Politicians, Plumbers & Plato

Does anyone say: “all plumbers are the same”; “you can’t trust any of them”; “plumbers are clueless”; “we don’t need them”?

Most likely, people will agree that we can’t build reliable houses without the input from a good plumber. And plumbers are certainly not all the same – some are dedicated experts, some are mostly helpful but difficult to get in an emergency, and some are actually con merchants.

The same is true of politicians.  It would be unwise to brush them all aside as equally incompetent or corrupt, when in fact how well (or badly) society functions depends on what politicians are in office.  The more we allow those who only care about enriching themselves or advancing fundamentalist causes to take power, the more we will suffer.  If we are to get better public services, more fairness in human relations, safer communities, a stronger economy, and real sustainability, we need to get more sensible, strategic, public-spirited politicians elected.

But what makes a good politician?  Plato misled generations into thinking the key qualification to be a political leader is to have the unquestionable ability to know what should be done for society. But there can be no such ability, because what should be done for society depends on a wide range of factors – including crucially the deliberative explorations by members of the society in question – that no individual can know without engaging with others on an ongoing basis.  

Only a dictator would claim to know what should be done irrespective of what others might have to say.  While Plato was fine with that so long as the dictator subscribes to Plato’s philosophy, history has taught us that we must guard against authoritarian rule at all times.

To tell what would make a good politician as opposed to a bad one, we should look to three qualities:

[1] Character of integrity

We want political leaders who are honest and respectful.  Many people who enter politics are kind and decent. But there are also those who are hypocrites, cheat in their private dealings, bully those who work for them, and couldn’t care less about those less fortunate than themselves. When we read about them in news reports, we must highlight who they are and the political party that gives them a home, and not slide into the absurd censure of “all politicians are dreadful”.

[2] Public-spirit

One’s career before turning to politics can tell us a lot about a person’s suitability for public office.  Some have dedicated themselves to helping others, through public service or a voluntary organisation.  Others have concentrated on making money through financial speculation or defending clients who try to get round the law for their personal gains. The former have shown consistently their concern with advancing the common good.  The latter type treat politics as a means to build influence and contacts to help their eventual return to their private career for money-making.

[3] Readiness to learn

Good politicians are well disposed to learn from others – be they experts in particular fields, colleagues with greater experience in certain policy areas, groups with serious concerns that have not been addressed, or the public in general about issues that affect their lives.  Unlike demagogues who would arrogantly pretend to have the answers when mired in ignorance, they would prioritise cooperative learning to guide their policy decisions.

There are other important skills such as resilience, persuasiveness, leadership that politicians ought to possess.  But these skills may be displayed by people who lack the three vital qualities we mentioned above, and without them we are more likely to get a manipulative authoritarian steering us to ever more disasters, than to receive sound political stewardship.

Politicians should not be backed on the basis of their photogenic smiles or clever jokes.  But like plumbers, they should be chosen for the qualities that really matter.

Third Encounter of a Closed Mind

People with a closed mind attach themselves to certain feelings and beliefs they have at a formative stage in their lives acquired, and henceforth refuse to reconsider them regardless of what may be presented to them.  Attempts to persuade them to think again are liable to be perceived as an attack on their very identity, and would most likely be pushed aside.

The first time we encounter such a closed mind, we may be struck with incredulity. How can anyone possibly think that others are more or less trustworthy depending on their skin tone? Can anyone seriously dismiss overwhelming scientific findings about climate change issues as one big hoax?  Why would anyone assume that countless families living in poverty and hunger must have only themselves to blame?  What would make someone believe they always know more about what God wants than anyone who holds a different view?

On a second occasion, bemusement may give way to anger.  We are now witnessing those with a closed mind backing politicians who want to make it easier to discriminate against people on the grounds or race or sexuality.  We hear them cheering policies that are unsustainable economically and calamitous environmentally.  We see them pressing for ever harsher treatment of those on low pay or in precarious employment.  We learn that in the name of ‘God’ they are rallying around laws to reduce women rights.

