Skip to content

Bi-Weekly Discussion - Intellectual Virtues for Political Agnostics

Photo of Brian B.
Hosted By
Brian B.
Bi-Weekly Discussion - Intellectual Virtues for Political Agnostics

Details

We're currently hosting our discussions at Café Walnut, near the corner of 7th & Walnut in Olde City, just across the street from Washington Square Park. The cafe's entrance is below street level down some stairs, which can be confusing if it's your first time. Our group meets in the large room upstairs.

Since we're using the cafe's space, they ask that each person attending the meetup at least purchase a drink or snack. Please don't bring any food or drinks from outside. If you're hungry enough to eat a meal, they have more substantial fare such as salads, soups & sandwiches which are pretty good and their prices are reasonable.

The cafe is fairly easy to get to if you're using public transit. With SEPTA, take the Market-Frankford Line & get off at the 5th Street Station (corner of 5th & Market), and walk 2 blocks south on 5th and then turn right on Walnut Street and walk 2 blocks west. With PATCO, just get off at the 9th-10th & Locust stop and walk 3 blocks east & 1 block north. For those who are driving, parking in the neighborhood can be tough to find. If you can't find a spot on the street, I'd suggest parking in the Washington Square parking deck at 249 S 6th Street which is just a half block away.

----------------------------------------------
INTELLECTUAL VIRTUES FOR POLITICAL AGNOSTICS:

INTRODUCTION:

Our last meetup was entitled "Can & Should We Be Politically Agnostic?" We started by defining what it can mean to be politically agnostic and came up with 3 definitions based on the level of doubt one has on our ability to understand & evaluate public policies:
(1) Apathy/Cynicism: belief that knowledge of which policies are better or worse for society is impossible, so it's best to just ignore politics altogether or focus solely on advancing one's self-interest;
(2) Realism: belief that knowledge of which policies are better or worse for society is possible in a limited sense, but trying to create a utopia is bound to backfire, so we're better off just trying to maintain order and a stable economy while hedging against dystopian outcomes (e.g. tyranny, major wars, economic crises);
(3) Pragmatism: belief that knowledge of which policies are better or worse for society can be surmized through localized experiments, and if we apply what we've learned we can slowly reform our society and advance towards a utopia we can never quite reach.

We also discussed how "moral uncertainty" that falls short of complete moral skepticism - i.e. if we believe that moral knowledge is difficult but not impossible & other people's values & preferences matter - this can justify some of the major tenets of "classical liberalism", the political philosophy of the Enlightenment. Specifically, we talked about how moral uncertainty can justify religious & political tolerance, an "open society" with free speech & freedom of the press, and J.S. Mill's "harm principle" - i.e. not using force against someone except to prevent them from harming someone else.

To review the last meetup, look here: https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/dxmsjqyzcbrb/

Since everyone attending this discussion voluntarily joined a meetup entitled "Philadelphia Political Agnostics" and presumably read the group's description, we'll start this discussion with the assumption that all of the participants are "politically agnostic" to some degree. We'll also assume you're not completely apathetic or cynical about politics, since if you were why bother attending intellectual discussions like this? So this means you probably identify with either the moderately conservative "realist" view or the moderately progressive "pragmatist" view, even if that doesn't map directly onto the standard left-right political spectrum. We'll also assume you're okay with living in a pluralistic, democratic society and endorse most of the civil liberties we've inherited from classical liberalism. (I hope this isn't assuming too much!)

Regardless of whether you consider yourself more of a realist or pragmatist, the next question that logically arises is: How should this realistic/pragmatic political stance influence your political behavior as a citizen? (For now, we'll leave aside what you should do if you were hypothetically elected to public office.) There's a variety of ways of trying to answer this question, but one that has received a lot of attention recently is the idea of cultivating a set of "intellectual virtues" that can also serve as "civic virtues". That is to say, we could try to develop mental habits that, provided they were practiced by influential "thought leaders" and a significant portion of the electorate, would allow us to generate more productive political debates & better policymaking.

In a future discussion, we'll address how likely it is that a significant portion of the electorate could be taught a set of "intellectual virtues" and practice them when political debates are raging. For this discussion, we'll simply ask: Provided people are willing to practice a set of intellectual virtues when they approach political issues, what should they be? I've done my best to sort our prospective virtues into 4 general categories, and from the section titles you can see that I'm assuming each requires a balancing act to achieve the "golden mean".

