So, the day has arrived and I'm about to go and cast my vote. I was quite uncertain at the start of this process, but I have over the last few weeks come to the conclusion that I must vote for Remain. Whilst there are some potentially positive outcomes for Brexit over the long term, I'm not convinced they are very likely, and feel they are outweighed quite strongly by longer terms risks combined with the almost certain short to medium term costs of leaving, in terms of lost jobs and incomes and damage to public services.
I have already discussed the social, economic and environmental issues that are most important to me in reaching my decision about the long-term costs and benefits of Brexit. However, there are of course practical issues relating to how Brexit might affect me personally, and also the more psychological and emotional reasons that drive people to believe one thing are another, that I am certainly not immune to.
It would be dishonest of me not to highlight purely selfish reasons for why I will be very relieved if I wake up tomorrow to discover that we have decided to remain in the EU. The most immediate relates to the damage it will do to the pound. Britain already has a very high current account deficit and so we rely on large capital inflows from aboard to plug the gap. Brexit is almost certain to stem that flow, precipitating a sharp drop in the value of Stirling. I earn my rather modest freelance income through work done for British employers. However, I am planning to spend more time living and working from abroad in the coming years, maybe even in buying some land. A permanent devaluation of the pound would therefore make me financially worse off in a very direct and immediate way. Of course everyone in the UK would feel this to some extent as the imports we rely on so heavily become more expensive and prices in the shops rise accordingly.
My parents who live in Germany and rely in large part on my father's UK pension will also suffer the consequences of weaker pound. They also have concerns about how a Brexit might affect my fathers's access to health care, although my mother who is German might be less affected. A vote to remain would clearly be better for them, and another reason why both they and I will be relieved by a Remain outcome.
Another obvious concern is the potential effect that a Leave outcome would have on my own income earning capacity. I work predominantly in the higher education sector in an area related to international aid and development, and whilst it is difficult to predict how different parts of each of those sector might be affected by a Brexit, I would be very surprised if the net effect were anything other than negative. I will feel genuinely less secure, financially, if we do vote to leave.
Looking towards the longer term, say, 20 years from now, I will have retired and be more dependant than I am now on public services, such as health care, and of course the state pension. I don't think the future looks particularly bright in those areas, even without a Brexit, however, I'm fairly sure that a Brexit will make older people even more vulnerable than they already are, unless that is, it triggers a radical shift to the left in British politics and the way we run our economy. But, as I've said in previous posts I am not particularly confident that a Brexit will have that effect, although I don't think it is impossible.
One thing that has struck me about this referendum is how well it has demonstrated a deep human need to believe and belong. In our pluralistic, secular, post-modern, and increasingly cynical society there is so little to believe in, and with everything changing so rapidly - from culture to technology, the nature of work and the people who live around you - it is increasingly hard to know where you belong. Many of the commentators have summed the referendum up as being all about identity and I agree.
It is taken me a while to find my identity in this debate, but I did find it eventually - I belong to Remain and believe we ought to stay in the EU, at least for now. Having discovered that identity, partly through rational analysis, but also through how I felt emotionally about real people making arguments on either side of the debate, I have found myself being quite protective and defensive of that identity. I think I was emotionally a bit more attached to Remain from the start, so perhaps my mind was already made up and I went out to find the evidence to support that view, rather than examining the issue in truly objective and dispassionate way? I don't know. I have tried to be objective.
The final decision which I am just about to go and vote for has been made easier by the fact that I have had a very clear starting point, which is that of someone with a leaning towards leftist politics and environmental concerns. Whilst there have been advocates for Brexit from that side of the political spectrum, the majority do seem to have shifted towards Remain. There are a few notable exceptions, such Larry Elliott of the Guardian, and Bill Mitchell, but most have now sided with Remain despite deep reservations. So maybe I am after all, just following 'my crowd', the people I feel I belong to, and the things they believe in. Anyway, here goes....
Thursday 23 June 2016
Wednesday 22 June 2016
Brexit 3 (Environment)
Who do I trust more on the environment? The European Union or the governments that British citizens vote for? The truth is that I don't trust either, but if I had to select one over the other I would side with the EU for the reasons that George Monbiot has articulated here and here. That might be different if I had greater confidence in the capacity of the British electoral system to deliver a government of a radical green/left persuasion. But I don't have such confidence. Instead I fear that the environment will drop further down the list of priorities as a post-Brexit government deregulates in a desperate attempt to maintain the competitiveness of UK businesses and the attractiveness of Britain for foreign investors for whom access to EU markets is no longer one of the benefits of investing in this country.
