One of the many things that philosophers disagree about that I find interesting is this argument: Realist and The Possibility Theorists. Broadly speaking, possibilists believe that you should engage in your best efforts. possible There are actions you can take, but realists believe you should do the best you can. actually Even if you can technically do better, do it given your imperfections. Consider this scenario to see how the disagreement unfolds.
I’m playing tennis with Bob, and he’s beating me handily. I’m a very impatient person, and I want to hit Bob in the head with my tennis racket, but of course I can’t. Let’s assume that there are three possible ways things can go.
The best-case scenario is that I walk up to the net, shake Bob’s hand, and congratulate him on a good game like a good sportsman. The less-than-ideal scenario is that I get angry and storm off the tennis court. And the worst-case scenario is that I walk up to Bob and hit him in the head with my tennis racket. Let’s say I know myself and my personality so well that I’m convinced that if I walk up to Bob right now, I’ll give in to my anger and hit him in the head. That’s metaphysically possible I tell you not to do this, but this is what I actually do. Should I access the net?
A possibilist would say the best thing I can do is: if All I can do is approach the net and shake hands like a good sportsman. I have to approach the net. The realist says that given the facts about my character and weaknesses, the best thing I can do is actually I shouldn’t go near the net because all I have to do is get angry and leave the court.
This debate often plays out in discussions of utilitarian and consequentialist ethics. Suppose a philosopher named Setter Finger concluded that if you don’t take the highest-paying job you can find, work as many hours as you can before you break down, and donate every penny beyond what you need to survive, you are no better morally than a serial killer. And suppose that, given certain plausible features of human psychology, if you ask people to live up to this standard, they will eventually be overwhelmed and stop donating to charity at all. But suppose instead that people set a more moderate standard, say, Give what we can If you pledge and give 10% of your income to a charity that has a real impact, the real result will be more money and more lives saved. Pinger Possibility theoristHe will push people to work like crazy and live like monks. Pinger RealistHe will pressure people to take the pledge mentioned above.
Although he doesn’t use the term, Scott Alexander seems to describe himself as a realist. this Post. He accepts that much of what goes on in the meat industry is morally unacceptable. He also says he “tried to be a vegetarian for a long time,” but “it was really hard” and he “kept giving up.” But instead of becoming a vegetarian, he decided to follow what he calls a “looser set of rules.” Namely, “I can’t eat any animal at home except fish, but I can eat meat (except chicken) in restaurants. I mostly I was able to stick to that rule, and now I eat a lot less meat than before.”
The possibilist would say that Alexander should give up meat entirely, while the realist would say that Alexander should stick to his looser rule. In a very realist context, Alexander says, “If I think this is the strictest rule I can keep, I don’t know who it would be good for to be reminded that I am a piece of shit. If you deny me the right to feel good about making a half-hearted effort at virtue, I will not make the effort at virtue, and that would be worse for me.” and It’s worse for animals.”
I think this divide is very similar to the differences in how people think about what government should do. There is a possible divide and a real divide. For example, I’ve written about Bernie Sanders’ claim that if the government taxed Bill Gates $100 billion, the government could “end homelessness and provide safe drinking water for every person in this country” and Gates “would still be a billionaire.” Sanders is speaking very much as a possible believer here. He thinks government can achieve the best possible outcome. if Reaching $100 billion is all very well, but the government really needs to get that $100 billion.
On the other hand, my critique of his argument took a more pragmatic line. After all, I said, “If Sanders is right about the cost of ending homelessness, the federal government could completely end all homelessness in America for only 1.7% of what the federal government already spends in a year.” But I noticed that homelessness was not eradicated.
It’s worth noting that Sanders didn’t claim that the federal government could end homelessness and provide clean drinking water to everyone for $100 billion. AnnualHe claimed that both problems could be completely solved. one time It cost $100 billion, so according to Sanders, the government if We have already solved the homeless problem dozens of times by utilizing enormous resources. actually He did so for a variety of reasons. But at the same time, he believes that the government should be evaluated on what it will do in real-world experience, not on whether it will collect $100 billion in additional taxes. actually But we don’t think about what the best thing the government can do is. if Act according to his ideal standards.
Elsewhere mailScott Alexander evaluates the possibility of taxing billionaires to achieve good results, and here he also takes a very similar utilitarian view.
The two billionaires I most admire, Dustin Moskovitz and Carrie Tuna, have done a lot to reform our criminal justice system. The organizations they fund have seen that many innocent people are sitting in jail for months because they can’t afford bail. Others are pleading guilty to crimes they didn’t commit because they need to get out of jail to get a job or take care of their children, even if it means getting a criminal record. They have funded short-term efforts to help these people afford bail, and long-term efforts to reform our bail system. One of the charities they donate to is Bronx Freedom FundWe found that 92% of suspects without bail support plead guilty and have a criminal record. But if they have enough bail support to go to trial, more than half will have all charges dismissed. This is the kind of work that everyone says is needed to stop the cycle of mass incarceration and poverty, and it works really well. I donate to this charity, but of course I can only give a very small fraction of what Moskovitz and Tuna manage.
If Moskowitz and Tuna’s money had gone to the government, would the government have achieved the same goal in a more democratic and popularly guided way? No. The money would be used to lock up these people, pay more prosecutors to trick them into pleading guilty, and abuse and harass more guards. The government already spends $100 billion (seven times the combined wealth of Tuna and Moskowitz) to maintain the prison state. annually. This completely overwhelms even the smallest fraction of the money that would be spent on fixing the damage done by the prison state. Even if there were such a tiny fraction, taking Tuna and Moskowitz out of the picture would not be a civic-responsible way to reform bail. It would just make all that money go to making the problem worse, unlike now, where most of the money goes to making the problem worse and only a tiny fraction goes to making it better.
I think there is likely to be a strong overlap between how compelling the realist approach is and the tendency to view public policy decisions through the lens of concepts like public choice economics or to evaluate economic regulation with the theory of regulatory capture. Just as James Buchanan described public choice as evaluating politics without the romance, realist philosophers believe that behavior should be guided by a similarly unromantic view of human nature.
