All That Is Meaningful Is Imaginary

Politics, in the end, are ethics : the quest for the “common good” that defines politics presupposes an understanding of what is “good” and what is “bad”. And the current world, despite its obsession with “rationality”, still fundamentally takes into account moral ideals such as “security” and/or “freedom”, “equality” and/or “opportunity”.

The religious ethics of the past have merely been, over the course the past few centuries, replaced by “scientific” ethics. Such ethics remain ideological in nature. There is no such thing as pure logic from the moment it enters the human mind, especially in knowledge of a self-reflexive nature such as social sciences or psychology. As defined by Habermas (Technology and Science as Ideology), true “rationality” can only be reached through dialogue. Its nature is that of inter-subjectivity, not “objectivity”.

Because of its disregard for that fundamental axiom of ethical relativism, the world is suffering from ever-growing conflict as a result of individuals and groups living their lives trying to impose their ideals and values upon others, often through violence “legitimised” by a “democratic” State that is nothing more than an intolerant dictatorship of the majority, if not of the minority.

The debate between libertarianism and authoritarianism is usually less ethically meaningful and thus opinions on the matter tend to be easier to change: libertarianism is by definition a “meta-ethical” system of values centred on tolerance of other ethics; on the other hand, authoritarian values are “truthist” and narcissistic. Ignoring the obvious bias in the preceding sentences, both are strikingly simple examples of intuition/emotion-driven philosophical axioms.

The conflict between “security” and “freedom” cannot be solved through compromise, as one side pretends to hold absolute truth while other customarily does not. Any attempt at compromise will gradually come to lean towards the only side ready to coerce others into “agreeing”. This is however not the case with the debate between the “left” and the “right” – the equality/opportunity dichotomy. Here, both sides claim to hold the key to a “fair society”… but the concept of “fair” means something radically different for left-wingers than for right-wingers.

To illustrate the debate between the right and the left, the following is a rough transcript of a fable used in some coaching circles:

6 people travelled to an underground river in the winter with kayaks. As they get ready to leave, they find that one kayak has drifted far away. There are therefore 5 kayaks available for 6 people. The high tide is threatening to trap everyone in the cave, likely to kill everyone by drowning in the icy water. Each kayak can only transport 1 person in the troubled waters, and swimming such a long distance underground is out of the question. At least one person has to sacrifice himself/herself. Who would it be?

What would be your solution to the situation above? Hint: don’t try solving it mathematically. I will post mine in a future post.