On the much bigger issue of climate change I see little chance of progress unless nation states, especially smaller ones, engage with each other via negotiating blocs. The EU, acting on behalf of European countries, has performed that function relatively well in recent decades. There is little reason to think that disrupting existing arrangements for negotiating collective agreements with other parts of the world would lead to better outcomes as far as avoiding the worst effects of climate change is concerned. That's not to say alternative arrangements could never exist or that Britain outside the EU could not act with the EU in climate deals. It's merely to say that concern about climate change doesn't offer a strong argument for leaving the EU. On the contrary, if Brexit is a catalyst for the long-term collapse of the EU, it could seriously undermine joint action on climate change, especially if the fragmentation of the EU strengthens the forces of nationalism and intra-European political tension.
As far as I can see, the only environmental argument for Brexit rests on a fairly apocalyptic view of the future in which we are already much closer to a global climate catastrophe than almost anyone is prepared to acknowledge. In this view, the only possibility of saving the planet from such a fate is if the global economy enters a state of rapid collapse, leading to a massive contraction in production and the associated consumption of fossil fuels. Could Brexit be part of that process? Very few would wish to make such a claim. Moreover, the obvious response to it would be that the destabilising effects of such a precipitous economic collapse could unleash the most environmentally destructive force of all: nuclear war.
It is tempting to imagine Brexit representing a global process of benign localisation in which the destructive forces of global capitalist expansion are reigned in, and where community, economy, and environmental impact once again share a common boundary, as has been the case for most of our history as a species. This would make the causes of environmental and social problems more visible than they are at the moment and therefore potentially easier to solve. Unfortunately, the complexity and interconnectedness of the global economy, and our total dependence upon it for survival, has reached such a high level that it is hard to envisage an orderly process of contraction. Localisation, if it occurs, is, it seems to me, most likely to be traumatic and involuntary, and driven by forces beyond anyone's control. Whether there are any environmental pay-offs to be had from such a process may again depend upon our ability to avoid nuclear war, which, according to those who study such things, still lies just ahead of climate change as the number one planetary threat.
In conclusion, environmental concerns push me more towards remain than leave. I am in little doubt that human civilisation as we know it faces a number of existential threats, some of them relating to ecological collapse and others connected to intrinsic problems within capitalism itself. It is hard not to feel pessimistic about our trajectory as a species, irrespective of whether or not Britain remains part of the EU. Complex international cooperation is needed to save our global civilisation and the ecological foundations upon which it rests. Whether or not the EU and Britain's membership of it are the best way to facilitate international cooperation is unclear to me. However, I'm certainly not convinced that undermining the EU at this point in time in the hope of replacing it with something better is likely to be more fruitful than attempting to reform it from within.
On the much bigger issue of climate change I see little chance of progress unless nation states, especially smaller ones, engage with each other via negotiating blocs. The EU, acting on behalf of European countries, has performed that function relatively well in recent decades. There is little reason to think that disrupting existing arrangements for negotiating collective agreements with other parts of the world would lead to better outcomes as far as avoiding the worst effects of climate change is concerned. That's not to say alternative arrangements could never exist or that Britain outside the EU could not act with the EU in climate deals. It's merely to say that concern about climate change doesn't offer a strong argument for leaving the EU. On the contrary, if Brexit is a catalyst for the long-term collapse of the EU, it could seriously undermine joint action on climate change, especially if the fragmentation of the EU strengthens the forces of nationalism and intra-European political tension.
As far as I can see, the only environmental argument for Brexit rests on a fairly apocalyptic view of the future in which we are already much closer to a global climate catastrophe than almost anyone is prepared to acknowledge. In this view, the only possibility of saving the planet from such a fate is if the global economy enters a state of rapid collapse, leading to a massive contraction in production and the associated consumption of fossil fuels. Could Brexit be part of that process? Very few would wish to make such a claim. Moreover, the obvious response to it would be that the destabilising effects of such a precipitous economic collapse could unleash the most environmentally destructive force of all: nuclear war.
It is tempting to imagine Brexit representing a global process of benign localisation in which the destructive forces of global capitalist expansion are reigned in, and where community, economy, and environmental impact once again share a common boundary, as has been the case for most of our history as a species. This would make the causes of environmental and social problems more visible than they are at the moment and therefore potentially easier to solve. Unfortunately, the complexity and interconnectedness of the global economy, and our total dependence upon it for survival, has reached such a high level that it is hard to envisage an orderly process of contraction. Localisation, if it occurs, is, it seems to me, most likely to be traumatic and involuntary, and driven by forces beyond anyone's control. Whether there are any environmental pay-offs to be had from such a process may again depend upon our ability to avoid nuclear war, which, according to those who study such things, still lies just ahead of climate change as the number one planetary threat.
In conclusion, environmental concerns push me more towards remain than leave. I am in little doubt that human civilisation as we know it faces a number of existential threats, some of them relating to ecological collapse and others connected to intrinsic problems within capitalism itself. It is hard not to feel pessimistic about our trajectory as a species, irrespective of whether or not Britain remains part of the EU. Complex international cooperation is needed to save our global civilisation and the ecological foundations upon which it rests. Whether or not the EU and Britain's membership of it are the best way to facilitate international cooperation is unclear to me. However, I'm certainly not convinced that undermining the EU at this point in time in the hope of replacing it with something better is likely to be more fruitful than attempting to reform it from within.
