Short Break: Thoughts about Civilization
Three little ideas, around compromises and civilization
I am still writing the Part 2 of “About Feelings”, this is just a small in-between. Lower quality than usual, but better than not writing about those things at all. I am trying to get more things like this out.
Compromise is the essence of Democracy
There are many things that are wrong within Western Democracies.
But I too often hear something along the line of “Democracy is bad because my country doesn’t pass the laws I care about”. Which is ironic, because it is not a thing that is wrong with democracy. That one is a feature of democracy!
A regime that passes all of your favourite laws is a dictatorship, not a democracy.
Our democracies are predicated on the idea of compromise. The idea is that people discuss and find acceptable compromises between their beliefs, instead of constantly killing each other until a winning group can unilaterally enforce their beliefs on everyone else.
When democracy works well, we should all feel somewhat bad, as if we were constantly getting wronged: because we are. That's what a compromise is: a state of affairs where both parties do not unilaterally get all that they wanted. Ie: both parties get wronged.
Most people disagree with most people on many topics, that's why it is natural that the resulting compromises, democracy, will make most people unhappy.
This is great! Remember that the alternative is dictatorship: making very few people happy, and everyone else miserable.
Almost no one is an ideologue, the rest of us are all just haggling
Some Jokes
There’s a joke that goes:
Original Joke
Man: Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?
Woman: Sure.
Man: How about for 10 dollars?
Woman (outraged): What do you think I am, a prostitute?!
Man: We’ve already established that. We’re just haggling over the price.
This joke is worth studying. Its punchline works because we can naturally understand both perspectives at once.
On one hand: No one would ever be offered a million dollars to sleep with someone. And one could do a lot with that money, including much more good by providing for their family than how bad it would be to sleep for money. Possibly, you might even take the deal yourself! Does that really make one a prostitute?
On the other hand: She is willing to sleep for money. Is a person not a prostitute yet just because they haven’t done it? If you are knowingly willing to cheat on your partner, and you just haven’t done so because no one is willing to sleep with you, does that make you better morally?
Let’s continue with two variants, that put the emphasis on each perspective.
Killer Joke
Man: Would you kill someone for ten thousand dollars?
Woman: Sure.
Man: How about for a hundred dollars?
Woman (outraged): What do you think I am, a killer?!
Man: We’ve already established that. We’re just haggling over the price.
If you didn’t know the Original Variant, you might not even understand that there is a joke here.
Here, the idea is that if you are willing to kill someone for ten thousand dollars, you are indeed a killer. At that point, why would the woman even be offended at the idea of someone offering a hundred?
They are indeed just haggling, and there’s no ambiguity.
Liar Joke
Man: Would you lie to a stranger for one billion dollars?
Woman: Sure.
Man: How about for ten dollars?
Woman: What do you think I am, a liar?!
Man: We’ve already established that. We’re just haggling over the price.
Now in that one, the man is just an asshole. Except if you are a honesty monk breaking your vow, or if the lie was like super duper shmooper bad, why would you not take the billion? At some point, the positive upside is just worth the cost.
Sure, we don’t want lies to be common in our society. But does it look like, if not lying only for a billion dollar? Imagine what a great society we would have if people only told lies when they had at a least a billion to make!
Unfortunately, lies are by far much more mundane and casually cruel. They are more like, “Yeah, but saying the true thing would have felt bad” or “Yeah, but if I stated my true beliefs about extinction risks, I don’t know if it would help the world that much, and my career would progress more slowly”.
This is an important truth about morals. Most moral commandments are not absolute. “Which actions are intrinsically bad?” is a much less crucial question to morals than “To which extent is a given action bad?”. The former tends to a “Never do X” mentality, whereas the latter leads to “Where is my interdiction on X relevant?”.
Usually, we agree on what is good and bad. Where we usually disagree is the extent to which different things are good and bad, which actions will cause good and bad things, and the compromises we have to make in various situations.