-------------------------------------------

SOME RELEVANT MATERIAL FROM PAST MEETUPS:

In the 1st section of this discussion, we'll look at various methods for updating our beliefs about empirical reality to get closer to the truth. One of the methods for this we've discussed in past meetups is deferring to expert consensus, or to a version of expert consensus corrected for ideological imbalances in the field. You can find the outlines for those 2 meetups here:
https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/jlzgxlyvpbqb/

https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/247202284/

The 2nd section of our discussion deals with moral pragmatism. To understand why this may be necessary once we enter the political realm, see our previous meetup "Political Science & Political Myths" - especially Part 1 dealing with political scientists' realistic (almost cynical) view of voters, politicians & the political process:
https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/xvbrznyxdbxb/

The 3rd section of our discussion deals with "moral empathy" which we addressed in a previous meetup entitled "Putting Moral Psychology to Work on the Problem of Political Polarization" - see Parts 2 & 3 for how moral empathy relates to Moral Foundations Theory and "moral reframing":
https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/ghwhpmywgbvb/

The 4th section of this discussion deals with civility, which is useful for compromise. In a meetup last year entitled "What Can We Learn From the 2016 Election?" we discussed the possibility that the Median Voter Theorem may not hold true in a polarized electorate, meaning that politicians can't gain votes by pivoting towards centrist positions. In this case, mobilizing one's base through vehement rhetoric may be more fruitful than reaching out to moderates.
https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/xvbrznyxfbgb/

The 4th section also mentions equanimity which can be contrasted with the outrage common in activist circles. In a previous discussion of social justice activism, we discussed several theories for this intemperance:
https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/pgdfslyvhblc/

-----------------------------------------------

DIRECTIONS ON HOW TO PREPARE FOR OUR DISCUSSION:

The videos & articles you see linked below are intended to give you a basic overview of some of the candidates for "intellectual virtues" that can enable more rational approach to politics. As usual, I certainly don't expect you to read all the articles & watch all the videos prior to attending our discussion. The easiest way to prepare for our discussion is to just watch the numbered videos linked under each section - the videos come to about about 50 minutes total. The articles marked with asterisks are just there to supply additional details. You can browse and look at whichever ones you want, but don't worry - we'll cover the stuff you missed in our discussion.

In terms of the discussion format, my general idea is that we'll address the topics in the order presented here. I figure we'll spend about 30 minutes on each section.

----------------------------------------------
I. INTELLECTUAL HONESTY & BALANCING INTELLECTUAL AUTONOMY WITH INTELLECTUAL HUMILITY:

  • EVEN THOUGH MOST POLITICAL KNOWLEDGE IS UNLIKELY TO BENEFIT US PERSONALLY, IS IT IMMORAL TO BE POLITICALLY IGNORANT?

  • WAS W.K. CLIFFORD RIGHT THAT IT'S IMMORAL TO ADOPT A BELIEF ON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, MERELY BASED ON WHAT'S EASIER TO UNDERSTAND OR WHAT SEEMS PLEASANT TO BELIEVE? IS IT ONLY WRONG IN CASES WHERE MISTAKES COULD HARM OTHERS? AND WHAT COUNTS AS "SUFFICIENT" EVIDENCE?

  • IS WILLIAM JAMES RIGHT THAT IN CERTAIN CASES WHERE THERE'S INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE BUT THE CHOICE IS MOMENTOUS & UNAVOIDABLE, WE ARE JUSTIFIED IN TAKING PASCAL'S WAGER? HOW WOULD THIS AFFECT EXISTENTIAL RISK?

-SHOULD WE ADOPT "EPISTEMOLOGICAL PRAGMATISM" & BELIEVE ONLY THAT WHICH IS USEFUL TO BELIEVE? HOW SHOULD WE DETERMINE THE "CASH-VALUE" OF A POLITICAL BELIEF? WHAT IF IT'S SOCIALLY USEFUL TO BELIEVE THINGS THAT ARE FACTUALLY UNTRUE?

  • HOW SHOULD WE BALANCE THINKING FOR OURSELVES WITH BEING CONSCIOUS OF OUR OWN BIASES? HOW SHOULD WE BALANCE DEFERENCE TO EXPERTS WITH SKEPTICISM OF THEIR BIASES?

  • HOW MUCH EVIDENCE SHOULD WE REQUIRE TO ADMIT THAT WE MAY BE MISTAKEN & CHANGE OUR MIND? IS BAYESIAN INFERENCE THE BEST WAY OF FORMALIZING THIS PROCESS?