Tuesday 21 June 2016
Brexit 2 (Society)
Well, with only two days left until the vote, I have left this post until pretty much the last moment, but that will hopefully result in a clearer assessment than if I had posted early on the in the debate.
In my previous post I listed three very broad criteria that are important to me:
1. The well-being of myself, family and friends
2. The nature of the society in which I live (ie social cohesion, individual freedom, well-being of the wider population)
3. Protection of nature and the environment (locally, nationally, and globally)
In this post I will examine the second. One thing that has become very clear to me is that social cohesion has suffered from this referendum before any votes have even been cast. The debate has been tribal, with people dividing themselves into opposing groups and engaging in a verbal jousting contest with seemingly little interest in, or respect, for evidence, logic, or thoughtful analysis. The political leaders in the contest and their referees in the media have ensured that the outcome of the referendum will have little to do with informed decision making, but will rest instead on a combination of vacuous or deliberately deceptive rhetoric, personality, and chance.
One of the key arguments of the Leave campaign is that in exiting the EU Britain will regain full democratic control. However, democracy depends on having an informed electorate. The appalling quality of the 'information' and 'misinformation' presented to British voters in this referendum, and indeed in recent general elections, have convinced me that giving greater power to the UK parliament offers little benefit at this time. It can only serve to divide society even more than it already is.
The divisions in this country are essentially due to economic inequality, which is caused not by immigration, but by a social and economic system that rewards disproportionately those who are lucky enough to have well paid employment or sizable assets. I fear that if Britain leaves the EU that divisive tendency is likely to strengthen. It is a tendency that is increasing globally, but finds its strongest support in the the US and the UK - especially amongst those involved in the Brexit campaign. Much of our media and most of the politicians on the Leave are extremely hostile to policies that could lead to a less unequal society, such as more progressive taxation, stronger safety nets and worker protections, and greater public investment. The only way I could envisage Brexit paving the way for such policies would be if the economic consequences of Brexit were so dire as to give victory to Corbyn's Labour party at the next general election. Freed from EU shackles which constrain policy movements both towards the right and the left, a Corbyn led government could, perhaps, turn Brexit into a force for social progress.
However, there is no guarantee that the left would be the beneficiary of major economic turmoil. A further lurch to the right is equally probable. As much as I would like to see a Corbyn government, voting to Leave so as to crash the economy in the hope that Corbyn, rather than Farage, will pick up the pieces is too much of a gamble. Sadly I don't trust British voters or the motives of the press and mainstream media.
Some say that it is immigration that causes divisions in society, both here in the UK and elsewhere, and that controlling immigration will ease tension. I don't believe it. Hostility towards immigrants is a symptom of our unbalanced economy and the inequality it creates. Immigrants are an obvious scapegoat when people feel neglected or insecure and they will remain the target of hostility as long as people fail to understand the underlying causes of their predicament. I'm not convinced that anti-immigrant feeling will diminish even if the inflow of migrants were to slow following a Brexit.
Greater public investment in housing and public services, as well as in education, jobs and infrastructure could solve many of the problems that immigration is perceived to be contributing towards. Brexit on its own is unlikely to do that. Indeed if the majority of economists are to be believed it can only make the problem worse by reducing jobs, creating greater unemployment, and reducing the tax revenues needed to make such investments.
Social cohesion more broadly across Europe and the World is also an important consideration in evaluating the relative merits of Leave and Remain. This is a much harder problem to wrestle with. It depends upon the wider economic and political impact of Brexit which is hard to assess. Brexit could conceivably create the impetus for much needed reform of the EU, and the Eurozone in particular, which might strengthen European economies, thereby reducing some of the social pressures associated with economic stagnation. On the other hand it could lead to the total break up the EU as populist politicians elsewhere take inspiration from the UK, thus paving the way for increasing numbers of right wing nationalist governments outside the EU. It is hard to predict where that might lead but it is not unreasonable to see worrying parallels with the 1930s and the eventual outbreak of World War II.
Is it possible for the EU to dissolve without creating such catastrophic outcomes? I don't know. It depends upon the economic effects. The greater the severity of the economic impact the less likely it is turn out well socially and politically. I suspect that most economists would expect the economic consequences of a relatively rapid break up of the EU to be severe at best, and most likely catastrophic, affecting not only the EU, but the whole world. Of course the EU may dissolve more slowly or it may not dissolve at all. Brexit's impact on the EU could even be benign, but again, I think the downside risks of a malign outcome are too great to justify voting to leave on that basis. My guess is that the EU is already in terminal decline. However, a gradual decline is surely less risky than a speedy one. Admittedly I don't know whether Brexit will speed up the process or slow it down, although I'm inclined towards the former.
