Among the many things philosophers disagree about, one of the debates I find interesting is the debate between real people again possible. Most likely, they may believe that you should participate in the best it is possible action you can do, while realists think you should do the best you can actually given your imperfections, even if technically you could have done better. To try to see the contradiction come true, consider this scenario.
I’m busy playing tennis with Bob, and Bob beats me. I’m a hot temper with a bad temper, and I really want to hit Bob over the head with my tennis racket, but that would be a bad thing to do. Let’s say there are three possible ways things could go.
In the best case scenario, I approach the net, shake Bob’s hand and congratulate him on a good game like a good game. A less than ideal situation is that I leave the tennis court in a hurry. And worst case scenario I go to Bob and hit him in the head with my tennis racket. Let’s say I know myself and my anger well enough to be sure that if I approached Bob right now, I would give in to my anger and hit him over the head. It is metaphysically it is possible so that I do not do this, but doing this is what I will do in truth. Should I approach the net?
Chances are it’s the best thing I can do it is possible to do would be to go to the net and shake hands like a good game, I have to approach the net. The realist says, given the facts of my personality and weaknesses, the best thing I can do actually do is to leave the field in a hurry, so I should not be close to the net.
This argument often plays out in applied and consequentialist ethics debates. Suppose a philosopher named Seter Pinger concludes that if you don’t take the highest paying job you can get, work as many hours as you can before you collapse, and donate every penny more than you need to make ends meet, then you are no better morally than a serial killer. And let’s say that given some reasonable aspects of the human mind, if you want people to live at this level, they will end up feeling frustrated and not giving at all to charity. However, if instead you challenge people to live in moderation, such as taking the Give What We Can pledge and donating 10% of their income to active charities, the net result of this will be more money being given and more lives saved. If Pinger is a possiblehe will push people to work like madmen and live like monks. If Pinger is a true scholarhe will force people to take the aforementioned oath.
Although he doesn’t use these words, Scott Alexander seems to describe himself as a realist in this post. He accepts that much of what happens in the meat industry is morally unacceptable. He also says he “tried to be vegetarian for a long time” but found it “really hard” and that he “kept giving up” on it. However, instead of being vegetarian, he decided to follow what he called a “lax rule,” that is, “I can’t eat any animal except fish at home, but I can have meat (except chicken) in restaurants.” I went mostly I was able to keep that rule, and now I eat much less meat than before.”
A conservative would say that Alexander should give up meat altogether, while a realist would say that Alexander should stick to his lax rule. In a practical way, Alexander says “if I’m right that this is a strict rule to keep, I’m not sure who benefits from reminding me that I’m trash.” I have denied myself the right to feel good when I make my half-hearted attempt at goodness, and I will not make an effort at goodness, and this will be very bad for me. again it is very bad for the animals.”
This divide strikes me as very similar to a difference in how people view what government should do – there is a potential and actual divide here as well. For example, I once wrote about how Bernie Sanders said that if the government levied a $100 billion tax bill on Bill Gates, the government could “end homelessness and provide safe drinking water to everyone in this country” and Gates “would be a millionaire.” Sanders is talking more about the possibility here – he says since the government can get very good results it is possible a $100 billion gain would be great, in fact the government should take that $100 billion.
My criticism of his claim, on the other hand, was to take something like a literal line. After all, I said, “if Sanders is right about the cost of ending homelessness, the federal government could completely end homelessness in America with just 1.7% of what the federal government already spends in one year.” However, I realize that homelessness is not over.
It is noteworthy that Sanders did not say that the federal government could end homelessness and provide everyone with clean drinking water at the cost of $100 billion. per year. He said both these problems can be completely solved by a one time the cost of 100 billion. So, with Sanders’ lights, the government can it is possible they have already ended homelessness many times over with your many resources, but they haven’t done that yet actually this was done for different reasons. But at the same time, he thinks that the government that takes another $100 billion in taxes should be evaluated, not on the basis of what is happening in the real world that shows that the government will do it. actually he did, but in what he thought was the best thing the government could do it is possible act, according to his own standard.
In another post, Scott Alexander explores the prospect of charging billionaires to try to produce positive results, in which he also takes something of a realistic view:
Two billionaires I greatly respect, Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna, have done a lot of work in criminal justice reform. Funding organizations have determined that many innocent people are imprisoned for months because they do not have enough money to pay bail; others plead guilty to crimes they didn’t commit because they need to get out of prison early to work or take care of their children, even if it gives them a criminal record. They funded a short-term effort to help these people afford bail, and a long-term effort to reform the bail system. One of the charities, the Bronx Freedom Fund, found that 92% of suspects without bail will plead guilty and obtain a criminal record. But if they are granted enough bail to stand trial, more than half will have all charges cleared. This is exactly the kind of anti-incarceration and stopping-the-cycle-of-poverty work that everyone says we need, and it works really well. I have contributed myself to this organization, but obviously I can only contribute a small part of what Moskovitz and Tuna manage.
If the Moskovitz and Tuna money instead flowed to the government, would it serve the same purpose in a more democratic, public-directed way? No. It will imprison these people, pay more prosecutors to trick them into confessing to crimes, increase the number of prison guards to abuse and torture them. The government is already spending 100 billion – seven times the wealth of Tuna and Moskovitz – on maintaining the carceral regime. each year. This completely negates any excess money that repairs the damage of the carceral state, even assuming there is such an illusion. Kicking Tuna and Moskovitz out of the picture won’t cause bail reform to happen in some socially responsible way. It will make sure that all money makes the problem worse – instead of the current situation where most money ends up making the problem worse but a small amount will make it better.
It seems to me that there is a strong overlap in how much one finds the realist line of thought attractive, and their tendency to view public policy decisions through the lens of ideas such as public choice economics, or to examine economic regulation through a theoretical capture of the opposite of the theory of public interest regulation. Just as James Buchanan described public choice as the study of politics without love, realist philosophers think that morality should be guided by a similarly loveless view of human nature.
Source link