A discussion on gun control by a great friend of mine kickstarted the gears in my head yesterday. In particular, the topic of compromise between two "sides" came up and I started to think about that.
In an earlier post, I discussed Aristotle's idea of the Golden Mean at some point- the concept that a virtue lies between two opposing extremes.
For example, in the realm of eating, one extreme is self-starvation, while the opposing extreme is over-indulgence, leaving the golden mean to be found in the middle- something akin to "eating as necessary and when appropriate."
Obviously, the Golden Mean leaves for some wiggle room as the mid-point for two extremes is typically kind of subjective.
However, so long as you can agree on the perspective from which to approach an issue, the Golden Mean is a fabulous method of determining a virtue.
So, what's the problem? The beef I have with it isn't actually one of abstract principle, but rather one of practicality.
The Golden Mean is too narrow, being focused on one particular action while failing to account for any complex scenarios that include a multitude of actions or motivations. As such, there is no Golden Mean between being Conservative and being Liberal because those two aren't actions, but are instead, ideologies. Because of this conundrum, we've come to a point in our political discourse where people, from basic learning to higher education and beyond, have mistaken compromise for merely the mid-point between two current opposing views.
It sounds like the Golden Mean and it sounds like it should work... Until you examine it further. Since we're not dealing with a single action or trait, determining actual extremes is incredibly difficult and entirely based on cultural perspective.
To simply this argument (since I know I'm being nebulous right now), let's go back to the action of eating and combine it with the liberal and conservative ideologies.
Look at this line as the continuum for eating as an action where the left-hand extreme is total self-starvation, where the right-hand extreme is eating literally all the time:
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
It's a large continuum to be sure. Now, say in this analogy that "liberals" have made up a group that almost half of the country can get behind- these people want to eat three meals a day with snacks in between for enjoyment. And let's say that "conservatives" have made up a group with almost half the country supporting it as well. They want to keep it down to two meals a day without snacks in between. Now, our continuum looks a little something like this.
|------------------------------!---------------------------------------------?-----------------------------------|
The question mark representing "liberals" and the exclamation mark representing "conservatives. Right now, they're equally spread apart and roughly equidistant from each endpoint. Equally extreme ideologies. However, let's say that over the next ten years, "liberals" remain the same, while "conservatives" seek to cut the number of meals in a day down to one. Our continuum is adjusted accordingly.
|----------!------------------------------------------------------------------?----------------------------------|
Now that one group is skewed further towards the one extreme than the other group towards their extreme, we have a bit of a different issue.
If we try to find a midpoint between both sides- a compromise, if you will, it looks a bit like this:
|----------!------------------------------+------------------------------------?----------------------------------|
Where the plus is the compromise, we see a mid-point between the two groups. However, it's not a midpoint between the two poles. As such, the "compromise" is still not the Golden Mean. This is because either side is capable of artificially pushing or pulling the boundaries of what we consider the two "extremes," and it's what happens when we view groups as extremes rather than traits or actions.
Push this into the political sphere and suddenly, it makes a little more sense.
If conservatives have a massive push for creationism in school and liberals have a push to leave religion and school separate, wouldn't the midpoint between the two- the compromise- be to have some religious-based education in schools?
Obviously, we can see where that argument breaks down.
If we're allowed to artificially push back the goal posts for what is "extreme," then one side is entirely capable of pushing their side further back, not out of actual conviction for their ideology, but solely to make the "midpoint" between the two "extremes" further to their own side.
To bring this back to the food analogy, let's say that "liberals" don't want to eat any more than they previously said. They want three meals and snacks. However, if they're forced to compromise, why not push back their position to "eating all the time constantly"? Then the continuum would look like this.
|----------!-----------------------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------?|
The compromise is not slightly to the right of the middle. So, even though "liberals" in this case do not want the position they're advocating for, it benefits them to hold that position regardless since we're working within the confines of this compromise-based political sphere.
As a system, it's clearly unsound. To bring it into reality, I would say that it's become apparent that the Republicans have artificially pushed their position further to the extreme recently. Whether this has been too force the midpoint further in their direction, or if it's actually due to conviction cannot technically be proven, but the end is still the same. In order to compromise with a new radical element, new concessions must be made by Democrats despite their overall positions changing a relatively small amount over the same period of time.
If it feels a little like we're being cheated, that's because we are thanks to this system of compromise.
But what do we do then?
Well, I don't have a good answer, because the only solution I can think of relies on individuals to make an ethical decision to seek the Golden Mean in their lives.
The GM between avarice and total humility lies somewhere near "making what you earn and living at/below your means."
The GM for punishing wrongdoing may be in the middle of "letting them go," and "killing them and their whole family." (or whatever the harshest punishment you can inflict is)
Perhaps- "Community service, rehabilitation, and reparations towards the person(s) you harmed."
The GM for having protection between "no one has any weaponry," and "everyone has every weaponry" might be to have a well-regulated body whose specific duty is overseeing the protection of innocents- and only this body would have weaponry.
However, as I mentioned earlier, the more broad we get, the harder it is to find a Golden Mean, since we're talking about more than just a single action or trait. As such, all three of the examples I just gave are all somewhat subjective and tentative. All three could have extenuating circumstances and the perspective from which you approach each individual issue has an impact on where you see the extremes.
It's complicated.
-
Wad
No comments:
Post a Comment