In conclusion, there is not much in all of this that suggests leaving would be a good thing. The most salient risks lie in a Brexit, whilst the potential benefits would require me to make some fairly heroic assumptions about the quality of British democracy and the potentially benign repercussions of Britain's departure from the EU.
In my previous post I listed three very broad criteria that are important to me:
1. The well-being of myself, family and friends
2. The nature of the society in which I live (ie social cohesion, individual freedom, well-being of the wider population)
3. Protection of nature and the environment (locally, nationally, and globally)
In this post I will examine the second. One thing that has become very clear to me is that social cohesion has suffered from this referendum before any votes have even been cast. The debate has been tribal, with people dividing themselves into opposing groups and engaging in a verbal jousting contest with seemingly little interest in, or respect, for evidence, logic, or thoughtful analysis. The political leaders in the contest and their referees in the media have ensured that the outcome of the referendum will have little to do with informed decision making, but will rest instead on a combination of vacuous or deliberately deceptive rhetoric, personality, and chance.
One of the key arguments of the Leave campaign is that in exiting the EU Britain will regain full democratic control. However, democracy depends on having an informed electorate. The appalling quality of the 'information' and 'misinformation' presented to British voters in this referendum, and indeed in recent general elections, have convinced me that giving greater power to the UK parliament offers little benefit at this time. It can only serve to divide society even more than it already is.
The divisions in this country are essentially due to economic inequality, which is caused not by immigration, but by a social and economic system that rewards disproportionately those who are lucky enough to have well paid employment or sizable assets. I fear that if Britain leaves the EU that divisive tendency is likely to strengthen. It is a tendency that is increasing globally, but finds its strongest support in the the US and the UK - especially amongst those involved in the Brexit campaign. Much of our media and most of the politicians on the Leave are extremely hostile to policies that could lead to a less unequal society, such as more progressive taxation, stronger safety nets and worker protections, and greater public investment. The only way I could envisage Brexit paving the way for such policies would be if the economic consequences of Brexit were so dire as to give victory to Corbyn's Labour party at the next general election. Freed from EU shackles which constrain policy movements both towards the right and the left, a Corbyn led government could, perhaps, turn Brexit into a force for social progress.
However, there is no guarantee that the left would be the beneficiary of major economic turmoil. A further lurch to the right is equally probable. As much as I would like to see a Corbyn government, voting to Leave so as to crash the economy in the hope that Corbyn, rather than Farage, will pick up the pieces is too much of a gamble. Sadly I don't trust British voters or the motives of the press and mainstream media.
Some say that it is immigration that causes divisions in society, both here in the UK and elsewhere, and that controlling immigration will ease tension. I don't believe it. Hostility towards immigrants is a symptom of our unbalanced economy and the inequality it creates. Immigrants are an obvious scapegoat when people feel neglected or insecure and they will remain the target of hostility as long as people fail to understand the underlying causes of their predicament. I'm not convinced that anti-immigrant feeling will diminish even if the inflow of migrants were to slow following a Brexit.
Greater public investment in housing and public services, as well as in education, jobs and infrastructure could solve many of the problems that immigration is perceived to be contributing towards. Brexit on its own is unlikely to do that. Indeed if the majority of economists are to be believed it can only make the problem worse by reducing jobs, creating greater unemployment, and reducing the tax revenues needed to make such investments.
Social cohesion more broadly across Europe and the World is also an important consideration in evaluating the relative merits of Leave and Remain. This is a much harder problem to wrestle with. It depends upon the wider economic and political impact of Brexit which is hard to assess. Brexit could conceivably create the impetus for much needed reform of the EU, and the Eurozone in particular, which might strengthen European economies, thereby reducing some of the social pressures associated with economic stagnation. On the other hand it could lead to the total break up the EU as populist politicians elsewhere take inspiration from the UK, thus paving the way for increasing numbers of right wing nationalist governments outside the EU. It is hard to predict where that might lead but it is not unreasonable to see worrying parallels with the 1930s and the eventual outbreak of World War II.
Is it possible for the EU to dissolve without creating such catastrophic outcomes? I don't know. It depends upon the economic effects. The greater the severity of the economic impact the less likely it is turn out well socially and politically. I suspect that most economists would expect the economic consequences of a relatively rapid break up of the EU to be severe at best, and most likely catastrophic, affecting not only the EU, but the whole world. Of course the EU may dissolve more slowly or it may not dissolve at all. Brexit's impact on the EU could even be benign, but again, I think the downside risks of a malign outcome are too great to justify voting to leave on that basis. My guess is that the EU is already in terminal decline. However, a gradual decline is surely less risky than a speedy one. Admittedly I don't know whether Brexit will speed up the process or slow it down, although I'm inclined towards the former.