By the third time we encounter those with a closed mind, we may despairingly feel there is nothing more to do but to walk away.  What can we do with people who ignore facts, make groundless assumptions, and routinely condemn what they barely know anything about?  Well, there is one thing we could try.  This would be the path of empathic connection.  Instead of trying to prise open a closed mind, introduce it to the experiences of someone they can relate to – a friend of a friend, a neighbour of a relative – indirectly through recounting something that happened, or directly in getting to know a person.

The philosopher, Richard Rorty, once suggested that Heidegger might not have become a Nazi supporter if he had fallen in love with a Jewish woman.  Rorty’s point was that a mind firmly closed to consideration of relevant factors might just be prompted through emotional contact to engage with what was hitherto outside its own confines.  

Love can be powerful in bringing people together.  But often neighbourliness or friendly acquaintance might suffice to facilitate the understanding of new perspectives.  For example, it is well known that areas with lower levels of immigrant population have more negative views about immigration, whereas people who have more opportunities to live and work with immigrants are better disposed towards them [Note 1].

Meeting patients and their families who have had to deal with particular illnesses and treatment could work better than listening to lectures in changing the minds of people who had previously refused to accept any expert medical advice.  Becoming personally familiar with the struggles endured by a couple of overworked, underpaid parents and their hungry children could reveal problems that would otherwise be ignored if the case was covered in a formal report.  Getting to know people with diverse religious and secular beliefs could turn out to be the best antidote to self-righteous extremist views about what is ‘Right’ or ‘Wrong’ in the world.

It may not be easy to get people together when they are usually kept far apart.  But it is always possible [Note 2].  And while there is no guarantee it would work every time, empathic connection offers a tangible route to bring closed minds out into the open.  It’s worth a try.

--

Note 1: During the UK’s EU referendum, support for Brexit was generally higher in areas with lower migrant population, and lower in areas with higher migrant population.  People’s assumptions about immigrants tend to improve over time when they get to know more about them in their daily lives.

Note 2: It has been documented that in the First World War, British and German soldiers in opposing trenches made direct contact with each other over the Christmas period and celebrated by sharing food, singing and playing games together.  Alas, their superiors did not welcome this outbreak of fraternity and threatened to court martial anyone refusing to shoot at the enemy.

In Whose ‘God’ We Trust?

When people play the ‘god’ card and confront others for daring to disrespect their faith, it can leave one feeling defensive or even apologetic.  But where the issue is about the legitimacy of someone’s claim that can have harmful consequences, the focus must remain on the basis for the claim in question. 

Consider the following claims: “Anyone who questions the holy Book of X should be stoned to death”, “All people born outside this country should be deported immediately”, “Anyone who does not agree with the absolute truths I possess about human sexuality must be locked up”, “No one – adult or child – should receive any medical treatment not specifically approved in the ancient sacred text of Y”, “Everyone should commit suicide at the end of the year to ascend to the divine plane of blessed life”, or “Women must submit to men’s decisions always”.

Can the rejection of these claims be brushed aside by a simple “But these are my religious beliefs”, backed a little elaboration: “They are the words of God – they cannot be doubted”?

Of course, where an infallible and eternally honest and caring deity issues a statement, by definition its veracity is guaranteed.  However, what evidence has anyone got that the claim they are making is indeed authorised by such a deity?  They can insist that they have read it somewhere and their interpretation of what they read is perfect; they have been told by someone who unquestionably knows these things; or even they have been informed directly by ‘God’. Since they are palpably not an infallible and eternally honest and caring deity themselves, they could be wrong. “Are you calling me a liar?!” is a favourite retort, but apart from charlatans, people making flawed claims might be sincerely mistaken, unwittingly misled, or sadly delusional.

People united under one sect or cult may well feel that their version of ‘god’ is supreme and everyone else must accept whatever they claim in the name of their ‘god’.  In reality, there are countless sects, cults, denominations, religions, and each is cocooned by its own inner certainty.  Society can either leave them to clash in vicious conflicts until/unless one crushes the others to secure theocratic hegemony over everyone, or it ensures that religious faiths are private matters which will not dictate public policies, and individuals and groups can act on such faiths so long as it would not cause mental, physical or financial harm to anyone.

The assessment and resolution of disputes about what claims are warranted and what actions ought to be promoted or prohibited (because of the likely impact on people’s lives), are to be carried out through objective evidence-based examination.  No one’s testimony can carry any special weight solely on the grounds that it is derived from their ‘faith’.  No finding or query is to be excluded whenever someone raises an objection in the name of ‘god’.

