Skip to content

Details

This is going to be an online meetup using Zoom. If you've never used Zoom before, don't worry — it's easy to use and free to join.

To join the discussion, just click on the Zoom link below at the scheduled time.

***

***

INTELLECTUAL VIRTUES FOR POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS

INTRODUCTION:

Since we're entering a presidential election year where political discussions are bound to become heated and we've gained quite a few new members recently, I thought it would be good to start 2024 with a meta-topic - i.e. what does it mean to be "politically agnostic" and how do we want our members to approach political discussions?

Back in January of 2023, we had a meetup entitled "Can & Should We Be Politically Agnostic?" I encourage people to review the discussion outline, since we'll build on it. In that meetup, we started by defining what it could mean to be "politically agnostic" and we 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 & economic growth while hedging against dystopian outcomes (e.g. tyranny, anarchy, nuclear war, debt crisis, hyperinflation, depression, etc.);

(3) Pragmatism: belief that knowledge of which policies are better or worse for society can be surmised through policy experiments on a local level, and if we apply what we've learned we can gradually improve 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 can still allow us to construct a pragmatic political philosophy. If we believe that other people's values & preferences matter and that structuring society to promote positive-sum interactions is difficult but not impossible, this can probably 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, 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.

We'll start this discussion by assuming that our participants are "politically agnostic" to some degree, but that you're not apathetic or completely cynical about politics, since presumably you wouldn't invest your time in intellectual discussions like this.

I'm also assuming our members 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.

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? 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.

Perhaps it's unlikely that a significant portion of the electorate would be practice "intellectual virtues" when political debates are raging. However, for the sake of 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".

***
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.

I don't expect you to read all the articles prior to attending our discussion. The easiest way to prepare is to just watch the numbered video clips under each section - they come to about about 33 minutes total. The articles marked with asterisks are just there to supply additional details.

In terms of the discussion format, my general idea is that we'll address the topics in the order they're listed. As you can see, I've listed some questions under each section to prompt discussion. We'll try to address most of them. I figure we'll spend about 30 minutes on each section.

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

  • IS INTELLECTUAL HONESTY MORE ASSOCIATED WITH OPENNESS OR CONSCIENTIOUSNESS?
  • EVEN THOUGH MOST POLITICAL KNOWLEDGE IS UNLIKELY TO BENEFIT US PERSONALLY, IS IT IMMORAL TO BE POLITICALLY IGNORANT - OR ONLY IF WE'RE POLITICALLY ACTIVE?
  • SHOULD WE ABSTAIN FROM VOTING IF WE'RE NOT WILLING TO DEVOTE A LOT OF OUR FREE TIME TO LEARNING ABOUT POLITICS? OR SINCE WE GENERALLY JUST VOTE FOR REPRESENTATIVES (EXCEPT FOR REFERENDA), IS READING A CANDIDATE'S RESUME & LOOKING AT THEIR WORDS & ACTIONS TO JUDGE THEIR EXPERTISE & CHARACTER ENOUGH?
  • IS IT 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? WHAT COUNTS AS "SUFFICIENT" EVIDENCE?
  • IN CERTAIN CASES WHERE THERE'S INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE BUT THE CHOICE IS MOMENTOUS & UNAVOIDABLE, ARE WE JUSTIFIED IN TAKING PASCAL'S WAGER OR INVOKING THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE OR CHESTERTON'S FENCE TO PREFER WHAT IS OLDER/SAFER?
  • DOES FREEDOM OF THOUGHT & FREEDOM OF SPEECH MEAN WE HAVE "THE RIGHT TO OUR OPINION", OR MERELY THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO BE LEGALLY PUNISHED FOR OUR OPINION? WHEN DO PEOPLE CONFUSE THEIR RIGHT TO HAVE AN OPINION WITH A RIGHT NOT TO BE CONTRADICTED?
  • HOW SHOULD WE BALANCE THINKING FOR OURSELVES WITH BEING CONSCIOUS OF OUR OWN BIASES? HOW MUCH EVIDENCE SHOULD WE REQUIRE TO CHANGE OUR MIND? IS BAYESIAN INFERENCE THE BEST WAY OF FORMALIZING THIS PROCESS?
  • HOW SHOULD WE BALANCE DEFERENCE TO EXPERTS WITH SKEPTICISM OF THEIR BIASES? SHOULD WE LOOK FOR EXPERTS WITH "SKIN IN THE GAME" (I.E. SUCCESSFUL TRACK RECORDS)?

1a) Michael Huemer, "The Irrationality of Politics" (video - 14:49 min, start at 5:30)
1b) John Templeton Foundation, "Why Intellectual Humility Matters" (video - 3:28 min.)