1a) Thomas Donaldson, "Epistemology: The Will to Believe" (video - 6:39 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzmLXIuAspQ&vl=en

1b) Diana Thomas, "Why Are Voters So Uninformed?" (video - 2:26 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwPGzkui8ow

II. MORAL CLARITY & BALANCING MORAL INTEGRITY WITH PRUDENCE/ MORAL HUMILITY:

  • HOW SHOULD WE DEFINE "MORAL CLARITY" IF WE ACKNOWLEDGE SOME LEVEL OF MORAL UNCERTAINTY? HOW CAN WE STILL FORM VALUES THAT ARE COHERENT & RELATIVELY STABLE YET OPEN TO CHANGE?

  • DOES "OUGHT IMPLY CAN" - I.E. DO MORAL OBLIGATIONS HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR REALISTIC CONSTRAINTS?

  • SHOULD WE JUDGE POLICIES BY THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY "WORK", I.E. SHOULD WE ADOPT SOME FORM OF UTILITARIANISM? IF SO, DOES UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE BEST DEFINITION OF "UTILITY" JUSTIFY "PREFERENCE UTILITARIANISM", I.E. TRYING TO MAXIMIZE WHATEVER EACH INDIVIDUAL PREFERS? OR DOES THAT LEAD TO A TRAGEDY OF COMMONS?

  • IF WE ADOPT "MORAL PARTICULARISM" (I.E. MORALITY AS HEURISTICS INSTEAD OF CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES), WOULD THIS ALLOW US TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN RIGHT & WRONG WHILE STILL ACCOUNTING FOR GREY AREAS?

  • HOW CAN WE DISCERN WHETHER AN ACTION AGREES WITH OUR STATED MORAL VALUES WITHOUT SUCCUMBING TO "MY-SIDE BIAS"?

  • HOW CAN WE DISCERN HOW WE'D WOULD REALLY BEHAVE IN A MORAL DILEMMA, I.E. HOW CAN WE TELL IF OUR STATED & REVEALED BEHAVIORS MATCH? ARE MOST PEOPLE BAD AT THIS DUE TO "MORAL ARROGANCE" - AND IF SO, HOW DO WE INCREASE OUR "MORAL HUMILITY"?

  • HOW SHOULD WE DISTINGUISH BETWEEN CRIMINAL ACTS & "SUBEROGATORY" (MERELY IMPOLITE/SUBOPTIMAL) ACTS? HOW CAN WE DISTINGUISH BETWEEN OBLIGATORY ACTS & "SUPEREROGATORY" (OPTIMAL/PRAISEWORTHY) ACTS?

  • HOW CAN WE DISTINGUISH BETWEEN MORAL ADVOCACY & “MORAL GRANDSTANDING" (A.K.A. "VIRTUE SIGNALING”) - I.E. USING MORAL RHETORIC FOR SELF-PROMOTION? IS MORAL GRANDSTANDING INNATELY BAD OR ONLY WHEN IT'S INSINCERE? HOW CAN WE SHORT-CIRCUIT THE “PURITY SPIRALS” THAT MORAL ONEUPSMANSHIP OFTEN CAUSES?

  • HOW CAN WE DISTINGUISH BETWEEN “PRUDENCE” - I.E. USING FLEXIBLE MEANS TO REACH POLITICAL ENDS - FROM SELLING OUT ONE’S MORAL COMMITMENTS? DOES MORALITY EVER REQUIRE US TO STAND ON PRINCIPLE RATHER THAN COMPROMISE, EVEN IF IT WILL LEAD TO A SUBOPTIMAL OUTCOME?

2a) Susan Neiman, "Moral Clarity" (video - 4:04 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABJSZk4HVvc

2b) Douglas Lain, "Beyond Virtue Signaling" (10:38 min, watch til 6:17)
https://youtu.be/2INWgUz9KqY

III. FAIR-MINDEDNESS & BALANCING EMPATHY WITH OBJECTIVITY:

  • HOW CAN WE DEVELOP "MORAL EMPATHY" & DISCERN OTHER PEOPLE'S VALUES/PREFERENCES? CAN "CULTURAL COGNITION" & "MORAL FOUNDATIONS THEORY" HELP?

  • SHOULD WE FOCUS MORE ON PEOPLE'S ACTIONS THAN THEIR WORDS TO DETERMINE THEIR BELIEFS?

  • HOW CAN WE DISCERN WHEN BAD BEHAVIOR IS THE RESULT OF A BAD SITUATION NOT BAD CHARACTER?

