Political Rationalism
I remember my original intuitions after I had argued with the hypocrites. I was at that time very persuaded by Peter Singer's theory of utilitarianism. The theory was both very much in the mainstream of modern ethical reasoning, and highly consonant with the intuitions of students. However--and this is very important--if that's morality, then few if any people would take it seriously. We may pay lip-service to it, even with righteous anger. But don't expect us to obey it, at least not to the extent that it would involve any significant self-sacrifice. That depressed me no end. As a practical person, I did not see the point in studying ethics if I was not going to follow through with its practical consequences. I did not want to be a hypocrite. It seemed to me that it would have to be more rational for me to study something that would be more practical. Back then, I remembered thinking in terms of morality and permissibility--in the way that abortion could be moral but permissible. If that were so, then I wanted to study permissibility rather than morality. Unfortunately, most people mean by 'permissible' 'morally permissible' anyway. So that didn't really solve the problem. It only gave me an immoral theory that people would practice and not preach, which would not solve the problem of hypocrisy.
Nevertheless, I do remember one positive thing that my supervisor said to me back then. Could a legislator pass a moral law if most people probably wouldn't obey it? He would have to agree with me that this would not make sense. This, then, was the plausibility from my point of view. My theory could make sense as a theory of regulation, what I would now call rational regulation. My current term for this is political rationalism, and it can be used to rationalize a system of laws. The right of veto for the United Nations security council would be an example of this. It seems to me that in abstract moral terms, no nation should have a right to veto. Or at least, if one nation does, then they all should. But if all nations have a right to veto, then too few resolutions will ever get passed. And if no nations have a right to veto, then some resolutions will be passed that could never be enforced. For example, it won't make sense to pass a resolution on greenhouse gas emissions if the United States simply will not obey it. Some countries are so powerful they cannot be forced to comply with UN resolutions. Others countries, however, like Afghanistan and Iraq, can. It is rational, therefore, that the countries that cannot be controlled anyway have the right to veto. The countries that can be controlled, however, should not have that right.
Is it fair that some countries should have a right to veto and that others should not? No. If one were to consider only fairness, then either all countries should have that right or no country should. But if only fairness mattered, then the very idea of a body of United Nations would cease to have its meaning. It would not be a credible organization if every nation had a right to veto. Little or no resolutions would ever get passed. It would be a more rational position to take that no nations would have a right to veto, simply because a more reasonable number of resolutions would get passed. But this system would still have a serious problem with credibility. The most powerful nations could get away with not complying with certain resolutions. Under these circumstances, they almost certainly would not comply with them. But then this would not be fair to the many other nations who cannot get away with non-compliance. In other words, unfairness would exist in one form or another in any viable United Nations. The unfairness comes from the inequality of distribution of power, not from rights to veto.
Is it better to have a United Nations or not to have one? In the spirit of idealism, if nothing else, I think that it is better to have the UN. In principle, it would be the forum for peaceful and structured settlement of disagreement between countries. In practice, at least occasionally, it does actually achieve this. But if we are to have a UN, the unequal distribution of power will prevent it from being completely fair. Is it better, therefore, to have an unfair UN, or no UN at all? I happen to think that it is better to have an unfair UN. At least occasionally, it still does some good, and I also think that the consequences would even worse if the UN did not exist at all. I also think that the UN is of symbolic significance. It is a gesture of good will on the part of every single member nation. Of course sometimes this good will simply seems to be lip-service. Especially when countries such as the US get away for years at a stretch without ever paying their dues. But it is better to have some hypocritical expressions of goodwill than no expressions of goodwill at all. For surely people would behave even worse if they were not ashamed to say certain things in public. Which do we have to fear more? An America that openly states it wants to rule the world or an America that at least pays lip-service to being a public-spirited member of an international community? I suggest that the answer is obvious.
Nevertheless, I do remember one positive thing that my supervisor said to me back then. Could a legislator pass a moral law if most people probably wouldn't obey it? He would have to agree with me that this would not make sense. This, then, was the plausibility from my point of view. My theory could make sense as a theory of regulation, what I would now call rational regulation. My current term for this is political rationalism, and it can be used to rationalize a system of laws. The right of veto for the United Nations security council would be an example of this. It seems to me that in abstract moral terms, no nation should have a right to veto. Or at least, if one nation does, then they all should. But if all nations have a right to veto, then too few resolutions will ever get passed. And if no nations have a right to veto, then some resolutions will be passed that could never be enforced. For example, it won't make sense to pass a resolution on greenhouse gas emissions if the United States simply will not obey it. Some countries are so powerful they cannot be forced to comply with UN resolutions. Others countries, however, like Afghanistan and Iraq, can. It is rational, therefore, that the countries that cannot be controlled anyway have the right to veto. The countries that can be controlled, however, should not have that right.
Is it fair that some countries should have a right to veto and that others should not? No. If one were to consider only fairness, then either all countries should have that right or no country should. But if only fairness mattered, then the very idea of a body of United Nations would cease to have its meaning. It would not be a credible organization if every nation had a right to veto. Little or no resolutions would ever get passed. It would be a more rational position to take that no nations would have a right to veto, simply because a more reasonable number of resolutions would get passed. But this system would still have a serious problem with credibility. The most powerful nations could get away with not complying with certain resolutions. Under these circumstances, they almost certainly would not comply with them. But then this would not be fair to the many other nations who cannot get away with non-compliance. In other words, unfairness would exist in one form or another in any viable United Nations. The unfairness comes from the inequality of distribution of power, not from rights to veto.
Is it better to have a United Nations or not to have one? In the spirit of idealism, if nothing else, I think that it is better to have the UN. In principle, it would be the forum for peaceful and structured settlement of disagreement between countries. In practice, at least occasionally, it does actually achieve this. But if we are to have a UN, the unequal distribution of power will prevent it from being completely fair. Is it better, therefore, to have an unfair UN, or no UN at all? I happen to think that it is better to have an unfair UN. At least occasionally, it still does some good, and I also think that the consequences would even worse if the UN did not exist at all. I also think that the UN is of symbolic significance. It is a gesture of good will on the part of every single member nation. Of course sometimes this good will simply seems to be lip-service. Especially when countries such as the US get away for years at a stretch without ever paying their dues. But it is better to have some hypocritical expressions of goodwill than no expressions of goodwill at all. For surely people would behave even worse if they were not ashamed to say certain things in public. Which do we have to fear more? An America that openly states it wants to rule the world or an America that at least pays lip-service to being a public-spirited member of an international community? I suggest that the answer is obvious.
Comments