.
II. ETHICAL INTELLIGENCE, MORAL COURAGE & BALANCING MORAL INTEGRITY WITH PRUDENCE/ MORAL HUMILITY:

  • WHAT SHOULD WE MAKE OF THE STUDY THAT ETHICISTS DON'T BEHAVE ANY MORE ETHICALLY THAN NON-ETHICISTS? IS ETHICAL KNOWLEDGE LESS IMPORTANT THAN ONE'S INATE TEMPERAMENT IN DETERMINING MORAL BEHAVIOR?
  • 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? IF SO, SHOULD WE JUDGE POLICIES BY THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY "WORK", I.E. SHOULD WE ADOPT SOME FORM OF CONSEQUENTIALISM?
  • ARE "TU QUOQUE" (I.E. ACCUSATIONS OF HYPOCRISY) & "WHATABOUTISM" ALWAYS BAD, OR CAN THEY SOMETIMES HELP ENSURE WE'RE BEING MORALLY CONSISTENT?
  • HOW CAN WE DISCERN WHETHER AN ACTION AGREES WITH OUR STATED MORAL VALUES WITHOUT SUCCUMBING TO "MY-SIDE BIAS"?
  • HOW CAN WE TELL HOW WE'D WOULD REALLY BEHAVE IN A MORAL DILEMMA, I.E. DO 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 CAN WE DISTINGUISH BETWEEN MORAL ADVOCACY & “MORAL GRANDSTANDING" (A.K.A. "VIRTUE SIGNALING”) - I.E. USING MORAL RHETORIC FOR SELF-PROMOTION? IS GRANDSTANDING INNATELY BAD OR ONLY WHEN IT'S INSINCERE? HOW CAN WE AVOID THE “PURITY SPIRALS” THAT MORAL ONE-UPMANSHIP 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'LL LEAD TO A SUBOPTIMAL OUTCOME?

2a) Michael Cromartie, "Why is prudence a much needed virtue in the political realm?"(video - 1:57 min.)

2b) Nitin Nohria, "Understanding Our Capacity for Moral Failure" (2:32 min.)

.
III. FAIR-MINDEDNESS & BALANCING EMPATHY WITH OBJECTIVITY:

  • HOW CAN WE DEVELOP "MORAL EMPATHY" & DISCERN OTHER PEOPLE'S VALUES, PREFERENCES & HEURISTICS? CAN "CULTURAL COGNITION THEORY" & "MORAL FOUNDATIONS THEORY" HELP?
  • CAN "RAPOPORT'S RULES" HELP ESTABLISH A FAIR-MINDED DISCUSSION, I.E. RESTATE THE OTHER PERSON'S POSITION IN YOUR OWN WORDS IN A WAY THEY'RE LIKELY TO ACCEPT & NOTE ANY POINTS OF AGREEMENT & THINGS YOU'VE LEARNED BEFORE OFFERING ANY CRITICISM?
  • SHOULD WE LOOK AT WHAT PEOPLE HAVE SAID OR DONE IN OTHER CONTEXTS MORE THAN THEIR CURRENT SPEECH TO DETERMINE THEIR BELIEFS? CAN THIS UNCOVER "BAD FAITH" ACTORS WHO IT WOULD BE A WASTE OF TIME TO DEBATE, OR WILL THIS TEMPT US TO FIND ANY EXCUSE TO DISMISS THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH US AS DISINGENUOUS?
  • ARE THERE CERTAIN SPECIFIC TYPES OF ARGUMENTS THAT ARE DEAD GIVEAWAYS OF BAD FAITH ARGUMENTS (E.G. KAFKATRAPS, MOTTE & BAILEY, ISOLATED DEMANDS FOR RIGOR)? CONVERSELY, ARE THERE CERTAIN TYPES OF ARGUMENTS WE SHOULDN'T USE BECAUSE THEY PREEMPTIVELY ASSUME BAD FAITH (E.G. COURTIER'S REPLY, CONCERN TROLLING, X-SPLAINING, GASLIGHTING)?
  • HOW CAN WE AVOID THE "FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR" & DISCERN WHEN BAD BEHAVIOR IS THE RESULT OF A BAD SITUATION NOT BAD CHARACTER? IS THE "ULTIMATE ATTRIBUTION ERROR" HARDER TO RESIST, I.E. JUDGING OUR OUT-GROUP BY ITS WORST MEMBERS, BUT ASSUMING ANY PROBLEMS WITH OUR IN-GROUP IS JUST A MISTAKE OR "A FEW BAD APPLES"?
  • DOES UNDERSTANDING SOMEONE'S VALUES & GOALS INEVITABLY MEAN SYMPATHIZING WITH THEM? IF SO, IS IT DANGEROUS TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE MOTIVES OF CRIMINALS, TERRORISTS, RACISTS, TYRANTS, ETC.? IS IT BETTER TO JUST WRITE THEM OFF AS EVIL, CRAZY OR STUPID - OR WILL THIS HANDICAP YOUR ABILITY TO DEAL WITH THEM?
  • HOW CAN WE BE EMPATHIC ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND SOMEONE'S POSITION WITHOUT OVER-IDENTIFYING WITH THEM, LOSING OUR OBJECTIVITY & LEAVING OURSELVES OPEN TO "COMPASSION FATIGUE"?
  • IS THE “IDEOLOGICAL TURING TEST" A GOOD WAY TO TEST COGNITIVE EMPATHY? IF MOST LAYPEOPLE DON'T HAVE DETAILED OPINIONS ON POLICIES & THINK OF POLITICS MOSTLY IN TERMS OF THEIR GROUP IDENTITY & TRUST IN CERTAIN LEADERS (AS POLITICAL SCIENCE RESEARCH INDICATES), DOES THIS MAKE THE I.T.T. POINTLESS?
  • ONCE WE ROUGHLY UNDERSTAND A PERSON'S POSITION, DO WE HAVE A DUTY TO FOLLOW THE "PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY" & GLOSS OVER MINOR ERRORS? IF SO, SHOULD WE "STEELMAN" THEIR POSITION - I.E. TRY TO FIND THE BEST POSSIBLE ARGUMENTS FOR THEIR POSITION, EVEN ONES THEY MISSED? OR IS THIS CONDESCENDING?
  • ARE THE "PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY" & "STEELMANNING" SOMETHING WE DO AS A FAVOR FOR OUR OPPONENTS PROVIDED THEY'RE BEING CIVIL? OR IS IT A FAVOR WE DO FOR OURSELVES TO AID OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING BY ACCOUNTING FOR POSSIBLE HOLES IN OUR ARGUMENT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY ARE BEING CIVIL?

