Interview with My Inner Fake Socialist - Allegory showing how morality can reduce compassion
Actually written FEBRUARY 26, 2009 -
My latest project [at the time] is [was] a podcast/radio show called
The Philosophical Heart’s Harrowed Quest.
And this is [was] a proposed feature for the show, an interview with my own inner fake socialist.
In this allegorical dialog, my inner fake socialist, Professor Standin J. Socialist, will do two things:
(1) Oscillate between two contradictory moral arguments for socialism:
(A) link the moral principles of socialism with the actual relief of suffering, and
(B) break that link and prioritize the moral “rightness” of socialism over the relief of suffering.
(2) Resolve the contradiction by retreating into bullshit postmodern anti-epistemology that embraces contradictions.
-----------------------------------
Luke: “Now it’s time to interview a fake character I made up, Professor Standin J. Socialist, and ask him about his views on suffering.
“So. Professor Socialist, welcome to the show. I’m glad you could be with us today.”
SJS: “Thanks. Glad to be invited here. So how can I help you today?”
Luke: “Well, as you know, this is a show where we explore people’s attitudes about suffering. So now I want to explore your attitudes about suffering. So let me ask you this: What is your essential attitude about suffering?”
SJS: “Ok. Well, thanks for asking.”
“I’d say my essential attitude toward suffering is a powerful mixture of sadness, anger and a commitment to advance socialism worldwide. Suffering is a disease, a terrible condition we need to remedy. Socialism is largely that remedy.
“Suffering is what happens when we lose our sense of community, of our obligation to care for one another. Suffering is what happens when community is torn apart by individual selfish greed. We are all connected, we are all in this together. So when some of us get greedy and act like this isn’t so, they hurt others and create suffering. The remedy for this, obviously, is to rid all of greedy behavior, and make sure we all understand and value our interconnectedness, to know we are literally one another’s keeper.”
Luke: “Right on. Thanks for your answer, Professor Socialist. But now of course I want to quiz you further to gain a more complex understanding of your position here. Reality is complex, and our ideologies must reflect that complexity.
“Ok, so let’s say someone suffers the pain of dying from cancer. This is definitely a kind of suffering. So how did greedy selfishness cause this suffering?”
SJS: “Ah. There are several answers to this one, some more fundamental than others. But let me jump right in with a more derivative answer first.”
“Cancer, as with most all physical diseases, is the result of our current highly greed-driven, commoditized relationship to food. Since we have taken the preparation of food out of the community and given it to corporate interests, the nutritional quality of food has declined drastically, and the result is higher rates of disease like cancer. Greedy anti-community thinking has made us trade healthy food for low grade convenience food that is killing us and causing suffering.
“But food preparation is only one aspect of lifestyle that impacts our physical health. Let’s not forget the high level of social alienation, the lack of emotional connection, which comes with a highly greed-driven, individualist and over-hierarchical lifestyle. These are mental sufferings that eventually manifest as physical suffering through diseases as well. Everything is connected. Cancer is as much a product of our mental as our physical constitutions. And the greedy anti-community lifestyle threatens both.
“So on this issue, socialism is the ounce of prevention that's worth a pound of cure.
“Now of course I'm not about to claim that all physical suffering, even all instances of cancer, can be prevented by a strong communal lifestyle. But at least under socialism, those few who do contract the disease will receive the best care possible without worrying about their ability to pay some greedy doctor’s fees. And since our lifestyle will have prevented 90% of the cancer we would otherwise see, providing such care won’t actually be much of a drain on our social resources.
“But finally, I want to bring my answer to this question down to the fundamental level. And here it is: socialism does relieve the physical suffering of cancer, directly, as if it were a medicine. But be clear here. I’m not saying socialism cures cancer; I’m saying it cures the suffering brought on by cancer. It is the intense feeling of community, of connection with others, which more than compensates the physical pain of cancer. One can bear just about anything as long as one bears it in the bosom of the caring community, among others, comforting one another.
“This works because socialism isn’t simply a political agenda, it is a non-individualistic way of experiencing one’s very existence. If you’ve got cancer, that cancer, and its pain, isn’t just your cancer or your pain; it is the cancer and pain of everyone in the community, of something much larger than yourself. No longer does one experience cancer as ‘I’m dying and it hurts’, but rather, this cancer is part of our community life. It is happening to us, for us, through us. We bare it together, as the larger one. My pain is their pain, their life is my life. As the individual embraces this perspective, the pain may not subside, but the suffering does. One bears the pain fearlessly, joyfully in love with one’s fellows. Really, to spite nature’s random afflictions of pain, we can, through the socialist way of life, dispense with suffering and embrace joy in every matter that presents itself to us. And that is the socialist response to suffering, expressed at the most fundamental level."
