Negativity
I am interested in looking at things in a negative way. No, I don't mean pessimistic, I mean turning a widely held paradigm on its head to see whether the result is more illuminating. The best literal illustration of this is when graphic designers make effective use of whitespace, as in the FedEx logo. Note how the E and x form an arrow:
One conceptual negative is that of rights: Negative rights mean things like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and the right to own property. These are not grants of religion and speech and property, but rather the right to be free from interference. Other citizens and government are prevented from doing something rather than required to do something as they are when a person has a right to a job, to food, to healthcare, and so on. The first set of rights, the negative rights, place no burden on anyone to do anything, only a burden to refrain from doing something. The second requires someone to do something and usually, in fact, negates their other rights. You cannot have a right to property or to control your own life or labor if you must also donate your labor and property so that someone else can have some.
The next time I ran into negativity was in David Friedman's Machinery of Freedom. Friedman dedicates Chapter 41 to discussing problems with deriving libertarianism from simplistic, formulaic principles. To illustrate, he offers a scenario in which a madman opens fire into a crowd. A rifle happens to be nearby, but it is known that the owner has publicly stated that he will not allow anyone else to use it for any purpose whatsoever. If you believe strongly in private property, you are forced to either violate that rule or to accept the loss of human life. What to do? It seems to put you in the position of hoping that someone else will take the rifle, and that you will disapprove of that action when they do. As a possible way out of this, Friedman suggests that a better formulation to "never initiate coercion" is "do whatever minimizes the total amount of coercion". In other words, he has switched the emphasis on that which you maximize (adherence to principles) towards that which you minimize (avoidance of anti-principles).
The third time I ran into this was in reading Scheffler's Consequentialism and its Critics. Here is my kindergarten view of moral philosophy:
Hence, I like my bot theory of politics because it emphasizes agents who react against rather then act for a particular outcome or proposal. But this prompts me to wonder: what should we react against, in a general way? In other words, what in society would we like to minimize? I'm sure everyone could produce a list of things we, as a society or as the electorate, would like to see promoted: health, education, welfare, security, and so on. Most politics, on the surface, looks like a struggle to determine the best mix of outcomes and the best mix of policies to achieve those (and it's insane to try to simultaneously solve both problems: how can you determine the best method to achieve an outcome that has not yet been determined?), but what is it that we should try to minimize? Friedman's suggestion of force seems a clear candidate. I would further suggest anomie. Hunger, privation, and inequality are bound to be nominated, but I would ask whether these would likely have bad outcomes (I suggest maybe, maybe, and yes).
The downside to such an approach is that it may be interesting, but is ultimately no guide. If you only look at the arrow in FedEx, you don't learn the name of the company or what it does. Or what it should do.
One conceptual negative is that of rights: Negative rights mean things like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and the right to own property. These are not grants of religion and speech and property, but rather the right to be free from interference. Other citizens and government are prevented from doing something rather than required to do something as they are when a person has a right to a job, to food, to healthcare, and so on. The first set of rights, the negative rights, place no burden on anyone to do anything, only a burden to refrain from doing something. The second requires someone to do something and usually, in fact, negates their other rights. You cannot have a right to property or to control your own life or labor if you must also donate your labor and property so that someone else can have some.
The next time I ran into negativity was in David Friedman's Machinery of Freedom. Friedman dedicates Chapter 41 to discussing problems with deriving libertarianism from simplistic, formulaic principles. To illustrate, he offers a scenario in which a madman opens fire into a crowd. A rifle happens to be nearby, but it is known that the owner has publicly stated that he will not allow anyone else to use it for any purpose whatsoever. If you believe strongly in private property, you are forced to either violate that rule or to accept the loss of human life. What to do? It seems to put you in the position of hoping that someone else will take the rifle, and that you will disapprove of that action when they do. As a possible way out of this, Friedman suggests that a better formulation to "never initiate coercion" is "do whatever minimizes the total amount of coercion". In other words, he has switched the emphasis on that which you maximize (adherence to principles) towards that which you minimize (avoidance of anti-principles).
The third time I ran into this was in reading Scheffler's Consequentialism and its Critics. Here is my kindergarten view of moral philosophy:
- Utilitarianism: maximize utility/pleasure/good. Suffers from the problem that you may violate basic desirables such as freedom (think of the solution of The Matrix: lots of happy slaves). One derivation looks like the opposite of a moral rule: if it feels good, do it.
- Deontology: pick good rules and stick to them. Suffers from the problem that good rules may lead to bad outcomes (should you lie to a man who is looking for your neighbor in order to murder him? Kant said no, you should never lie. I'm not willing to be that charitable to roving murderers.)
- Consequentialism: pick good outcomes and follow whatever rules that lead to those outcomes. Suffers from the problem that this is essentially "the ends justifies the means", only with bigger words.
- Rule consequentialism: pick good outcomes, pick good rules that generally lead to those outcomes, and stick to those.
- Negative consequentialism: pick rules that minimize bad outcomes and stick to them.
Hence, I like my bot theory of politics because it emphasizes agents who react against rather then act for a particular outcome or proposal. But this prompts me to wonder: what should we react against, in a general way? In other words, what in society would we like to minimize? I'm sure everyone could produce a list of things we, as a society or as the electorate, would like to see promoted: health, education, welfare, security, and so on. Most politics, on the surface, looks like a struggle to determine the best mix of outcomes and the best mix of policies to achieve those (and it's insane to try to simultaneously solve both problems: how can you determine the best method to achieve an outcome that has not yet been determined?), but what is it that we should try to minimize? Friedman's suggestion of force seems a clear candidate. I would further suggest anomie. Hunger, privation, and inequality are bound to be nominated, but I would ask whether these would likely have bad outcomes (I suggest maybe, maybe, and yes).
The downside to such an approach is that it may be interesting, but is ultimately no guide. If you only look at the arrow in FedEx, you don't learn the name of the company or what it does. Or what it should do.
Labels: philosophy
<< Home