Both morality and politics are domains where ideals exist (often over which people disagree profoundly) and people are striving to bridge the gap between what is and what might be. What is an ideal in this sense? The ideal is something like the flawless solution; a solution that perfectly well does away with the problem at hand. It is what the world would ideally look like if things were just the way the moral theory insists they should be. It is, in short: what we are aiming for. An ideal need not be merely in the moral sphere. As we have seen, ideals can be part of some physical theory: the point-like particle, the perfectly spherical (or elliptical) orbit, the Carnot Engine. Now in most cases these are not things human beings are aiming for: they are simply admitted ways in which some mathematical abstraction resembles the physical world in some way. But that last case - the Carnot Engine - is an interesting one: it truly is part of something that engineers aim for without ever being quite able to reach. It is about the thermodynamically maximally efficient engine. Consumers want more efficient machines and engineers want to make more efficient machines. And thermodynamics in part is the science of explaining what exactly the maximum efficiency of some machines is (in the case of engines, it can surprise some to learn that 100% efficiency is not possible even in theory. The issue is a technical one but suffice it to say that the difference between the temperatures of the hot working parts of the engine and the colder “surrounds” as they are called can make all the difference).
Now these ideals or abstract entities in some areas of physics clearly have real world effects. They can cause those people who understand these principles to construct actual machines. People really are moved by ideals even if what they end up accomplishing is an imperfect simulacrum of the abstract entity they know about but which they can never quite bring into being in physical reality.
As it is in engineering of literal engines so too can it be in morality: engineering what should be among the infinite possibilities that might be. The political spectrum contains a number of competing ideas about what the ideals are and the ways ideals might be implemented. Some - indeed many ideals in the moral sense - a physically possible solutions to pressing problems. This is simply to say those ideals are from our perspective “perfect solutions” to some given problem and which are also not prohibited by any law of physics. It must of course be admitted that no solution of this kind will not raise new more interesting problems.
For example, ideally, all conflict resolution is non violent. In any given situation where there is a conflict and then a choice between violence and non violence, the ideal would be “non-violence”. Now this ideal cannot possibly solve for us which of the many non-violent solutions on offer is best: only that such an ideal should be pursued. And if there is a broadly ideal solution in the particular case: there will be in the general. Which is to say: it must be possible that all conflicts that ever arise among people can be solved non violently. And if we solved that perhaps solutions that lack any coercion whatsoever are possible.
Along a similar line: a possible state of the world exists where there is zero poverty (as we might define the term now), zero disease, zero suffering. These are ideals. Few reasonable people would say that, could a wand be waved they would not wave it to eliminate starvation. A state of zero starvation is indeed possible. And once that ideal is reached it is not like progress would stop. No: once that ideal is reached then we would have new and better ideals to explore. Perhaps the question could then become: now that we all have the food we need can we create a world where we can all have all the food we want. And after this and we have all the food we want can we then have a world where we have all the food we want that won’t make us sick if we eat too much of it? And so it would go.
In terms of human societies, the ideal is that they are non violence. Truly non violence and non coercive. There is no physical law that prevents people being reasonable all the time, or talking things through or leaving each other alone when we want to be left alone. This is, I hasted to add, not the world we occupy now. But it is an ideal: a world without coercion.
Now in that world no one would ever need to point a gun at another person because all people would use reason. No one would need handcuffs because no one would refuse to use reason. There would be no need for private security guards or police officers or militaries because no one would be stealing or murdering or invading.
But this is not the world we live in right now. That is, however, the ideal to move towards. Which brings us to part 4
Now these ideals or abstract entities in some areas of physics clearly have real world effects. They can cause those people who understand these principles to construct actual machines. People really are moved by ideals even if what they end up accomplishing is an imperfect simulacrum of the abstract entity they know about but which they can never quite bring into being in physical reality.
As it is in engineering of literal engines so too can it be in morality: engineering what should be among the infinite possibilities that might be. The political spectrum contains a number of competing ideas about what the ideals are and the ways ideals might be implemented. Some - indeed many ideals in the moral sense - a physically possible solutions to pressing problems. This is simply to say those ideals are from our perspective “perfect solutions” to some given problem and which are also not prohibited by any law of physics. It must of course be admitted that no solution of this kind will not raise new more interesting problems.
For example, ideally, all conflict resolution is non violent. In any given situation where there is a conflict and then a choice between violence and non violence, the ideal would be “non-violence”. Now this ideal cannot possibly solve for us which of the many non-violent solutions on offer is best: only that such an ideal should be pursued. And if there is a broadly ideal solution in the particular case: there will be in the general. Which is to say: it must be possible that all conflicts that ever arise among people can be solved non violently. And if we solved that perhaps solutions that lack any coercion whatsoever are possible.
Along a similar line: a possible state of the world exists where there is zero poverty (as we might define the term now), zero disease, zero suffering. These are ideals. Few reasonable people would say that, could a wand be waved they would not wave it to eliminate starvation. A state of zero starvation is indeed possible. And once that ideal is reached it is not like progress would stop. No: once that ideal is reached then we would have new and better ideals to explore. Perhaps the question could then become: now that we all have the food we need can we create a world where we can all have all the food we want. And after this and we have all the food we want can we then have a world where we have all the food we want that won’t make us sick if we eat too much of it? And so it would go.
In terms of human societies, the ideal is that they are non violence. Truly non violence and non coercive. There is no physical law that prevents people being reasonable all the time, or talking things through or leaving each other alone when we want to be left alone. This is, I hasted to add, not the world we occupy now. But it is an ideal: a world without coercion.
Now in that world no one would ever need to point a gun at another person because all people would use reason. No one would need handcuffs because no one would refuse to use reason. There would be no need for private security guards or police officers or militaries because no one would be stealing or murdering or invading.
But this is not the world we live in right now. That is, however, the ideal to move towards. Which brings us to part 4