Luke: “I must say, that response is amazingly to the point.
“Now I want to ask you another question, a question about those who disagree with the socialist response to suffering. After all, many will hear the answer you just gave and disagree. They will insist that the socialist response to suffering is bunk, that it doesn’t work, that it can’t work, that our human nature simply isn’t that way, and so on. How do you reply to these people who disagree?"
SJS: “People who disagree …
“Well, most likely, people who disagree simply aren't listening honestly. I mean, chances are they may have heard what I said, my ‘amazing answer’ as you call it, but they are simply ignoring parts of it, pretending I didn’t actually say what I said, selectively evading the full context of my answer. Maybe there’s even an honest and innocent cause for their selective evasiveness, such that they could not paraphrase what I said no matter how honestly they tried. But in any case, something is missing from the message, something they can’t or won’t acknowledge. And because they don’t get the full message, they’re working with a distorted idea of what socialism is, finding flaws that aren’t really there, and hence disagreeing.
“And I think most critics fail to get the part about the change in perspective from individual to collective. Something about that is just too alien and threatening to critics of socialism. They are unable to grasp it and contemplate its true implications. They can only offer knee-jerk libertarian reactions against it.”
Luke: “What about someone who can paraphrase everything you said, who has an accurate view of socialism, yet who still disagrees? Suppose such a person understands your claim that the collective perspective relieves suffering and is even joyful, yet says your claim is simply false?"
SJS: “Well, what can I say? I know it is true. I felt it. I feel it. People all over the world say they feel the same. Deep inside, we all yearn for intense social connection.”
Luke: “But my concern here is how you treat those who disagree. If you are so certain they are wrong, how does your certainty influence how you treat them in a political context? That is, how will you treat them when push comes to shove?”
SJS: “‘When push comes to shove’? What do you mean by that?”
Luke: “I mean, suppose you’re setting up a socialist state where people must care for one another as you describe. And suppose those who disagree try to stop you. How do you handle their resistance?”
SJS: “Well, I don’t mean to sound dismissive, but that’s a detail to be worked out when the time comes. At this point I can only speculate what might be done. There are likely several options. Relocation. Re-education. And the like. Personally, I favor a policy of temporary separation from such individuals, during which time we continually reach out to them, inviting them to change their ways in a non-confrontational, non-shaming way, slowly showing them how they too can reconnect with their deep yearnings for intense communal bonding. These people are alienated from their true nature, suffering from a deep wound in their soul, a sickness put there by the capitalist hierarchical lifestyle. They need gentle healing from caring therapists.”
Luke: “But let’s be clear here. The temporary separation is forced separation, is it not?”
SJS: “In all honesty, yes. It is forced.
“Look, there’s no easy way around all this. There will be blood. Given the world as it is, a world of bitter conflict where selfish interests are already tearing one another to pieces, socialism has no choice but to enter the fray of clashing forces as a force to end all such clashes. Let’s be realistic. The forces of anti-socialist conflicts must be opposed by force of some kind. It would be nice to simply flick a switch and put all the warring anti-socialist interests in a kind of temporary stasis for a few years while the rest of us get on with healing the world; and then to slowly bring them back to life among us where they too can be healed with ease. But the technology simply isn’t there for that. We’ve got to work with what we have. And if the only things we have are the instruments of force, then we must use them.
“Nor do we have the luxury of waiting for alternatives to using force. Time is running out. The warring anti-socialist interests are quickly abusing our whole planet to a catastrophic end. Even if our planet were not in such immediate danger, time is always running out for the millions of people whose lives are torn apart, whose families are tortured and murdered every day by the warring anti-socialistic interests. The deadline for using force against the warring anti-socialist interests has passed a billion times over.
“Again, I really do wish we could handle the anti-socialist sickness with tender therapy. But our brothers and sisters with wounded souls are killing each other and killing those of us who are healthy. I lament the fact that we’ve got to stop them by force before they kill any more. And yes, that does mean we may have to kill many of them to get them to stop. We’ll weep in sorrow as we bury them. But the sad fact is we’re gonna have to bury them.”
Luke: “I see your point here. I understand the practical need to use force. That is, I understand this, but only in the context of absolute, ideological certainty. And that is a puzzler for me.
“So let me get this straight. You are prepared to use lethal force against millions of people because you are absolutely, positively certain that the socialist way of life is right for all people, whether or not they’re able to understand or embrace it. (?)”
SJS: “Well… Yes. In the final analysis, I simply have to say yes.”