In conclusion, there is not much in all of this that suggests leaving would be a good thing. The most salient risks lie in a Brexit, whilst the potential benefits would require me to make some fairly heroic assumptions about the quality of British democracy and the potentially benign repercussions of Britain's departure from the EU.
Friday 11 March 2016
Brexit 1 (How to vote?)
This year I will have the opportunity to vote for Britain to remain in the EU or leave it. How can I possibly make such a decision?
This will be the first of a number of posts in which I shall try and break the question down systematically in the hope of finding an answer. It is likely that I will be heavily influenced by the positions taken by people I trust and respect, and, in a rather perverse way, by the positions of people I have very little time for. Such influence will constantly intervene in the way I interpret the debate, both intellectually and emotionally. It will to some extent determine which arguments I hear and which I do not. I wish to avoid such bias as much as I can, and this can probably be best achieved by providing a methodical and transparent account of how I reach my decision, assuming I am able to come to a decision, which is by no means guaranteed. I may decide not to vote.
I shall begin by asking the following question. What do I care about that membership of the EU might affect?
Here's a simple response:
1. The well-being of myself, family and friends
2. The nature of the society in which I live (ie social cohesion, individual freedom, well-being of the wider population)
3. Protection of nature and the environment (locally, nationally, and globally)
These may sound obvious and rather vague priorities, but one has to start somewhere. Notably absent from my list is any reference to the economy or democracy, not because these are unimportant, but because they are means to an end, rather than ends in themselves. I shall return to these in subsequent posts.
Now, it is probably true to say that the three criteria in my list are to some extent linked. I think my own well-being (1) is likely to be enhanced by success with regards to (2) and (3). However, I can also conceive of scenarios in which, even if Britain's EU referendum result is consistent with large strides in these two areas, I might still end up being personally worse off as a result of the referendum. I think it is therefore legitimate to treat (1) separately from (2) and (3). In (1) my concern is largely self-centred, whereas, in trying to evaluate the impact of EU membership on (2) and (3) I am seeking to be a good citizen and giving some weight to issues which may or may not affect me directly.
It is probably also fair to say that (2) and (3) are closely connected, especially in the longer term. Again, though, it is helpful to treat these criteria independently because one does not guarantee the other. Certainly there is some minimum level of environmental protection required for human society to thrive, although how low that minimum can be is highly contentious. At the same time, it is also possible to conceive of situations where nature and the environment flourish at the expense of society, or alternatively, where society thrives at the expense of nature - at least within certain geographic and temporal boundaries.
Ideally, of course, I am seeking a referendum outcome that strengthens all of my three priorities simultaneously. That said, even if I do reach reasonably firm conclusions about how Brexit might affect my key areas of concern, I have to face up to the fact that there may be trade-offs. Continued membership may deliver in some areas but not in others. I will therefore need to attach some implicit weight to each of my priorities. What's more, within each of my broad criteria there are numerous sub-criteria that will also have to be weighted.
It would of course be dishonest of me to suggest that the weight I attach to voting as a good citizen and decent human being takes precedent over voting on a purely selfish basis. I am hoping that the trade-offs won't appear too large, if there are any, but at present that is still uncharted territory. I shall explore further in future posts.
This will be the first of a number of posts in which I shall try and break the question down systematically in the hope of finding an answer. It is likely that I will be heavily influenced by the positions taken by people I trust and respect, and, in a rather perverse way, by the positions of people I have very little time for. Such influence will constantly intervene in the way I interpret the debate, both intellectually and emotionally. It will to some extent determine which arguments I hear and which I do not. I wish to avoid such bias as much as I can, and this can probably be best achieved by providing a methodical and transparent account of how I reach my decision, assuming I am able to come to a decision, which is by no means guaranteed. I may decide not to vote.
I shall begin by asking the following question. What do I care about that membership of the EU might affect?
Here's a simple response:
1. The well-being of myself, family and friends
2. The nature of the society in which I live (ie social cohesion, individual freedom, well-being of the wider population)
3. Protection of nature and the environment (locally, nationally, and globally)
These may sound obvious and rather vague priorities, but one has to start somewhere. Notably absent from my list is any reference to the economy or democracy, not because these are unimportant, but because they are means to an end, rather than ends in themselves. I shall return to these in subsequent posts.
Now, it is probably true to say that the three criteria in my list are to some extent linked. I think my own well-being (1) is likely to be enhanced by success with regards to (2) and (3). However, I can also conceive of scenarios in which, even if Britain's EU referendum result is consistent with large strides in these two areas, I might still end up being personally worse off as a result of the referendum. I think it is therefore legitimate to treat (1) separately from (2) and (3). In (1) my concern is largely self-centred, whereas, in trying to evaluate the impact of EU membership on (2) and (3) I am seeking to be a good citizen and giving some weight to issues which may or may not affect me directly.
