It is good for us to be held down, as the Platonic Socrates would have held us, to saying what we really believe, and sticking to what we say. We seem to regain our intellectual birthright when we are allowed to declare our genuine intent, even in philosophy, instead of begging some kind psychologist to investigate our "meaning" for us, or even waiting for the flux of events to endow us with what "meaning" it will. It is also instructive to have the ethical attitude purified of all that is not ethical and turned explicitly into what, in its moral capacity, it essentially is: a groundless pronouncement upon the better and the worse.
George Santayana - Winds Of Doctrine Studies in Contemporary Opinion (1913)
To my mind there are a number of intractable problems when confronting the totalitarian games played by modern political actors. One is assessing how bad things are now and a second, linked problem is how damaging political trends are likely to become in the medium to long term. After all - life has to be lived and we do adapt.
Both problems are intractable in that however clear and malign political trends may be, the future is unpredictable. There are bound to be unknowns and there are hints of other trends yet to make an appearance. However pessimistic the outlook, there are uncertainties.
A third problem is that political trends and substantial political change usually occur slowly from the perspective of a single human life. I may wish to see certain changes in my lifetime but my wish will probably not be granted even if the changes do eventually occur. Expecting change at unrealistic speed is – unrealistic.
A fourth problem is that only a few, very unusual people are likely to have a positive effect on political trends by democratic means. There are many more ambitious players who bypass democratic processes in one way or another. This creates many unknowns, many uncertainties, much ethical corruption and many flaws in almost any democratic system. The many we don’t elect undermine the few we do to our general disadvantage. And their advantage of course.
In which case, where does all that leave us? Perhaps we should do as we often do anyway and focus on issues which should not have become issues. Suppose we take a single topical issue – the UK drive towards net zero carbon emissions.
Whatever one thinks of the orthodox climate change narrative, the UK cannot affect global carbon dioxide emissions to a measurable extent, let alone global temperatures. Even going back to the stone age would not achieve that. The policy is so foolish that we are in some danger of forgetting that it is also unethical. As an absolute minimum, the policy is woven from misinformation and exaggeration. Outright lies are there too, but there is no need to stress that to make the point.
To my mind this is where Santayana comes in. The point to be made is not that net zero policy is monumentally foolish, but that it is unethical because of the misinformation and exaggeration. This ought to be an important aspect of the argument, but the unethical nature of misinformation tends to be overlooked as a fundamental violation of ethical public discourse. We tend to tackle misinformation mostly as misleading information when perhaps we should go no further than its unethical nature.
This feels like a weak conclusion to a major problem because at the root of it is a general public degradation of ethical significance. On the other hand, durable ethical standards are durable. Misinformation is morally wrong - we know that and so does almost everyone else. A strong ethical aspect to the public domain is how we are supposed to restrain the charlatans.
It is also instructive to have the ethical attitude purified of all that is not ethical and turned explicitly into what, in its moral capacity, it essentially is: a groundless pronouncement upon the better and the worse.
How bad is it? Ethically it is vastly worse that it should be. Not one of the main political parties is worth supporting. They all foster exaggeration and misinformation for their own political gain. They have all staked their claim to the wrong side of a very clear ethical boundary. The rest is distraction.
How bad is it? The UK supposedly has a democratic political system, yet viewed ethically it isn’t worth voting. How bad is it? How unethical does it have to be?
Both problems are intractable in that however clear and malign political trends may be, the future is unpredictable. There are bound to be unknowns and there are hints of other trends yet to make an appearance. However pessimistic the outlook, there are uncertainties.
A third problem is that political trends and substantial political change usually occur slowly from the perspective of a single human life. I may wish to see certain changes in my lifetime but my wish will probably not be granted even if the changes do eventually occur. Expecting change at unrealistic speed is – unrealistic.
A fourth problem is that only a few, very unusual people are likely to have a positive effect on political trends by democratic means. There are many more ambitious players who bypass democratic processes in one way or another. This creates many unknowns, many uncertainties, much ethical corruption and many flaws in almost any democratic system. The many we don’t elect undermine the few we do to our general disadvantage. And their advantage of course.
In which case, where does all that leave us? Perhaps we should do as we often do anyway and focus on issues which should not have become issues. Suppose we take a single topical issue – the UK drive towards net zero carbon emissions.
