This week I read Moral Tribes by Harvard philosopher and neuroscientist Josh Greene. The book claims to be about “Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them”, but pretty soon its true nature as a Hard Sell for Utilitarian Moral Philosophy is revealed!!
One of my key insights from his book was he reframed the concept of “Rights” that frequently come up in political discussions. While I’ve always been uncomfortable with Rights presented without Responsibilities, together they seem to make a great pair.
Josh attempts to destroy both concepts as wholly unhelpful in political conversations, and I was pretty much convinced.
The main thrust of his book is that the way to solve all our moral and political problems is to:
Put [our] tribal ideologies aside, figure out which way of life works best, and then live that way
The way to do that is to use policy-specific evidenced-based claims. So rather than “the free market is better” or “capitalism leads to inequality and must be controlled”, if we’re talking about the minimum wage, we should look at evidence of what happens when the minimum wage is raised (or lowered).
Similarly, rather than saying the Death Penalty is Wrong or Abortion is Wrong, we should analyze who benefits and who loses when each of those tools are legalized or outlawed.
This is standard old rational-philosopher stuff. But here’s where it gets good…
We normally say things like:
- The Death Penalty is a human rights violation.
- Abolishing it violates victims’ rights.
- Abortion violates The Right to Life.
- Criminalizing it violates The Right to Choose.
Josh claims that we use Rights-based language when we cannot prove the validity of our claims.
Thus, they are essentially no different than saying “My God says X”, because they are not appealing to something that can be reasoned a priori (though philosophers often try).
If you accept this argument, you can imagine Rights as a sort of minor God for your personal religion. Referring to them will have no impact on people of another religion.
So rather than referring to the woman’s Right to Choose or the fetus’ Right to Live, effective pluralistic discussion has to appeal to something everyone can get down with.
As Barack Obama once said (quite bravely for a politician!):
Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or invoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
He (Josh, not Barack) then applies the same (crushing) analysis to Duties and Responsibilities. They are, like Rights, part of our personal religions and cultures, and not very effective in a pluralistic society.
It’s not that these concepts aren’t helpful or we shouldn’t believe in them. I believe I (and others) have certain Rights and Responsibilities in my household, my community, my society, and my country. But if I don’t expect others to accept and share those beliefs, I have to get more informed and more creative in order to convince them that my policies are better for The Whole.
(Of course, many people may not care about The Whole, or think The Whole only includes people similar to them in some ways… that’s another (quite large) problem)
The key takeaway here is that in order to make sense to other tribes, we have to phrase our arguments in terms of something they acknowledge and respect, instead of asserting it’s a Right.
Imagine how the abortion debate would be different if people defended their positions without using the concept of Rights. Josh’s claim is that our search for “What Should I Appeal To?” would end up in the realm of human happiness or quality of life experience.
Obviously, there’s a lot more ideas in the book than that! I cover everything relevant to conflict resolution and the Beloved Community in the beefier version of this email (paid) and I put all my notes and quotes on this blog post.
Moral Tribes is a great read if you want a solid intellectual history of moral philosophy with a focus on Utilitarianism (including counter-arguments), which can be really helpful if you spend a bunch of time talking with religious fundamentalists or moral relativists.
Otherwise, just observe your language in your next political discussion and then take it from there.
Ankur Shah Delight: Community and Conflict 