3a) Learn Liberty, "Are You An Ideological Robot?" (video - 3:30 min.)

3b) Olga Khazan, "Moral Reframing: A Better Way to Argue About Politics" (video - 3:20 min.)

.

IV. EQUANIMITY & BALANCING CIVILITY WITH BLUNTNESS/ FIRMNESS:

  • WHY IS IT HARD FOR MANY PEOPLE TO MAINTAIN EMOTIONAL CONTROL IN POLITICAL DEBATES? IS ANGER MOSTLY A REACTION TO COGNITIVE DISSONANCE FROM A CHALLENGE TO ONE'S WORLDVIEW (I.E. BACKFIRE EFFECT), A PERCEIVED THREAT TO ONE'S AUTONOMY (I.E. BOOMERANG EFFECT), AN ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE CERTAIN NORMS VIA THREATS, A WAY TO DISPLAY ONE'S RIGHTEOUSNESS TO PEERS, OR SOMETHING ELSE?
  • HOW MUCH OF THE TENDENCY TO BECOME ANGRY WHILE DISCUSSING POLITICS CAN BE CHALKED UP TO "FOLK ACTIVISM" - THE ILLUSION THAT WE'RE PART OF A SMALL GROUP WHO WILL DECIDE WHICH POLICIES TO ADOPT, AND THEREFORE CONVINCING OR SILENCING THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH US IS VERY IMPORTANT?
  • CAN SOMETHING LIKE STOICISM'S "SERENITY PRAYER" HELP US STAY CALM BY DISTINGUISHING WHAT IS IN OUR POWER TO CHANGE & WHAT IS OUT OF OUR HANDS? DOES "THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY" FIT IN WITH THIS PERSPECTIVE?
  • IS IT DANGEROUS TO BE CIVIL - I.E. WILL OPPONENTS MISTAKE OUR CIVILITY FOR WEAKNESS? HOW CAN THIS BE AVOIDED? OR DOES IT NOT EVEN MATTER WHAT OTHERS THINK OF US?
  • 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 TO KEEP A DEBATE FROM DEGENERATING INTO NAME-CALLING?
  • HOW DO WE AVOID THE TYPE OF CIVILITY WHERE SUBTLE NORM VIOLATIONS (E.G. MICROAGGRESSIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES, CLAIMS WITHOUT EVIDENCE) ARE ALLOWED BECAUSE CALLING THEM OUT WOULD SEEM UNCIVIL? CONVERSELY, HOW DO WE PREVENT CIVILITY FROM BECOMING A FORM OF "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS" THAT STIFLES OPEN DIALOGUE?
  • IS "AUMANN'S AGREEMENT THEOREM" - A FORMAL BAYESIAN MODEL OF HOW TWO RATIONAL AGENTS SHOULD MUTUALLY UPDATE THEIR BELIEFS - APPLICABLE TO REAL-WORLD CONVERSATIONS WHERE THOSE IDEALIZED CRITERIA AREN'T THERE?
  • 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. SAY WHAT WE THINK REGARDLESS OF WHO IT MAY OFFEND)?
  • ARE NON-ABUSIVE AD HOMINEM ARGUMENTS EVER JUSTIFIED, E.G. POINTING OUT AN OPPONENT'S VESTED INTEREST OR INADEQUATE EXPERTISE? OR SHOULD WE FOCUS SOLELY ON THE EVIDENCE?

4a) Eli Pariser, "‘Civility’ is a loaded word, and we need it more than ever" (video - 2:24 min.)

4b) Josh Pelton, "Aumann's Agreement Theorem & Arguing to Learn" (video - 7:11 min.)

*

...................................................

Intellectual Discussions
Open Dialogue
Philosophy & Ethics
Political Philosophy
Compassionate Communication

Members are also interested in