Rorty and the Wild Party [DRAFT]

( or, the Problem of Pluralistic Consequentialism (or, What's the point if we can't have fun?) )

'The Battle of Love' by Cézanne (1880)

If I keep listening to Beethoven's Appassionata,
I won't be able to finish the revolution

- VI Lenin, though not really

People who sacrifice beauty for efficiency get what they deserve.

- Tom Robbins

Epistemic status: vague, grouchy, over-humanistic. 50%

In my teens I decided to rid myself of my guilt about guilty pleasures. I'd just admit to myself that I liked e.g. Kylie songs; I'd drop my ironic guard when I watched action films; I'd drop my masculine guard when I watched costume dramas. But the attempt to live up to strong moral consequentialism brings all that back in with vengeance: my morals tell me that everything I have that I do not need, in quite a strict sense of need, is possessed at the expense of some disadvantaged person's necessities. So much of my life is, or should be, guilty pleasure.

The last post was worried about the clash between social individualism and collectivism: what should someone who wants to help, promote justice, do? This one deals with a seemingly less morally significant, but actually much more grave clash, between romantic individualism and any activism. What should one do to promote all of, or the optimal tranche of, kinds of good things?

Richard Rorty calls the conflict between one's public moral desires and personal amoral desires after 'Trotsky' (the self as righteous instrument of social justice) and 'wild orchids' (the self as self: self-inventor, self-lover, self-satisfier). He also gave up trying to reconcile them, seeing, in philosophies past, a series of more or less deluded attempts at

holding reality and justice in a single vision. More specifically, [philosophers] want to unite their sense of moral and political responsibility with a grasp of the ultimate determinants of our fate. They want to see love, power and justice as coming together deep down in the nature of things, or in the human soul, or in the structure of language, or somewhere.

This is about right. I love Cézanne, but biographers like Alex Danchev who try to underwrite that love with gigantic claims of the artist's metaphysical and social importance are just straining to avoid choosing between their Trotsky and orchids. (In my case, Singer and Cézanne.)

Rorty accepts that value is several incoherent things, that you can't always or often have both e.g. justice and aesthetic decadence. He argues that the classic attempt to join goodness and truth (call it "value monism") is never going to work. This apparently self-serving pluralism is a dignified one because it can oppose a bad implication of unalloyed utilitarianism, namely:
Everything which isn't maximally ethical is immoral.
while still insisting on a moral life. (Meaning that the smaller pleasures and wonders of life - as represented by e.g. ice cream, regional poets, philosophers of dogs, and Medieval French Literature departments.)

This isn't quite the same as the Demandingness objection. Value pluralism: utility plus meaning


The pursuit of artistry... is by definition a subversion of the social contract, a forged-in-steel, plated-in-gold fuck-you to the notion of utilitarian enterprise.

- Bruce Stone

Nothing would count as a fulfilment in a world in which nothing is important but self-fulfilment.

- Charles Taylor

Even so, I take the following to be a fairly sturdy argument against any value-system that puts the most weight on aesthetics or entertainment:

Even if you believe that art is the most important thing in the world, logically you should still work to mitigate existential risks, since there will be no art if the world is destroyed, and little high aesthetic experience if the species dies. Similarly, there's a strong case that ethical aesthetes should work to raise others out of poverty, since many amazing potential artists are surely toiling at subsistence farming, or dying well before their productive years, right now.

That aesthetes do not generally act this way may tell us something about their real aim: it cannot be art per se that they wish to promote, but instead their own consumption of art. But then their task devolves to the ethical justification of extreme egoism, a tough sell in both rational and social terms.

Even if you believe that the point of it all is just enjoyment: if we are to make this premise anything more than mere special pleasing, we will choose to have less fun so that all may have fun one day.

This is the wonderful and twisty point about consequentialism: it reveals itself for most moral systems whenever they are applied, since moral systems tend to aim at promoting certain states, i.e. at causing some consequences rather than others.

You can either accept that your aesthetic value system implies normal consequentialist proximate goals, or you can place venal amounts of weight on your own experience of the aesthetic. I think those are the only good options, though I imagine aesthetes are likely find deontology or perfectionism tenable and appealing, unlike me.


I do not know if wisdom or truth-seeking is necessary for true value, as some have said. I do not know if pleasure is the only real value, with all other sorts of value really derived from how nice it is to contemplate having them, plus social delusions. I do not know that spiritual transcendence - some unworldly goal - is not what is really good. I do not know if the good is hopelessly culturally mediated, or even fragmented down to the level of billions of individual and incommensurable whims. I do not know if there is anything really good missing from a light cone tiled with hedonium and nothing else.

That is: we are sufficiently uncertain as to the nature of value to have to preserve many kinds of value, to ensure that we catch the real ones. (If there are real ones. If there aren't - if e.g. equipollent preference satisfaction is the only general statement of the good - then it will still be good to leave many kinds in place.) The world as conservation park, though hopefully without the predation that nature reserves have.

(Another excellent thing about EA, then, is that it admits confusion about both the means and what the ultimate ends are: we don't know which of the competing ideas of what action is for are most important, and we often don't know what to do to realise them. And science can help us find out. (This meta-ethical process, suitably narrowed to research on empirical questions, is called 'cause prioritisation' in the scene. We mostly centre on the avoidance of suffering, disease, and premature death, because those are prima facie the worst things in the world that currently exist.)


Aiming at strict consequentialist justice, means there will be no room for pootering about - except for that modicum of fun needed to keep the Instrument sane and not totally alienating everyone they meet. (Emma Goldman is perpetually misquoted on the matter.)

But there are values other than justice / utility, and virtues other than the obsessive propensity for moral action. This is a good and common reason to reject consequentialism in ethics: it's just too demanding, and in its haste to fix the world, it squashes out other components of the Good, like quiet private virtue.

Roughly, one of the other branches of the good is Meaning. Singer argues that a life of trying to help people is both good and meaningful. Secondary goals: Do not live for just the weekend; Do not suffer being subordinate to people you do not respect.

Worst of all, there's usually a vast split between the things that make you a good person and the things that make you a good worker. "A good life mainly depends on intangibles such as love, friendship, beauty, and virtue—things capitalism cannot produce and money cannot buy."

Redescription: "atomisation" or "increase in personal freedoms"?

But just as commercial life cannot supply large parts of the Good, neither can the saintly activist life. I wrote about this dilemma as being particularly stark in the counterculture here, but it applies to us all.


Our culture focusses on practicality. Good. But it expends that accumulation of practical (knowledge and willpower) in the main towards mere self-fulfillment. Boo. It's sort of admirable to resist the practicality trend, when done to e.g. foil neoliberalism*. But it's also simply not good enough. The world's a mess, we are not responsible but still have responsibility, and small improvements can be made with high confidence. The rest is rockism, i.e. romantic nihilism - a mindset which suits neoliberalism* fine.

* (or Shaitan, or whatever your worldview happens to call the ultimate corrupting agent or structure).

No comments:

Post a Comment