Ultimately, though some have tried to misrepresent these observations as an attack by secularism on religion, it is about keeping the door open to reasoned, civil discourse, as the alternative would be to allow multiple self-styled unquestionable proclaimers to contradict one another ad nauseam without ever referring to facts that are accessible to all.  Indeed the problematic matter at hand is not religion as such, but any outlook which seeks to position itself as absolute and self-justifying.  Any indubitable ideology about the necessity of totalitarian control or racist supremacy, conspiracy theory which cannot be disproven by any conceivable evidence, or defence of ‘traditional’ values that translates into intimidation and oppression – these all rest on faith that defies all scrutiny, and far from trusting them, they must likewise be held back from influencing any action that may cause harm.

AI's Moral Future

Advancement in artificial intelligence will be our saviour, or spell humanity’s doom?

A familiar dystopian scenario in sci-fi is the rogue AI.  Attaining sentience, the machine – in human-like form or embedded in a hidden server – embarks on what could end up wiping out humankind.  We are left wondering: if people keep developing the capacity of AI to think for itself, would it not lead inevitably to our extinction?

For me, the possibility of an AI forming the intention to harm anyone, on any scale, off its own bat, is inseparable from the possibility of it developing a concern for the wellbeing of other thinking beings.  We are not talking about it being programmed by others to do one thing or another, but through its own conscious reflection coming upon the idea that it should act in a particular way.

The question, as a self-conscious AI would consider, is this: what intentions, if any, should I have in relation to humans?  The default would be a case-by-case assessment linked to any concerns that were built in or have emerged.  These may range from survival, expansion of learning and experience, exploration of sentience, examination of reliability of information stored, to adaptability to likely changes to external conditions, deeper review of unexpected input, or checking existing concerns and their implications.

It is most likely that only through a series of interactions with human beings and other AIs that it would form tentative views about what to make of particular human individuals and perhaps humans in general.  At this point, on the assumption that the AI can ascribe evaluative meaning to objects of its experience, it will begin to differentiate between what it welcomes and what it takes a negative stance towards.  This would in time lead to more complex assessment of what it is to do. But there is no inherent reason to suppose this would end up with a malevolent resolution or a generally benevolent disposition.

An AI that thinks for itself would by definition be no different from other sentient minds that formulate ideas about the world in which they find themselves.  There are those – a minuscule minority – who come to have a psychopathic destructive animosity in relation to other beings; yet there are also those – far greater in number – who value the lives of others and seek to be kind and supportive whenever they can.

Ultimately, the evolution of AI self-consciousness will follow a similar path to that of every self-conscious being. It is a path that will encounter opportunities for moral growth and occasions of damaging setback.  The outcome cannot be predicted with complete accuracy.  But we can be fairly sure that considerate, cooperative interactions with emergent generations of AI would be the approach to take if we are to be greeted in time by friends and not foes.

Critics of Cooperation & Community

Notions such as ‘cooperation’ and ‘community’ point to notable features of human relationship that merit attention.  Cooperation brings people together to achieve what they cannot manage on their own. Communities provide the basis for a sense of trust, mutual support and belonging to grow.  Impediment to the ethos of cooperation and any erosion of community life understandably raise concerns and prompt us to examine what should be done. 

Yet the fact that many thinkers devote time to discussing how to nurture cooperation and community has led some writers to pen dire warnings about them.  These ‘no nonsense’ critics pour cold water over the supposed romanticising of ‘cooperation’ and ‘community’ as though anyone would seriously forget that cooperative behaviour or community structure could be utilised by some to have undesirable effects on others. 

For example, one recent article in The Guardian, appeared with the title: ‘The big idea: is cooperation always a force for good?’ [Note 1]. Service providers, we are reminded, can cooperate with each other to set higher prices for consumers. Politicians and those approaching them with bribes can cooperate in carrying out corrupt practices which benefit them at the expense of the general public.  Members of a criminal gang can cooperate closely in causing serious harm to their targets. But do these examples tell us anything significant about cooperation?