It is probably also fair to say that (2) and (3) are closely connected, especially in the longer term. Again, though, it is helpful to treat these criteria independently because one does not guarantee the other. Certainly there is some minimum level of environmental protection required for human society to thrive, although how low that minimum can be is highly contentious. At the same time, it is also possible to conceive of situations where nature and the environment flourish at the expense of society, or alternatively, where society thrives at the expense of nature - at least within certain geographic and temporal boundaries.
Ideally, of course, I am seeking a referendum outcome that strengthens all of my three priorities simultaneously. That said, even if I do reach reasonably firm conclusions about how Brexit might affect my key areas of concern, I have to face up to the fact that there may be trade-offs. Continued membership may deliver in some areas but not in others. I will therefore need to attach some implicit weight to each of my priorities. What's more, within each of my broad criteria there are numerous sub-criteria that will also have to be weighted.
It would of course be dishonest of me to suggest that the weight I attach to voting as a good citizen and decent human being takes precedent over voting on a purely selfish basis. I am hoping that the trade-offs won't appear too large, if there are any, but at present that is still uncharted territory. I shall explore further in future posts.
Friday 27 November 2015
Bombs and morality
The universal notion of good and evil has been around a
long time, yet it is easy to suggest that the concept is entirely
subjective, depending greatly upon cultural and historical context. ‘Evil’ is simply that which elicits feelings
of revulsion, horror, and fear. ‘Good’, by contrast, inspires feelings of love,
approval, and trust. Thus, given the
diversity of human experience and culture, what is perceived as good in one
context, could quite conceivably be viewed as evil in a different setting. The present conflict between ‘ISIS’ and the ‘West’
may be an example of this.
I don't believe in the ‘good versus evil’ dichotomy,
especially when used to justify political decisions. In the mouths of political
leaders it becomes a rhetorical device that excuses knee-jerk reactions and
lazy thinking. The ‘absolutist’ overtones associated with it are an obstacle to finding common ground across cultural divides - which is important in an increasingly connected
world. If one is to justify political
decisions on moral grounds (which is what politicians are always trying to do),
then it is worth thinking more carefully about what morality actually is, and
where the boundaries between different types of morality lie.
To this end, the work
of social psychologist, Jonathan Haidt, is useful. In his book ‘The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion’, he
identifies 6 foundations of morality for which there is evidence in most cultures around the world. These include
1. care/harm
2. fairness/ cheating
3. loyalty/betrayal
4. authority/subversion
5. sanctity/ degradation,
6. liberty/ oppression
The world was
outraged by the atrocities carried out by ISIS in Paris recently. The harm (1)
caused was unequivocal. Supporters of ISIS justify it on the
basis of other moral criteria, such as (2), which can be also be interpreted in
terms of reciprocity, including the reciprocation of harm - an eye for
and eye, and a tooth for a tooth. ISIS
claims it is repaying the West for atrocities it has perpetrated against
Muslims (in Afghanistan, Iraq etc) and as such it is also invoking (3) which is
about showing group solidarity. Items
4, 5, and 6 are also called upon - the West has subverted religious
authority (4), degraded the sanctity associated with that authority (5), and supported
the oppression (6) of 'Muslim brothers' (notably Palestinians at the hands of Israel).
What then of the West’s position? What is the moral
justification for bombing ISIS? Applying the care/harm criteria in isolation suggests that such an action would be immoral. It’s short and medium term
effect will be to cause horrific
injuries and large numbers of deaths, just as was the case with the ISIS
attacks in Paris. Advocates of bombing may claim that this harm is justified
on the basis of future harm averted, although there is little evidence to
support this. Indeed, the evidence of recent history all points in precisely the
opposite direction – that western military intervention greatly increases the
scale of death and human suffering on all sides. No political leader could honestly justify
bombing Syria on the basis of (1). Instead
they must appeal to other moral criteria.
Revenge (2) has an understandably strong appeal amongst
those immediately affected by the ISIS attacks, namely, the French. Fairness and punishment are often intertwined
in the moral codes that govern human affairs. The French President, Francoise
Hollande seeks active British support for the retaliation already being
undertaken by French bombers, and, in playing the loyalty card (3) he has found a
receptive audience in British Prime minister, David Cameron. Cameron, wants to use British bombs to demonstrate
solidarity with the French, a group with
whom the British share many common values. He is also appealing to (2) in calling
for Britain to contribute it’s ‘fair’ share in the fight against terrorism.
The attacks in Paris are clearly a subversion of authority (4), and whilst bombs on Syria are unlikely to deter future subversions of this sort, they do at least give the appearance of regaining some control, which is important for those who believe that there is something intrinsically moral about the existing social order. Insofar as liberal values are viewed as sacrosanct by many in the west, and given the extremely oppressive nature of the ISIS regime in the territories that it controls, moral authority for a bombing campaign might also be sought in (5) and (6).