Whatever one thinks of the orthodox climate change narrative, the UK cannot affect global carbon dioxide emissions to a measurable extent, let alone global temperatures. Even going back to the stone age would not achieve that. The policy is so foolish that we are in some danger of forgetting that it is also unethical. As an absolute minimum, the policy is woven from misinformation and exaggeration. Outright lies are there too, but there is no need to stress that to make the point.
To my mind this is where Santayana comes in. The point to be made is not that net zero policy is monumentally foolish, but that it is unethical because of the misinformation and exaggeration. This ought to be an important aspect of the argument, but the unethical nature of misinformation tends to be overlooked as a fundamental violation of ethical public discourse. We tend to tackle misinformation mostly as misleading information when perhaps we should go no further than its unethical nature.
This feels like a weak conclusion to a major problem because at the root of it is a general public degradation of ethical significance. On the other hand, durable ethical standards are durable. Misinformation is morally wrong - we know that and so does almost everyone else. A strong ethical aspect to the public domain is how we are supposed to restrain the charlatans.
It is also instructive to have the ethical attitude purified of all that is not ethical and turned explicitly into what, in its moral capacity, it essentially is: a groundless pronouncement upon the better and the worse.
How bad is it? Ethically it is vastly worse that it should be. Not one of the main political parties is worth supporting. They all foster exaggeration and misinformation for their own political gain. They have all staked their claim to the wrong side of a very clear ethical boundary. The rest is distraction.
How bad is it? The UK supposedly has a democratic political system, yet viewed ethically it isn’t worth voting. How bad is it? How unethical does it have to be?
4 comments:
Ethically, what political actors at all levels should be doing is making admissions that they don't really know the full picture. That they are fallible like the rest of us (ever mucked up a relationship? bought the wrong car or house? are you a perfect parent? etc...) but that in their view, they are presenting the best course of action. I could definitely respect that, but perhaps humans in general are hard-wired to value certainty, and decisive actions. And politicians have picked up on the idea of "leadership" and can feign those qualities.
The climate stuff is instructive here. As you say, whatever we do makes little difference. But we are in an extremely vulnerable position regarding political action. We have no geothermal. Very little hydro. Solar doesn't work this far north, at least as yet. And wind power is fitful and expensive. I'd trust someone who said that we don't want to be caught out, that we need to watch other countries, and make gradual changes well behind the curve. I think feigned certainty and bluster will win out over honesty, though.
One of the factors that put me off the Anthropogenic Climate Change hypothesis was the evangelical certainty of the proponents. Some were extrapolating based on insufficient data, and some were using it as a vehicle for political change (outside the democratic means, as mentioned above).
One of the factors that made me swing around to accept the Anthropogenic Climate Change hypothesis (in principle) was the irrational nature of people who opposed it. Some were exploiting single data issues to disprove the whole (a fallacy) and others were using it as a vehicle for their conspiracy theories.
The real issue, clouded by the activities of the proponents and deniers, is what to do about Anthropogenic Climate Change. It is noteworthy how many of the 'middle way' scientists are denigrated by both extremes. It is noteworthy how the increasingly large elephant in the room (global population growth) is ignored by most pundits - perhaps it is too much of a hot-button issue?
But unless we are collectively prepared to address all the issues we'll just have to keep muddling through, even though that might be substantially damaging. Anyone that 'knows' now is likely to be wrong.
I'll offer a prediction. Xi Jinping is in process of doing us (the Western polloi) two really big favours.
1. By going back to Maoism (Xiism) in order to keep the Chinese Communist Party in charge, he is making it very likely that China will collapse in the same way as the Soviet Union and for the same reasons - but not all that soon. If the Chinese polloi is really lucky, after Xi someone will resume Deng Xiaoping's embrace of capitalism.
2. By refusing to decarbonise China's economy, he is putting a (low) ceiling on the amount of stupid our politician will be able to afford.
Sam - yes, well behind the curve is where we should be. As you say, we are particularly vulnerable and we keep importing people who in effect expect to add to our energy use.
DJ - I spent quite a few years looking at the science of AGW, but in recent years I tend to see it in terms of social, political and professional allegiance, not so much a scientific theory. To my mind it’s Malthus allied to various shades of collective politics plus money, intense propaganda and a natural tendency to conform socially. A symptom of our decline more than anything else.
decnine - I think you are likely to be right. Xi Jinping seems intent on injecting much more stringent communism into the Chinese economic miracle. Things appear to be going wrong already.
Post a Comment