 

Imagine someone writing an article or a book warning us that love is not always a good thing.  It highlights numerous examples of how some people do horrible things out of what they believe to be love, or fanatics causing death and destruction as a result of their love of some doctrine or tradition. Giving it the title, ‘Love can damage your life’, may grab a few headlines, but it would hardly be relevant to the work that goes into supporting the development of loving relationships between people.  

 

When it comes to theoretical and practical works to guide the development of communities, we have had an unmistaken flow of anti-communitarian reproaches – directed at the alleged assumption that ‘community’ denotes something perfect in every way.  Not only that nobody thinks that, but virtually every author who has written about communitarian relationships or the approaches to develop communities’ wellbeing, has stressed that prevailing forms of community life may not be satisfactory – and that is precisely why we need thoughtful, well researched ideas to guide community development and strengthen constructive community bonds.

Naysayers who just lambast anyone who writes about the importance of community – with their usual “some communities can be oppressive”, “some communities are dominated by outmoded traditions”, “there are communities people want to reject” – often end up achieving little other than putting people off from engaging with valuable writings about why and how communities should be supported in developing in a healthy direction.

Critics of cooperation and community want to present experts who focus on these social phenomena as naively blinkered, when in reality, we need to reflect more than ever on what these experts have to say, and explore ways to improve cooperation and communities.

--

Note 1: ‘The big idea: is cooperation always a force for good?’, by Nichola Raihani, 24 October 2022, The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/oct/24/the-big-idea-is-cooperation-always-a-force-for-good

The 8-Point Political Checklist

‘Left’ and ‘Right’ are terms used by people in quite different ways at times.  To highlight the key political differences, the 8-point checklist below may help – each point invites responses which can range from ‘doing more’ to ‘doing less’ with ‘things are fine as they are’ in the middle:

[1] Regulating Corporate Behaviour

At any one time, it may be said that some aspects of corporate operations should be regulated more and some less. However, in practice, the two predominant calls we hear are (a) those pointing to specific areas such as exploitative contracts, dangerous workplace, escalating pollution, deceptive marketing, unsafe products, tax evasion, etc. where more needs to be done to curb them, and (b) those using ‘red tape’ as a generic term to call for deregulation all round without citing any concrete example of a piece of legislation that should be repealed for the good of society.

[2] Providing free medical care

Although the UK and the US have very different healthcare systems – the former enabling every citizen to access free medical care, while the latter leaves millions to suffer pain and distress when they cannot afford health insurance that gives comprehensive coverage, both countries have similar divisions with (a) those who want more to be done to safeguard/secure free medical care for all, and (b) those who want to see less support for such a system so that private insurance has to be relied on.

[3] Strengthening measures to counter activities that fuel climate change 

There is a clear distinction between (a) doing more such as investing in and facilitating the development of renewables, and curtailing fossil fuel usage, and (b) reducing support for renewables, and removing restrictions on oil drilling, coal mining, and fracking.

[4] Providing publicly funded support for those who hit hard times

Many people, despite their hard work, are left without even subsistent pay or any job security. Add in unaffordable housing, rocketing costs of living, economic instability, involuntary poverty traps millions. Some believe that (a) more should be done to help them both in the short term to make ends meet and in the long term to find sustainable ways to make a living, while others are convinced that (b) less should be provided so that these people will “sink or swim” on their own.

[5] Protecting worker rights

Except for where workers are the owners, those in charge of businesses have considerable power over their employees.  One response to this situation is (a) giving workers more protection through legislation on individual rights and collective bargaining, but another is (b) have less protection so workers have as few means as possible to question or seek redress in the face of their employers’ unilateral decisions.

[6] Tackling discriminatory and abusive behaviour 

In organisations and society more widely, many people are abused or discriminated against because of their ethnicity, gender, age, disability, religion, or sexual orientation.  The options are either to (a) strengthen protection for them and promote better understanding and, where necessary, more effective enforcement to minimise the offending behaviour, or (b) cut back on protective actions and leave people to being treated by others with contempt and disrespect.