Real World
On any hot pressing issue, because of incessant polarisation, we tend to forget the above. The debate is almost never about categorical imperatives and interdictions. We are just haggling.
The pro-life vs pro-choice debate usually ranges from “No abortion” to “Abortion okay until the baby is born”. And it is made to look like people on either side of this spectrum are dangerous ideologues who don’t care about the sanctity of life or bodily autonomy.
But that is being incredibly myopic. We should be thankful that this is the current debate. In a much more ideologue world, the debate could start to look like the following…
On one end, we could have full extremists over child bearing and sexual activity. Jail-time for out-of-wedlock parents, mandatory insemination for people with too few children, or even full on death penalty for any unlicensed sexual activity, with cameras in every houses to enforce it.
On the other end, we could have full extremists about self-determination. Extending abortion to 3 years old, legalising child abandonment or even plainly granting parents right of life over their children until they are financially independent - not “leeches” anymore.
But we all agree those two extremes are really bad. In other words, everyone is both pro-life and pro-choice to some extent. Of course we value the sanctity of life. Of course we value bodily autonomy and integrity. Of course we believe children should be cared for, and ideally by their family.
We are just haggling about what is better compromise between those values. Again, this is the essence of democracy: compromise, negotiation, haggling, trade-offs, etc. Call them however you want.
Materialist Moral Progress
Living in a Lenient World
In a more technologically advanced world, the abortion debate does not exist.
Imagine if we had perfect contraception: it works 100% reliably, costs nothing, works with both males and females, and you don’t even have to think about it. Just a switch, that you can toggle on-and-off whenever.
Imagine if we had much greater medicine: there are never complications during pregnancy, grave disorders, fetal anomalies or risks to the mother.
In that world, we might have a debate around how many children people should have. Fewer than 2? More than 3? Is there a fixed ideal number across places and cultures?
Or we might have a debate about the morals behind sex. Should people just have sex casually, completely detached from any bonding, as if they were just playing a video game with a stranger? Should people never masturbate, nor have sex without intent of procreating?
But abortions would just be obsolete. They are not a thing that happens because people enjoy having abortions. They are compromises, least bad options, that people sometimes take because we all live in a harsh world. In a more lenient world, they would not happen and there would be no moral debate around them. We would just never even think about them.
Living in a Hardcore World
When our world gets worse, we need to make worse and worse compromises.
We make worse compromises with our values and our principles. When the alternative is letting our family suffer, we can go for very repugnant choices.
We make worse compromise with others, because there is less trust. When the world is shit, everyone knows it. And everyone knows that everyone knows, that they have something to protect and that they are ready to do it.
This is not the kind of environment that is conducive to prosperity and coordination.
At some point, we become our interactions with our environment.
We do not have the mental capacity to make a rational calculation every time we defect on others for the best of our family. We just care less about others.
We do not have the mental capacity to constantly predict whether in a better environment, others would do better. We just see them act as bad people, and eventually, just as bad people.
More generally, the longer we stay in a hardcore environment, the less trusting we become, toward ourself and others.
Making the World more Lenient
This suggests that there are two ways morals can change:
Through hard work, reflexion, debate, philosophy, practicing solidarity and compassion, building institutions, improving the culture, etc.
Through building an environment that is more conducive to cooperation.
I believe both have been core drivers of moral progress.
It’s easy to misconstrue the focus on economical growth and technological advancement as some abstract fascination. But growing the pie and becoming more wealthy helps a lot with moral progress: it is much easier to open up to strangers when being wrong doesn’t cost you much. And generosity is much easier when you have more to share.
But it’s also easy to miss the importance of working on morals directly. Without it, wealth can easily make us complacent, instead of being an enabler for more progress. I often see people working on technology as a way to avoid working with people. I believe this is deeply misguided, and that both are necessary to improve things.
Conclusion
There’s actually no conclusion in this post. Just a couple of ideas that I wanted to share.
Cheers