Luke: “Ok, but I have to question your certainty on this. Earlier in this interview you basically asserted that the socialist lifestyle is right for everyone, that we all yearn for intense social connection, and you made that assertion on what seemed to be some rather anecdotal evidence, like your own feelings and reports of people all over the world feeling a similar yearning. Now, this is not the sort of evidence that I myself like to base a conclusion of certainty on, especially when such a conclusion warrants my use of lethal force against millions of people. I would like a better category of evidence for this conclusion, something more scientific, perhaps. So I must ask you whether you have any better forms of evidence or argument to support your certainty. Do you?”
SJS: “Oh yes. I certainly do.
“You see this is not just an issue of personal feelings. Not even an issue of collective feelings. This is an objective moral issue. The socialist way of life is our moral right and obligation to one another. Each of us has a fundamental right to live in a community where people connect with and care for one another, to be connected with and cared for. Likewise, each of us has a fundamental obligation to live in such a community and connect with and care for others. These are our basic rights and obligations as human beings.
“Not only that, but I would probably include animals in this as well. Although animals can’t be said to have any obligation to we humans, we humans do have certain obligations to the animals, obligations very similar to those we have for our fellow humans.
“But anyway. You see that this is not just about anecdotal evidence such as personal or collective feelings. This is about basic, undeniable moral truth.”
Luke: “Ok. I see the usefulness of bringing morality into this. I see how doing so would convert your argument from subjective feelings to objective morality.
“But now I’m concerned about how useful this moral argument is in the context of my original issue, which is the issue of suffering. You see, if I were to adopt socialism, it would be for its power to relieve suffering and create joy. Now notice that suffering and joy are feelings, personal, subjective feelings. This means that I would adopt socialism for its effects on our subjective feelings. Relieving suffering and creating joy are effects on our subjective feelings, effects that I want from socialism, and that socialism promises to deliver.
“But, when we shift from the issue of dealing with suffering to the issue of dealing with people who oppose socialism, the supporting argument shifts from effects on our subjective feelings to compliance with objective moral obligations. These are two vastly different kinds of supporting arguments. And the result of this shift from one kind of supporting argument to another kind, in this instance, is this: When it comes to justifying our killing millions of socialism’s opponents, we no longer care about subjective feelings the way we did when we talked about relieving suffering. During the shift from subjective to objective justification, we lost our care about subjective feelings, such as suffering and joy.”
SJS: “Did we?
“No, sorry for the rhetorical quip, there. What I mean is, No, we didn’t lose our concern about suffering. Relieving suffering is our objective moral obligation. Concern about a subjective feeling is our objective obligation. We adopt the socialist way of life to heal our subjective states of suffering, and that precisely is our objective moral obligation. And we kill socialism’s opponents to make this healing of subjective suffering possible, and that too is our objective moral obligation.
“So there hasn’t really been a shift in category of justification from subjective to objective. The whole package has been justified, ultimately, on our objective moral obligations to relieve suffering and create joy. Both preventing the suffering of cancer, and killing those who would stop us from preventing the suffering of cancer, are moral obligations.
“If I misled you on this issue when we talked about relieving suffering, I apologize. I forgot to emphasize the moral aspect of relieving suffering. Now I hope I have cleared that up.”
Luke: “Oh, thanks for clearing that up.
“So let me see whether I understand you now.
“You are making some necessary connection between concern for subjective feelings, and objective moral obligations. You use the word ‘is’ to make that connection. You keep saying that concern over feelings is our moral obligation. But does this mean that they are literally equivalent? I mean, when I feel my wish to relieve suffering, am I also literally feeling my moral obligation? Are they exactly the same thing?”
SJS: “No. The nature of the connection I’m making isn’t literal equivalency. One is subjective, the other is objective. That’s the distinction that makes the crucial difference when justifying our actions. Subjective feelings don’t justify our actions. But objective moral obligation does. They are not the same. If they were the same, we would lose our sense of what is justified action versus what is not.”
Luke: “So my wish to relieve suffering does not justify my doing so?”
SJS: “That’s right, No it does not. I mean, I like that you wish such relief for others. But that wish of yours is just a subjective feeling. It doesn’t justify anything. The real justification for relieving suffering is your moral obligation to do so.”
Luke: “And likewise, my doubts about the universal rightfulness of the socialist way of life does not justify my objection to killing those who oppose socialism?”
SJS: “Say again? That was a little confusing.”
Luke: ‘I mean, I have my doubts that socialism is the right way of life for everyone. I worry that forcing socialism on everyone might actually hurt some people and cause them more suffering than if we just left them alone. I have a caring wish to respect them, to let them enjoy the way of life that’s right for them. But, according to what you’ve said so far, my doubts and care for them are irrelevant. This is a moral issue. We have a moral obligation to kill those who oppose socialism, regardless of my care for them. Is this so?”