The attacks in Paris are clearly a subversion of authority (4), and whilst bombs on Syria are unlikely to deter future subversions of this sort, they do at least give the appearance of regaining some control, which is important for those who believe that there is something intrinsically moral about the existing social order. Insofar as liberal values are viewed as sacrosanct by many in the west, and given the extremely oppressive nature of the ISIS regime in the territories that it controls, moral authority for a bombing campaign might also be sought in (5) and (6).
What strikes me in thinking about bombs in this way, is how
similar the moral arguments for bombing ISIS are to those that one might expect to hear from people who defend ISIS. However, both sides seriously contravene what
is in my view the most important foundation of morality, which is to care for
fellow human beings and avoid harming them.
It is worth noting that moralities based upon group loyalty and shared values are fickle and dynamic. British solidarity with the French may seem appropriate now, but could quickly evaporate in the face of different challenges. The morality of punishment and revenge which is built on the foundations of reciprocity is currently very powerful. Yet, bombing punishes the innocent as well as the guilty, and is arguably the very response that ISIS is trying to elicit. Punishment is a weak foundation upon which to build a moral case for violence.
Surely, then, in any honest and genuine appeal to moral authority, the care/harm criteria must trump all others, unless there is strong evidence to suggest that adherence to those other moralities benefits the care/harm criteria in the longer term. In many cases it clearly does. Much harm would be done if people had no sense of loyalty or fairness. But in this case the evidence is very weak, and so too, therefore, is the moral argument for dropping bombs on ISIS-held territory in Syria. From a moral standpoint, Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the opposition, is absolutely right to stand firm against pressure to endorse those bombs.
It is worth noting that moralities based upon group loyalty and shared values are fickle and dynamic. British solidarity with the French may seem appropriate now, but could quickly evaporate in the face of different challenges. The morality of punishment and revenge which is built on the foundations of reciprocity is currently very powerful. Yet, bombing punishes the innocent as well as the guilty, and is arguably the very response that ISIS is trying to elicit. Punishment is a weak foundation upon which to build a moral case for violence.
Surely, then, in any honest and genuine appeal to moral authority, the care/harm criteria must trump all others, unless there is strong evidence to suggest that adherence to those other moralities benefits the care/harm criteria in the longer term. In many cases it clearly does. Much harm would be done if people had no sense of loyalty or fairness. But in this case the evidence is very weak, and so too, therefore, is the moral argument for dropping bombs on ISIS-held territory in Syria. From a moral standpoint, Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the opposition, is absolutely right to stand firm against pressure to endorse those bombs.
Tuesday 17 November 2015
Paris
Paris has been making the headlines over the last few days and it is hard not to reflect upon the awful events that took place there last Friday and their implications. Events such as this shift the boundaries that I was talking about yesterday, temporarily, in some cases, but often more permanently. For those left injured or bereaved by the killings, life will never be the same again - they will forever see the world through different eyes. For those of us more distant from the suffering, life will probably go on much as before, at least for the time-being. That said, the twists and turns of history are unpredictable and sometimes the road bends sharply without us noticing... until it is too late.
For politicians and senior policy makers this is clearly a critical moment, especially in France, but elsewhere too. How they respond will, in some way or other, change the course of history. Whether the resulting deflection is major or minor, for better or for worse, may depend upon what is truly motivating our leaders and those that influence them. Are their reactions governed by emotion or reason, altruism or self-interest? Is anger and outrage so great as to deny the possibility of a clear headed analysis of the costs and benefits of different policy responses? How many politicians really believe that an aggressive response to terrorism will make us safer? How does domestic politics affect the calculus? How big is the gap between 'being strong' and 'appearing strong'? It seems to me that now is one of those times when political leaders (and journalists, too) need to think very consciously about what motivates their own personal and collective reactions to the terrible events in Paris. It might also be helpful if they focused more clearly on what motivates ISIS and the people it recruits.
Despite what the headlines currently suggest, the boundary between good and evil has always been negotiable and porous. Good people do bad things, bad people do good things; few people are truly evil and there are very few saints. However, times like these test the balance between good and evil. They risk pushing us into a world where good people are more likely to do bad things, and where genuinely bad people find increasing opportunities to prosper.
For politicians and senior policy makers this is clearly a critical moment, especially in France, but elsewhere too. How they respond will, in some way or other, change the course of history. Whether the resulting deflection is major or minor, for better or for worse, may depend upon what is truly motivating our leaders and those that influence them. Are their reactions governed by emotion or reason, altruism or self-interest? Is anger and outrage so great as to deny the possibility of a clear headed analysis of the costs and benefits of different policy responses? How many politicians really believe that an aggressive response to terrorism will make us safer? How does domestic politics affect the calculus? How big is the gap between 'being strong' and 'appearing strong'? It seems to me that now is one of those times when political leaders (and journalists, too) need to think very consciously about what motivates their own personal and collective reactions to the terrible events in Paris. It might also be helpful if they focused more clearly on what motivates ISIS and the people it recruits.
