What we need to do is keep the morality and abandon the social philosophy.
What we need to do is keep the morality and abandon the social philosophy. There's nothing wrong with being hopeful. You can't be so nihilistic or fatalistic that you resign yourself and society to respective fates. However you have to be practical. And delving into the nuts and bolts details of a society means delving into the dark territory of human nature. Dealing with the reality of human nature involves inconvenient truths. It also may stimulate abandoning some humanistic assumptions that are the driving force behind some of our progressive ideals.
Human beings have always had superstitious beliefs. Many human societies believe in a malevolent sentience, and intentional evil force in the universe capable of destroying the world. Christians call him the Devil. I have seen the face of the Devil, when I look in the mirror. The Devil is us. We are the intentional evil force that is destroying the world.
But we are also the only known force in the universe capable of being moral, at least in any meaningful sense. Learning more about human nature made me realize that the enlightenment ideals which animate our legal system and our traditions with moral force contain anachronisms.
But the problem is not the morals. The moral system of liberty, equality, and solidarity and a belief in human progress doesn't need to be buttressed with a system of thought about human nature. Nor can the enlightened moral system serve as a basis upon which to erect a Platonic edifice. Specifically one designed to demonstrate that in the absence of constraints such as pride, prejudice, and error, human potential would lead to societies which exhibit enlightened morality.
Remember, the free market extremists we have today refer to the classical liberal tradition when they talk of the power of the market and the justice of the decisions of the invisible hand of the market, even if that includes a highly stratified society. However, the classical liberals were both free market fundamentalists and egalitarians. They believed that perfect liberty in the markets would lead to perfect equality in society.
The social epistemology of rationalists is not consistent with human nature. As demonstrated by cognitive science and history, among other things. What we need to do is keep the morality and abandon the social philosophy. Human beings are complex. They have complex motives. We aren't rational, but we aren't completely irrational. We have a lot of capacities. As Chomsky says under the right circumstances any one of us could be a gas chamber attendant and a saint.
For the consequent of the antecedal tradition of rationalism, the question is: so what are the conditions that enable us to lean more toward saints than gas chamber attendants?
American Rightists say this is the wrong question. They have been mugged by reality. Human beings are naturally sinners and have to be disciplined into being saints. That discipline requires imposing on individual rights, which violates our moral commitment to liberty. To them the question is what are the conditions that allow society to be most efficient without being structured in a way that causes social problems or structures to impose themselves on individuals minimally? How can we live in Heaven as a Hellish host?
Rights-based hyperindividualism is prominent American talk because radical individualism is part of Americans' intuition (Karl Rove discovered this by polling). The same is true in all Anglophone countries. It follows from the English tradition of individual rights. The empirical support for the policy prescriptions of market fundamentalism are essentially based on the following argument:
1. Consequential knowledge is necessary to properly govern society.
2. Consequential knowledge is diffuse (i.e. atomized individuals are both the most powerful atom in society and very inconsequential in society).
3. Systemic processes pool consequential knowledge.
4. Competition increases the efficacy of systemic processes.
//Competitive systemic processes are the mechanisms which must govern society if society is to be governed properly.
This argument is valid but unsound. Premise 2 is false. Consequential knowledge is not always diffuse. Consequential knowledge is often highly concentrated. Also, the power to act on consequential knowledge is often highly concentrated. That is the reason why so many Americans who believe in democracy are frustrated by "special interest" lobbying.
This argument can also be weakened. I will stipulate that premise 3 is true as stated. Game theory and empirical data can be used to demonstrate this. However, how does the argument react to the premise: 5. Cooperation increases the efficacy of systemic processes? Clearly the conclusion must be modified by substituting "a" for "the."
Cooperation and solidarity are capable of rendering systemic processes efficacious. We can work together in a democratic system, working toward the common good as informed individuals. Isn't that what democracy is supposed to be. One problem of human nature is that intergroup competition seems to be the most effective way for causing cooperation and solidarity.
Which leads us to corporatism: individuals incorporated to act in concert against competitors. The failing of this system is the problem of hyperindividualism leading to intragroup competition that undermines the integrity of the group. It seems that societies which are individualistic are the ones most likely to adopt corporatism. And that extremely individualistic societies will deny themselves the benefits of corporatism. In American and the U.K. corporations became a vehicle for magnifying systemic risk.
So how can we remain true to the progressive morals of liberty, equality, and solidarity and a belief in human progress and build a constructive social system given the complex nature of human? Surely we will need a better social philosophy. Spend some time laboring at the intersection of sociology and philosophy.