Every age has its orthodoxies, so having a “right opinion” isn’t new. And every age struggles with opposing “right opinions” and their manifestation in some “right practices” (orthopraxy). We aren’t going to change in some future utopian society. We’re stuck with both orthodoxy and orthopraxy for a simple reason, once iterated by Herbert Spencer in 1851: “Opinion is ultimately determined by the feelings, and not by the intellect.”*
Under “The Doctrine of Expediency” in Social Statics, Spencer writes a hypothetical discussion between “men” and a “philosopher” during which the “men” fault the philosopher for having an opinion that “dictates no sure mode of securing the desideratum.” They also ask, “Have you discovered a means of forming an infallible judgment?”
Here’s a really brief context: Spencer addresses the doctrine of expediency (utility or general good) that might best be defined as the “greatest happiness to the greatest number.” So, the desideratum is happiness for members of a society. The philosophical class might voice that such a goal is not only noble, but also moral. But the “objectors” in the discussion are interested not in the philosophy, but rather in the mode of achieving happiness, particularly in light of multiple definitions of happiness. Basically, talk is cheap.
Now, the men are a bit unfair to the philosopher because they “seek a system that can return a definite answer… [to the question] ‘is this act good?’…If you can show us…one—if you can give us an axiom from which we may develope [sic.] successive propositions until we have with mathematical certainty solved all our difficulties—we will thank you. If not, we must go elsewhere” (3, 4).
Prediction: In 2051, two hundred years after Spencer addressed having an opinion about providing the greatest good to the greatest number and the reliance on opinion rather than on specific, quantifiable plans, we will still be arguing about what is good for our society on the basis of some axiom. We argue so today, don’t we? In the political realm one group has one set of axioms, whereas an opposing group has another set. And since the groups can neither agree on the validity of basic assumptions nor accept the other group’s premises, we wallow in “philosophy.”
The conflict over achieving the desideratum of the greatest good for the greatest number underlies every society's politics. We want certainty, but we have no way of getting it. Depending on the group with which we have affinity, we see the other side’s orthopraxy as ineffective or worse. Since we are reliant on axioms and obstinate about opinions based on feelings, we can’t reconcile our differences.
So, don’t get your undies in a tangle when you discuss opinions. Rather, say, “No doubt, you have the right opinion. Yours is the orthodox view. I will grant that. Now, will you give me an infallible path to securing the desideratum we both seek? I’m just a lost soul looking to you for an axiom that leads to propositions that, in turn, will give me with mathematical certainty the solutions to society’s problems.”
It’s a cruel trick to play on an opponent, of course. You will put the burden of certainty on another, saving you from having to achieve mathematical certainty and having to defend your own opinion that is probably based as much on feeling as it is on any semblance of infallible logic.
*Spencer, Herbert, Social Statics: The Conditions Essential to Human Happiness Specified, and the First of Them Developed. London. John Chapman, 1851.
Under “The Doctrine of Expediency” in Social Statics, Spencer writes a hypothetical discussion between “men” and a “philosopher” during which the “men” fault the philosopher for having an opinion that “dictates no sure mode of securing the desideratum.” They also ask, “Have you discovered a means of forming an infallible judgment?”
Here’s a really brief context: Spencer addresses the doctrine of expediency (utility or general good) that might best be defined as the “greatest happiness to the greatest number.” So, the desideratum is happiness for members of a society. The philosophical class might voice that such a goal is not only noble, but also moral. But the “objectors” in the discussion are interested not in the philosophy, but rather in the mode of achieving happiness, particularly in light of multiple definitions of happiness. Basically, talk is cheap.
Now, the men are a bit unfair to the philosopher because they “seek a system that can return a definite answer… [to the question] ‘is this act good?’…If you can show us…one—if you can give us an axiom from which we may develope [sic.] successive propositions until we have with mathematical certainty solved all our difficulties—we will thank you. If not, we must go elsewhere” (3, 4).
Prediction: In 2051, two hundred years after Spencer addressed having an opinion about providing the greatest good to the greatest number and the reliance on opinion rather than on specific, quantifiable plans, we will still be arguing about what is good for our society on the basis of some axiom. We argue so today, don’t we? In the political realm one group has one set of axioms, whereas an opposing group has another set. And since the groups can neither agree on the validity of basic assumptions nor accept the other group’s premises, we wallow in “philosophy.”
The conflict over achieving the desideratum of the greatest good for the greatest number underlies every society's politics. We want certainty, but we have no way of getting it. Depending on the group with which we have affinity, we see the other side’s orthopraxy as ineffective or worse. Since we are reliant on axioms and obstinate about opinions based on feelings, we can’t reconcile our differences.
So, don’t get your undies in a tangle when you discuss opinions. Rather, say, “No doubt, you have the right opinion. Yours is the orthodox view. I will grant that. Now, will you give me an infallible path to securing the desideratum we both seek? I’m just a lost soul looking to you for an axiom that leads to propositions that, in turn, will give me with mathematical certainty the solutions to society’s problems.”
It’s a cruel trick to play on an opponent, of course. You will put the burden of certainty on another, saving you from having to achieve mathematical certainty and having to defend your own opinion that is probably based as much on feeling as it is on any semblance of infallible logic.
*Spencer, Herbert, Social Statics: The Conditions Essential to Human Happiness Specified, and the First of Them Developed. London. John Chapman, 1851.
RSS Feed