The following is the introduction to Chapter 4 of my 2021 book: Sensible Decarbonization: Regulation, Risk, and Relative Benefits in Different Approaches to Energy Use, Climate Policy, and Environmental Impact. It is focused on the benefits and practicality of Utilitarianism as a philosophical position and Pragmatism as a practical method arising from that position.
One dictionary definition of pragmatism is “an approach
to {philosophy} that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in
terms of the success of their practical application.” William James, one of the
early developers of the idea, wrote about the pragmatic method of dealing
with disputes by determining the practical consequences of each position in the
dispute. James noted that Charles Pierce, in an 1878 article entitled How to
Make Our Ideas Clear, pointed out that “our beliefs are really rules for
action.” Pragmatism is a philosophical approach to problems and disputes
that emphasizes practicality. James stressed pragmatism as a method, rather
than a theory or ideology. He noted that it was in accord with utilitarianism,
“the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit
of a majority.” Another way James described the pragmatic method was: “The
attitude of looking away from first things, principles, “categories,” supposed
necessities; and of looking towards last things, fruits, consequences, facts.”
One might see it as preferring practical method over following principle.[1]
As an example,
calls for banning fracking in the U.S., which is literally the source of most
of the energy of electricity and transportation used in the country, would be
highly impractical and difficult to implement. This is quite obvious and yet
such calls remain. If natural gas was made unavailable for power plants then
coal units would have to be reactivated, thus defeating the whole reason for
banning fracking. The alternative would be some sort of Green New Deal type of
endeavor that would take decades, cost tens of trillions at a minimum, and
likely have some unforeseen problems as many of the proposed technologies themselves
are vague, immature, and impractical.
Pragmatism can
be seen as closely aligned to utilitarianism, a philosophical position that
favors usefulness as pragmatism favors practicality. Or one might say that
pragmatism as a method favors the philosophical position of utilitarianism. British
philosophers Jeremy Bentham and later John Stuart Mill developed the idea of
utilitarianism. One of its maxims is “The greatest amount of good for the greatest
number of people.” Mill defined it as a “creed,” but one might better see
it as a philosophical position. Mill wrote: “The creed which accepts as the
foundation of morals utility, or the greatest happiness principle, holds that
actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as
they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” For all practical purposes
the utilitarian ideal is a good rule of thumb. Its only failing perhaps is
Mill’s nod to moral idealism, that there is always an absolute right and wrong.
Many issues are nuanced and have details where benefits and detriments must be
weighed to arrive at a definite conclusion as to whether there is net happiness
or unhappiness. However, moral idealism is actually more prominent among
non-utilitarians, often including those who base morality strictly on religion
and among those ideological activists who see certain technologies as morally
reprehensible.[2] [3] Philosopher
Richard Rorty noted that moral relativism, the idea that morality is based on impacts
and consequences relative to other alternative impacts and consequences, has
long been getting a bad rap. Moral relativism can be seen in the idea of necessity
of trade-offs, which is simply another way to say we should base risk decisions
on an analysis of costs vs. benefits, often relative costs vs. relative
benefits. I think some form of impact relativism is needed in environmental
debates. We also need to value our best way of knowing things – science. Rorty was
influenced by postmodernists and though he promoted pragmatism he also saw
science as more a “social construction” than it really is – an incorrect
assumption, I think. As Thomas Kuhn noted, science is based partly on consensus
and peer review which are influenced by prevailing attitudes and paradigms, but
it is by and far based on direct observation and repeatable experimental
results. The methods of science are sound, but the prevailing paradigms can sometimes
be less flexible than they should be.[4] [5]
Legal scholar
Cass Sunstein notes that arguments about public policy are often expressive,
that people tend to favor approaches that allow them to express their values. People’s
values are often entwined with their political identities. He argues against
this expressivism, noting that much of the time it only appears that differences
in values divide us, but rather that it is disagreements about facts. We make
judgments to discern what the facts are when the facts are not clear.[6] Activists
of most sorts are motivated by expressing their beliefs and values, standing symbolically
for something or with someone. Pragmatists are more concerned with getting the
facts correct. It is important to get facts correct but we do often disagree
about facts. The climate change debate has enough uncertainty and vagueness
that disagreements about facts are quite common. The same facts, interpreted in
different ways, are often used as support for differing positions in climate
debates and many other environmental, social, and political debates. Conclusions
not supported by the facts often find their way into headlines, book titles,
and journal article titles. Facts can be manipulated through rhetoric and cognitive
tricks. Fact-checking is generally useful bit it also can be biased and veer
into censorship. Ideally, it’s a process of refinement but as long as there are
uncertainties, those uncertainties will be exploited.
[1]
James, William, 1963 (originally early 1900’s). Pragmatism and Other Essays.
Washington Square Press.
[2]
Kenton, Will, March 13, 2018. Utilitarianism Defined. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/utilitarianism
[3] Mill, John Stewart, orig. 1863. Utilitarianism
No comments:
Post a Comment