(continued from last post)
Rather, I think that the mode of analysis we should take is one of a merger of ideas. It is a project that people should take on. Everyone should be willing to get release themselves of their ideological leaning and address each issue as a pragmatic issue. But, in order to do this we must also be able to merge our modes of analysis. We must align our goals and each have reciprocal feelings of what a problem is. I may think that poverty is a problem, whereas a libertarian would think the government taking money from individuals to help impoverished people is a problem.
That's why there had to be some pretense for how I am evaluating these issues. And I am really looking for people who can break down what I am saying here and come up with better solutions. But for now, I am thinking that there needs to be two ideological premises (which of course, can at any point be undermined) but that to which we should try to stick.
The first is utilitarianism in its most simplistic sense - the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
The second is pragmatism - in that we need to come up with working solutions to each problem.
The reason for the second is a belief I have developed over time. Which is that ideologies themselves are problems and not smart ways of evaluating issues. For example, if Marxism were the correct system for the human good then, if we made pragmatic solutions to every problem, in the eye that we were trying to help the general welfare of society, then we would naturally end up under a Marxist system. I think the requirement is that we look for the good of all people when evaluating these issues (if there is an issue that falls under a pre-tense of being one that could benefit people or not.)
In Depth Explanation part 3 will be addressing the issue of dialectics vs. more complex structures that my friend suggested to me.
I agree with the thrust of the argument here, but pragmatism is a very elusive little bugger when you get down to it. What makes a solution "practical?" Does it have to be realizable with full certainty? If there is a small chance that s olution will fail to be realized, can we still call it "practical?" How much risk of failure is enough to make a solution "impractical?"
ReplyDeleteI don't think there are any hard and fast answers to this question. Theory and practice are at odds with one another, but one has to consider both when proposing solutions; a utopian fantasy is just as dangerous as a shortsighted activism that neglects its values and principles.
You brought up Marxism. Ironically, I think Marxist literature offers one of the best frameworks to deal with this conundrum of theory vs. practice. This is especially evident in the Frankfurt School's criticism of the postwar German Left. Many young 60's activists insisted that a marriage of convenience with very unsavory forces - Palestinian anti-Semites, Viet Cong Stalinists - was necessary to successfully confront the "imperialist war machine." But German Marxist thinkers like Jurgen Habermas and Theodor Adorno predicted, correctly, that this exclusive focus on the possible as opposed to the desirable would end up leading the activist movement to very sordid political positions, which it did.
That said please keep writing more of these
ReplyDeleteI think that you are very correct. In that pragmatism can often be linked with short sighted thinking. As in thinking of an immediate solution to a problem. However, I think a proper framework for analysis for those individuals would have involved an analysis of the long term consequences of their alliance with those groups.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, they should way the impact of that against the actions they took. One of the hardest things to factor into a utilitarian framework of analysis is if you have all the facts right. If you can properly weigh and balance the different factors correctly. However, I think if you are having that discussion, one where you are weighing the long term and short term benefits of a course of action you are already having a way better discussion than the one that we are having right now.
I guess a pragmatic solution is one where you weigh the functional advantages and disadvantages of doing an action. Morality does play into this, however it should be properly weighed against other issues. To me, morals are often only justified in terms of their societal benefit (or disadvantage.) I guess functionally I evaluate morals in a utilitarian framework.