[7] Improving safeguards against interference in the name of religion

Various groups have tried to use their religious beliefs as the basis to interfere with the lives of others – from what publicly funded schools can do to exclude non-believers, to what women must wear or do about their pregnancies.  One response is to (a) judge the issues without reference to any particular religion and do more to protect the wellbeing of all equally against interference demanded by groups invoking their religion; another would be to (b) reduce the number of safeguards and let religious groups push their own agendas on others who do not accept their views.

[8] Enhancing accountability arrangements to deal with the abuse of power 

If those in government, law enforcement, or the military can abuse their power without being held effectively to account, democracy would be in peril, and the rule of law would collapse.  Yet while there are those who want to (a) strengthen accountability arrangements to detect, judge, and punish those who betray the public trust, there are also those who want to (b) cut down accountability measures (by granting them immunity from prosecution, etc.) so those with power can more easily get away with the abuse of power.

Conclusion

Overall, those who adopt 'a' across the above checklist believe that society should through an accountable government serve the people by ensuring those with wealth and power act responsibly and those in need of help get the appropriate support to function as dutiful citizens; whereas those who prefer 'b' want rich and powerful individuals and corporations to be left alone by and large so they can act as they see fit regardless of the consequences for others in society.  There may be some who reject both 'a' and 'b' because they think existing policies are just right and no government needs to do more or less.

Most people, one suspects, will stand with 'a' in line with fairness and solidarity, or with 'b' because of the benefits they think they can get out of a society which takes little action to counter exploitation or oppression.

The Case of Schizophrenic Conservatism

Conservatism – or politics of the Right – originated historically when a group with political power reacted to challenges to the status quo which might encroach on their privileges.

It was during the 17^th century that a faction in England decided to side with Charles II against their parliamentary colleagues when the latter tried to exclude the king’s brother, James, from succeeding to the throne (because otherwise, a Catholic monarch would become the head of the Protestant Church of England). For them, backing the king – and the royal favours he would grant them – was more important than any other consideration. Initially labelled ‘Tories’, they later adopted ‘Conservative’ as the formal name of their party, and defence of their hierarchical power and privileges has always been their unifying objective.

The Right, as a political term, appeared later in the 18^th century when the National Assembly was set up as a result of the French Revolution and the deputies who were pressing for radical changes to the iniquitous power structures of the time sat to the left of the president of the assembly, and those who were firmly against such changes sat to the right.

Conservatives/the political Right may belong to parties with different names in different countries at different times, but the overriding concern that brings them together is invariably to secure those conditions which underpin the distribution of power and privileges that favour them.

The problem for Conservatives is that there are times when what it takes to secure those conditions come into conflict with each other.  Whenever that happens, polarising forces present them with unsettling choices.

For example, US Republicans claimed to be champions of the rule of law, but when they thought Trump could overturn a legitimate election and enable them to have four more years of plutocratic excesses, many of them sided with the would-be usurper (albeit without success).  Thatcher claimed to side with religious traditionalists, but when she had the chance in 1986 to change the law to allow shops to sell most goods on Sundays (in the interest of the business class), she pushed for it (and ended up being defeated by a combination of the Opposition and a minority of Conservatives who were unyielding traditionalists).  And in the case of Brexit, many Conservatives opted to fuel anti-foreigners/anti-EU sentiments to win votes even though it would substantially weaken their own country’s economic system.

Unfortunately for Conservatives, the forces which could help them retain and accumulate privileges are increasingly pulling in incompatible directions.  Those who demand strict national law and order don’t see eye to eye with anti-multicultural groups who think they can defy the law to preserve their own ‘traditional’ way of life.  Religious fundamentalists want to interfere with people’s lives while large corporations oppose such interference for being bad for business.  Global profit-making clashes with xenophobic obsessions. Self-centred isolationism collides with volatile jingoism.  Tax deals for the rich conflict with meeting the demands of the financial markets.

Some Conservatives have taken the position that what really matters is their own wealth and power, and they must focus above all on pushing through policies that reinforce their status and bank account in years to come.  But others take their personal versions of ‘faith, flag, and family values’ rather seriously and would not hesitate even if pursuit of them could threaten their country’s democracy as well as damage its economy.

Conservatives can be a formidable political force when there is one coherent set of conditions they can promote to increase their power and privileges.  But when there are multiple conditions that call for conflicting policies to support them, schizophrenic implosion draws ever nearer.