Pragmatic Idealism

[Inevitable Droid]

I'll define pragmatic idealism as, "taking on aspirations for an ideal society because one has assessed that ideal society, if realized, as conducive to the fulfillment of one's particular goals."

Now I'll ask you to imagine an ideal society, one where everyone makes a sincere attempt to balance personal responsibility, self-actualization, benevolence, and fairness, grounded in complete and accurate data and valid logic.

Would such a society, if realized, be conducive to the fulfillment of your particular goals?

If so, then I invite you to take on aspirations in that direction, if you haven't already.

One could even be amoral and do this.  The amoral, like everyone else, want to fulfill their particular goals.  An amoral person could add to empathy and caution this third thing, pragmatic idealism, as a third reason to advocate, and, out of a desire to be taken seriously, actually engage in, behaviors that would cause many observers to view the amoral person as a paragon of virtue, a veritable saint, yet the amoral person would never have stopped being amoral.

Let us atheists be amoral, if such seems logical to us, but let us also take on empathy, and caution, and pragmatic idealism, and we will discover ourselves to be a beacon leading the way to a future where all have a decent chance to fulfill their particular goals and thus find moments, at least, of happiness.

[Inevitable Droid]

I posed what follows on another thread in response to a theist's questions.  I realized later that it was directly relevant to this thread.  So here it is.

Between what must be true and what must be done yawns a chasm, across which hangs suspended the bridge of desire.

Desire can be grounded strictly in self, and often is, but doesn't have to be, and often isn't. Interestingly, pronouns offer an orderly way of categorizing desires. There are (1) me-centered desires; (2) he/she/they-centered desires, for example philanthropic ones; (3) we-centered desires, which would be institutional, for example patriotic ones; (4) you-centered desires, which would be deeply relational, sometimes with both sides equal in power, sometimes not. Each category further sub-divides into two, since desires can be for the good or ill of whatever is being focused on, be it me, or he/she/they, or we, or you.

In raising up sapients to be citizens, society would probably want to provide training and opportunities for practice at a young age in how to think from each of the four pronoun paradigms; and how to identify what's good and what's ill for whatever is being focused on; and how to find gratification in providing what's good, while retaining the option of providing what's ill should the situation warrant it - and how to identify when such is the case, which typically entails weighing the good of one pronoun paradigm against the conflicting good of another, such that one or the other must be denied its respective good. We humans quickly and easily learn to find gratification in providing the good, not only to self but to the other three pronoun paradigms, if we're given half a chance through training and opportunities for practice. The will to power can be profoundly satisfied by providing the good. No one is mightier than the heroically effective philanthropist, or patriot, or sibling, or self-actualizer. Why would society set such as all this in motion? Because if each of us locally receives the good, then all of us globally will be elevated in bounty. It's common sense. If all of us do as much good as we can, then all of us receive as much good as can be had.

I never had to invoke either God or morality. Those concepts are obsolete. All we need is common sense.

[Sophus]

I suppose my ideal would be a society of social and economic equality. Most moral concerns would have to be seen through the Veil of Ignorance (I say "most" because it can't truly apply to everything).

[Inevitable Droid]

I suppose my ideal would be a society of social and economic equality.

Stopping there - which you didn't - would leave us in a society where, potentially, we're all equally miserable.  Hence the need to add benevolence to our fairness.  But you went on to say -

Most moral concerns would have to be seen through the Veil of Ignorance

That, for all practical purposes, brings in benevolence, so long as we don't hate ourselves, and most of us don't.

If we're smart enough to grasp the implications, personal responsibility is also brought in, since we couldn't know in advance if we'd be the nanny or the coddled, and since (presumably) we don't aspire to nannyhood, we would limit the coddling.  Here again, we have the assumption that we don't hate ourselves, but also that we don't delight in coddling, which some of us might, perhaps.

Finally, if we aren't lazy (and don't hate ourselves) self-actualization is brought in.  Laziness is pretty common, however, so this one makes me a little nervous.

Four human attributes could undermine this scheme, from my perspective, then:
1. Self-hate
2. Insufficient intelligence
3. Delight in coddling
4. Laziness

(I say "most" because it can't truly apply to everything).

What inapplicable scenarios did you have in mind?

[Sophus]

What inapplicable scenarios did you have in mind?

Well for instance this whole TSA issue. Not one as extreme as other issues, of course. But there have been legitimate concerns on both sides of the debate over whether one would or wouldn't mind going through the scans or pat downs. No one wants their privacy invaded without good reason but some would say it's worth it in this case.

Four human attributes could undermine this scheme, from my perspective, then:
1. Self-hate
2. Insufficient intelligence
3. Delight in coddling
4. Laziness

Another would be that often people cannot agree on what the "truth" is about whatever issue. A lot of people think the homeless choose to be homeless because they're lazy, or druggies, etc. In which case they might say "I wouldn't become homeless" or "I wouldn't stay homeless for long".