  • DOES UNDERSTANDING SOMEONE'S VALUES/PREFERENCES INEVITABLY MEAN SYMPATHIZING WITH THEM?

  • IS BRYAN CAPLAN’S “IDEOLOGICAL TURING TEST" (I.T.T.) A GOOD WAY TO TEST COGNITIVE EMPATHY? IF MOST LAYPEOPLE DON'T HAVE DETAILED OPINIONS ON POLITICAL POLICIES (AS POLITICAL SCIENCE RESEARCH INDICATES), DOES THIS MAKE THE I.T.T. POINTLESS?

  • ONCE WE'VE UNDERSTOOD A PERSON'S POSITION, DO WE HAVE A DUTY TO REPRESENT THEM FAIRLY IN DEBATE? SHOULD WE "STEELMAN" OUR OPPONENT'S POSITION - I.E. TRY TO FIND THE BEST POSSIBLE ARGUMENTS FOR THEIR POSITION, EVEN ONES THEY MISSED?

3a) Learn Liberty, "Are You An Ideological Robot?" (video - 3:30 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z7y7FLhYGE

3b) IDRlabs, “Moral Foundations Theory” (video - 6:52 min.)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OCDLY4Tk43A

IV. EQUANIMITY & BALANCING CIVILITY WITH BLUNTNESS/ FIRMNESS:

  • WHY IS HARD FOR MANY PEOPLE TO MAINTAIN EMOTIONAL SELF-CONTROL IN POLITICAL DEBATES? IS ANGER IN POLITICAL DEBATES MORE A REACTION TO COGNITIVE DISSONANCE, A THREAT TO ONE'S SOCIAL STATUS, A PERCEIVED NORM VIOLATION, OR SOMETHING ELSE?

  • IS IT CATHARTIC TO VENT ONE’S ANGER OVER POLITICS, OR DOES IT JUST ENRAGE US MORE? DOES HABITUAL ONLINE VENTING BY MANY PEOPLE “POLLUTE” THE POLITICAL ATMOSPHERE?

  • HOW CAN WE DISTINGUISH BETWEEN CALLS FOR "CIVILITY" THAT ARE MERELY A RHETORICAL PLOY TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO AND THOSE THAT ARE MADE IN GOOD FAITH?

  • HOW DO WE AVOID THE TYPE OF CIVILITY WHERE NORM VIOLATIONS ARE ALLOWED BECAUSE CALLING THEM OUT WOULD SEEM UNCIVIL? CONVERSELY, HOW DO WE PREVENT CIVILITY BECOMING A FORM OF "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS" THAT STIFLES OPEN DIALOGUE?

  • IS IT DANGEROUS TO BE CIVIL - I.E. WILL OPPONENTS MISTAKE CIVILITY FOR WEAKNESS? HOW CAN THIS BE AVOIDED?

  • IS "AUMANN'S AGREEMENT THEOREM" - A FORMAL BAYESIAN MODEL OF HOW TWO RATIONAL AGENTS SHOULD MUTUALLY UPDATING THEIR BELIEFS - APPLICABLE TO REAL-WORLD CONVERSATIONS WHERE THOSE IDEALIZED CRITERIA ARE RELAXED?

  • IF WE ADOPT "CROCKER'S RULE" (I.E. OFFER TO ALLOW THE OTHER SIDE TO SPEAK FREELY & PROMISE NOT TO GET OFFENDED), SHOULD WE ALSO PURSUE "RADICAL HONESTY" (I.E. STATE EXACTLY WHAT WE THINK REGARDLESS OF WHO IT MAY OFFEND)?

  • ARE NON-ABUSIVE AD HOMINEM ARGUMENTS EVER JUSTIFIED? IF SO, WHEN?

4a) Teresa Bejan, "Is Civility a Sham?" (video - 13:54 min.)
https://www.ted.com/talks/teresa_bejan_is_civility_a_sham

4b) Josh Pelton, "Aumann's Agreement Theorem & Arguing to Learn" (video - 7:11 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR5Bp7oCidI

XXX

Events in Philadelphia, PA
Photo of Philadelphia Political Agnostics group
Philadelphia Political Agnostics
See more events
Philadelphia Political Agnostics
Photo of Philadelphia Political Agnostics group
Cafe Walnut
703 Walnut Street · Philadelphia, PA
Photo of Philadelphia Political Agnostics group
Philadelphia Political Agnostics
public group