SJS: “Well, yes. Yes this is so. But only because, more fundamentally, we have the moral obligation to relieve suffering and create joy. Killing the opponents of socialism is only a tragic moral necessity, a necessity to stop the suffering as soon as possible.”
Luke: “But, like I say, what if you are wrong about what lifestyle is right for all people?”
SJS: “I’m not wrong. Socialism is right for all people, it is our moral right and obligation.”
Luke: “Hold on. Let me put this another way.
“When I express my concerned doubt that socialism is the right lifestyle for everyone, I’m really expressing doubt that socialism can relieve the suffering of all people. And I have objected to your certainty that socialism can relieve all suffering. You reply by saying that it doesn’t matter whether socialism can relieve all suffering, it is our moral obligation. Do you see that?”
SJS: “No. Socialism does relieve all suffering. That’s precisely why it is our moral obligation.”
Luke: “But you have not produced any solid objective evidence or argument that socialism relieves all suffering. Without such evidence, you can’t jump to the conclusion that socialism is our moral obligation. If universal relief from suffering is the reason why socialism is our moral obligation, then that universal relief is precisely the issue to be proven, and it must be proven before we can claim that socialism is our moral obligation.”
SJS: “Well, no. We know that socialism offers universal relief because we know our own nature. We all feel the yearning.”
Luke: “But that is precisely the contested issue. People disagree on this. How can you be so absolutely sure everyone works the same way here? How can you be so sure when your potential decision to kill them rests on this?”
SJS: “We just know. For those who understand, no explanation is necessary. For those who don’t, none is possible.
“Look, I know I sound arrogant here. But let’s be practical. There’s really no way to argue this for the benefit of those who just don’t get it. Besides, it should still remain obvious that socialism is our moral obligation regardless of whether we can prove it can relieve the suffering of all.”
Luke: “So let me see whether I understand you here too.
“So even if I doubt that socialism can relieve the suffering of all, I should still recognize that it is our moral obligation to adopt socialism. Is this so?”
SJS: "Yes. Even those who doubt the universality of socialism’s capacity to relieve suffering should still see that socialism is our moral obligation.”
Luke: “But this contradicts the reason that socialism is supposed to be our moral obligation, again. Socialism is supposed to be our moral obligation precisely because it offers universal relief from suffering. So if we doubt that socialism can relieve the suffering of all, we must doubt that socialism is our moral obligation. I don’t see how we could doubt one without doubting the other.”
SJS: “Well then, let me confess a mistake.
“I was wrong to claim that our moral obligation to socialism comes from its power to relieve the suffering of all. Our obligation to socialism stands on its own, as a truth we should all be able to see, regardless of our doubts about how much it relieves the suffering of all. Socialism just is our moral obligation, for no other reasons whatsoever.”
Luke: “Ok, so the real justification for adopting socialism has nothing to do with relief from suffering?”
SJS: “I didn’t say that. You’re not hearing me right.
“Socialism does relieve the suffering of all. And I know this with absolute certainty. And that’s why we have a moral obligation to adopt it.”
Luke: “No! A few seconds ago you just denied that relief from suffering had anything to do with our obligation to adopt socialism. Now you’re affirming what you just denied again. Please, I need you to present a consistent argument here. Or I need you to explain why you can’t offer such a consistent argument.”
SJS: “You’re seeing this too much through the Aristotelian binary logic of our capitalist, hierarchical culture. Things aren’t really bifurcated into such black and white, either-or categories.”
Luke: “What does that mean?”
SJS: “It means that, once again, if you can’t get what I’m saying, I can’t help you understand until you learn to get rid of some of the obsolete Western cultural baggage that’s holding you back.”
Luke: “Ok, so I hear you offering me a reason why you can’t give me a consistent argument. You say that my request for consistency is a … a fault in my mind or character or something – perhaps part of some anti-socialist brainwashing. Is this so?”
SJS: “Well, essentially, and unfortunately, yes.”
Luke: “Well, let me ask you a few more questions then.
“How does a departure from Aristotelian either-or logic help those who suffer?”
SJS: “First of all, what we’re trying for here is a more holistic kind of reasoning, rather than binary, all or nothing kinds of thinking. And this helps those who suffer because most of our suffering comes from the various institutions and social dynamics that are constructed around the binary kind of thinking. Relationships of inequality and hierarchy depend on identifying who has the power and who does not, such that one is either master or slave. Oppressor or oppressed. That’s the binary that hurts the most, the oppressor and the oppressed.