Despite what the headlines currently suggest, the boundary between good and evil has always been negotiable and porous. Good people do bad things, bad people do good things; few people are truly evil and there are very few saints. However, times like these test the balance between good and evil. They risk pushing us into a world where good people are more likely to do bad things, and where genuinely bad people find increasing opportunities to prosper.
Monday 16 November 2015
Why am I doing this?
So here I am, at the start of the first entry in my first blog. Throughout most of my life I have been preoccupied with questions that begin with 'how' or 'why'? It is therefore apt that I should begin with this question - why am I writing this blog?
I have always been interested in what motivates people - people I know, people I don't know, people I love, and those I don't, people like me and the utterly alien. I am especially interested in my own motivations, and I often ponder the array of forces that drive me to feel, think, and behave the way I do. A religious childhood embedded within me the idea that there is a 'truth', something fixed and certain, solid and predictable, an anchor of security in a stormy sea. As a young and, in some sense, rebellious adult I took that idea and ran with it, hauling it out of Christian waters in search of a more rational and scientific home. Thirty years on the voyage continues, and this blog now joins the journey - as companion, guide, muse, and moderator.
Thus far I have learned that there are an infinite number of truths, each of them valid in their own, often rather limited, way. Most of them (I'm tempted to say, all of them) are subjective and deeply personal, but some have wider application and importance than others. It's fair to say that the truth behind my starting this blog is of little significance to anyone, other than me. The same cannot be said of the truths underlying the political and economic decisions of our leaders. Yet, as a fellow human being, I share the same motivations, emotions and instincts that drive these leaders - including a desire for status and respect, a concern for justice and fair play, and a search for meaning and purpose. My motivation for writing this blog is closely linked to each of these drivers.
Firstly there is the vain (in both senses of the word) hope that people might be interested in what I have to say, and that my words might be appreciated. Secondly, there is a need to vent frustration about social injustice and ecological destruction. Thirdly, I have a purpose, which is to raise the profile of two greatly undervalued human virtues - a capacity to see things from other people's perspective, and an ability to recognise our own motives. How many problems might be solved if our potential in these areas were better harnessed?
Finally, I should perhaps justify the title of this blog. The word 'interface' suggests boundaries and meeting points, and speaks of connections and communication. The cliche that everything in life is connected is true, but, we can only perceive connections by first understanding boundaries - such as, the boundary between us and them, emotion and reason, individuals and society, truth and lies, right and wrong. Boundaries define the discrete, subjective, and dynamic 'truths' that help us make sense of the world and our place in it. At the broadest level, this blog will be about the boundaries that I perceive and the gaps I see within them. It will chart my own observations of the world and guide my endeavours to see what other people see.
I have always been interested in what motivates people - people I know, people I don't know, people I love, and those I don't, people like me and the utterly alien. I am especially interested in my own motivations, and I often ponder the array of forces that drive me to feel, think, and behave the way I do. A religious childhood embedded within me the idea that there is a 'truth', something fixed and certain, solid and predictable, an anchor of security in a stormy sea. As a young and, in some sense, rebellious adult I took that idea and ran with it, hauling it out of Christian waters in search of a more rational and scientific home. Thirty years on the voyage continues, and this blog now joins the journey - as companion, guide, muse, and moderator.
Thus far I have learned that there are an infinite number of truths, each of them valid in their own, often rather limited, way. Most of them (I'm tempted to say, all of them) are subjective and deeply personal, but some have wider application and importance than others. It's fair to say that the truth behind my starting this blog is of little significance to anyone, other than me. The same cannot be said of the truths underlying the political and economic decisions of our leaders. Yet, as a fellow human being, I share the same motivations, emotions and instincts that drive these leaders - including a desire for status and respect, a concern for justice and fair play, and a search for meaning and purpose. My motivation for writing this blog is closely linked to each of these drivers.
Firstly there is the vain (in both senses of the word) hope that people might be interested in what I have to say, and that my words might be appreciated. Secondly, there is a need to vent frustration about social injustice and ecological destruction. Thirdly, I have a purpose, which is to raise the profile of two greatly undervalued human virtues - a capacity to see things from other people's perspective, and an ability to recognise our own motives. How many problems might be solved if our potential in these areas were better harnessed?
Finally, I should perhaps justify the title of this blog. The word 'interface' suggests boundaries and meeting points, and speaks of connections and communication. The cliche that everything in life is connected is true, but, we can only perceive connections by first understanding boundaries - such as, the boundary between us and them, emotion and reason, individuals and society, truth and lies, right and wrong. Boundaries define the discrete, subjective, and dynamic 'truths' that help us make sense of the world and our place in it. At the broadest level, this blog will be about the boundaries that I perceive and the gaps I see within them. It will chart my own observations of the world and guide my endeavours to see what other people see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)