terms, and end up avoid most of the moral horror.
I think a lot of people do see these problems in deontological terms, and a lot of people take hard stances about moral blame. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard you complain before about the way that people are too quickly "cast out" based on singular wrongdoing. Even associating with evil (if we see these things as evil) is uncomfortable. I think such people will be resistant to accepting new ideas about large-scale wrongs in society.
In particular, I think *I* am resistant to accepting new ideas about what is wrong in society, although I seem to be fine with the ideas that I have already accepted. Naming the problem is helpful to me.
My own question was rhetorical. :-)
(I'm not quoting, because it's a pain on my tablet)
Yes, I see things in pragmatic and utilitarian terms, not to spare anything, but because I think that's the correct way to look at ethics. I don't like the "spare the poor weak humans" idea because it looks too much like religious apologetics. Also the idea of sparing seems condescending, paternalistic, and subordinating.
I try not to complain, per se (but that interpretation is warranted), about people being "cast out"; rather, I want to bring the issue into conscious focus.
I think it makes sense to be resistant to new ideas; that's the essence of skepticism, n'est ce pas?
Post a Comment