A collective way of seeing

In discussions of both ethics and politics, there is a tendency to create a duality of “us” and “them”. In many contemporary discussions of ethics, this manifests as a focus on an individual’s duties and moral imperatives. In political discussions you see this within a single polity — in America you’ve got red/blue for instance. Increasingly I’ve been playing with a different view, one that seeks to collapse these dualities.

In considering ethical questions, this collective way of seeing views ethical choices as depending on the ecosystem of ethical choices humans as a whole are making. The individual perspective has a universalizing tendency - for example in Kantian ethics moral actions are those that can be willed into universal law. In this individualistic mode, there is a single right answer for everyone. It’s straightforward to realize, even within a utilitarian / EA type framework, that the answer for specific people at least partially depends on the choices everyone else is making. EAs talk about investing in neglected (but leveraged) cause areas — that is a kind of group level perspective. Not enough people are doing good in some specific way, and so we need more people at the margin to do good in that way. If every charitable donation was for anti-Malarial bed nets, surely sending money to your neglected local homeless shelter would make more sense at the margin. Evolutionary biologists sometimes talk about a mixed evolutionary stable strategy - that evolution can sometimes select not for animals with identical traits, but rather a population distribution of traits. In other words, to do the most good collectively, we need lots of different people trying lots of different things. When I hold this view, I feel a softening toward alternative ethical perspectives and gratitude that people with very different ideas of the good are trying stuff out.

In politics, this view recognizes that there are no final victories where we eliminate the opposition. Ultimately, we are all stuck with each other and have to find a way to live together. It also recognizes that we are all responsible for one another. In the Talmud there is the idea that all Jews are responsible for each other. We can expand that moral circle further and, for example, consider that as Americans we are all in some sense responsible for each other. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that there are no civilians and we all share total collective blame for every injustice committed in our name¹. But we can stop making the mental move that separates us from them - like when liberals travel abroad and declaim their hatred of Trump - don’t worry, I’m not one of those Americans. We are those Americans, all of us. When I hold this view, I can feel a softening toward “them”, and desire to seek to understand, and a growing appreciation for what their unique viewpoints bring into an ecosystem of beliefs. It would likely be bad if everyone had the exact same politics (even if they were the politics I personally agree with), likely even worse than things seem to be now.

Now, as with all views, one must be cautious to avoid totalizing monomania. There is a clear failure mode here. In ethics, this tolerance could lead to tolerance for harmful, fundamentalist, or extreme ethical views. Do we really need ethical views that lead to the subjugation or denial of freedom of others, as some religious traditions demand? We can hold the collective view while at the same time inquiring as to the right balance of ethical beliefs and whether we’ve achieved it. We can still advocate for some people to move in one direction or another based on our view of the whole. In politics, the danger of recognizing that “us” and “them” are actually a larger “us” is to unreasonably demand that subjugated people give up their demands in the name of a greater harmony. It seems cruel to demand that the target of some historical hatred should break bread with those that hate them. Those on the other side of the power imbalance are the ones that need to hear this message of unity first. At some point, farther down the road of reconciliation, we might enjoin people to forgive, but the imperative of the first move surely doesn’t lie with the oppressed. At the same time, I worry that there can be an unproductive clinging to that dichotomy. It’s like a rich Buddhist telling people in extreme privation that they should simply let go of attachments to reduce their suffering instead of lending a helping hand, even if letting go will serve them better ultimately. Maybe this is a bullet someone (from these communities) should bite — maybe someone should tell the hated and the haters alike to merge; maybe we should tell the poor to let go of attachments. But it almost certainly shouldn’t be me.

1. Remember, views are meant to be held lightly.