“Therefore, if we remove binary thinking, these relationships of power inequity lose their hold on us. There’s more room for power-sharing and cooperative relationships. Suffering caused by oppression, therefore, is reduced, if not totally abolished.”
Luke: “I see. And I do think there’s merit in what you say here.
“But I’m still worried about something. To me, suffering is suffering. A person either is suffering or is not. Now of course this is my binary way of thinking here. One either suffers or not. So you see, I depend on binary reasoning to identify who suffers and who does not. And I fear that, without my binary reasoning as such, I will no longer be able to identify who is suffering versus who is not. Rather, I’ll be left with some kind of wishy-washy notion that someone is kinda-sorta suffering but also not suffering. And I don’t mean those complicated cases where someone is suffering in one respect, but not suffering in some other respect. I mean that they are both suffering and not suffering at the same time and in exactly the same respect.
“Now, to me, this defies sense and makes a hash out of my compassion for those who suffer. How can I be inspired to relieve suffering when I can’t hold a consistent judgment as to whether or not someone is really suffering?”
SJS: “The secret is to understand when to apply binary reasoning, and when to go holistic. You see the dilemma here. You’re trying to apply your binary reasoning to the question of whether or not to use binary reasoning. If you approach this from the holistic side, you won’t have this problem.”
Luke: “I see. So whenever I worry about whether or not I’m using binary reasoning at the right time, my very worry about the issue is caused by using binary reasoning to decide the issue. And that’s when I should stop and try holistic reasoning instead. Is this right?”
SJS: “You are on to something. But I think the best thing I can do for you now is not to answer your question. The fact that you seek an answer from me, a validation, tells me that you are still using binary reasoning. Does this help?”
Luke: “Really. Ok. Hold on.
“So imagine a person screaming in agonizing pain, a pain so intense and constant that they’d kill themselves just to stop that pain, if given the tool to do so, like a gun or what-not. You approach this poor soul and say ‘Hey, your pain is not really pain. Your suffering comes from seeing your pain as absolutely existing. It won’t exist if you stop thinking of whether or not it exists. Think about it holistically. The pain is, but also isn’t.’ Now if I were this person in pain, I’d want to rip your head off. Given a gun, I’d probably want to shoot you before I shot myself.”
SJS: “You lost it again. Identifying pain is where we need to use binary reasoning. Forming complex social dynamics is when we need holistic thinking.”
Luke: “And you just used binary reasoning to tell me that distinction. But a minute ago you suggested I not do that.”
SJS: “Precisely. Don’t look for consistency here. I’ll frustrate you. You can’t learn to employ holistic thinking at the right time by using binary thinking to decide when is right versus when is wrong. To learn when to do holistic thinking, just do it. Nobody can explain it. Just do it.”
Luke: “And you trust me to get it right if I just jump right in and do it? You would trust me even when I’ve shown you I might get it wrong?”
SJS: “You’re human. You’ll learn. You’ll make mistakes. But you’ll learn. I couldn't expect more than that.”
Luke: “Well, I don't know what else to ask or say.”
SJS: “This is a perfect place to stop this interview. More words or explanations would only ruin it. I just ask that you give holistic thinking a shot. Just do it.”
Luke: “Well ok. That will be it then. Thanks so much for talking with me today, professor Socialist.”
SJS: “My pleasure. And remember: not all socialists believe what I believe. We are a varied lot in so many ways. And don’t mistake my opinions for an accurate representation of socialism. I am, after all, a figment of Luke’s imagination, a character he made up."
Luke: “Ok. Bye for now.”
SJS: “So long.”
-----------------------------------
REFLECTIONS:
After my interview with professor Standin Socialist, I felt a bit disoriented, drained and “empty”. I went in seeking answers and ended up feeling like I had been talked out of finding answers. I was basically told not to think about it anymore, except in some mysterious way called “holistic” that can’t be explained because explaining it would be cheating. But the whole thing left me feeling that I myself had been “cheated”. Not only me, but all suffering people had been cheated. To be honest, I became a bit angry on behalf of all those who suffer. We scream in agony and socialism offers a superficially plausible means of relief until we see the cost to be paid in unwarranted certainty – and when we challenge this presumptuousness, we are told not to think about it, not to expect consistency, not even to expect consistency about the issue of consistency.
My quest continues.
I think for my next interview, I’ll talk with my inner fake libertarian.
[I never got around to writing the interview with my inner fake libertarian to parallel the socialist. But I did make a post that does a decent job of illustrating some parallel behavior of libertarians. Here it is: The Grossman Conjecture]
Comments
Post a Comment