Feelings & Politics: What do you think?

Politics International Politics
1

(Please, read, contribute, and think it over before voting.) Should emotion help guide political reasoning?

  • Yes.
  • No.
  • Depends.

0 voters

I’m feeling out a few ideas about politics; what do you think about that?

I’ve been shaking my head over all the recent posts attacking other’s “feelings” on political issues because I considered such attacks to be, quite simply, ludicrous and juvenile. But as it seems that the idea behind them is sincerely held, by at least a few, I decided to through this out as a ‘theory’ rather than ‘issue’ thread. (I expect that it’ll be somewhat more popular than others of its ilk.)

Q. Do our feelings have any place in our reasoning about political issues?
A. Most certainly, without a doubt, yes, they do (as they should).

Terrible form, I know–the environment demands it–but I’m going to start with attacking (what I take to be) the contrary position: shouldn’t reason alone guide political reasoning? To this I respond, :laughing: :roflmao: :laughing: :roflmao:
Not so eloquent, eh? Ok, ok. Here’s a serious response: [quote=“David Hume”]Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.[/quote] And from another serious–though less political–thinker: [quote=“Martin Luther”]Reason, that whore.[/quote]

I like to (and think I’m right in doing so) think of “reason” more expansively and positively than did Hume or Luther; a better term for what they’re kicking around is probably “rationality”. I tend to include more than “dispassionate reason” in my use of “reason”, so from here on out I’m going to use “rationality” or “dispassionate reason” for what they call, simply, “reason”.
(Just want to be clear.)

Along with the boys above, I contend that rationality is great for figuring out “how to” but that, ultimately, it is utterly useless when it comes to figuring out “what to.”

Our political ends and values grow out of our emotional lives and commitments; the means by which we achieve those ends are derivative of rational contemplation. No one goes to war just to establish a limited government, but they might for privacy, security, and independence. The former is a rational means to the latter ends. At the outset, any emotional attachment to the former is likely either a misplaced attachment to the values one believes that form of government is expected to bring (unless, of course, we’ve become ideological loonies :loco:), or of fear or hatred of some alternative.

Political ends and values can be rationally defended as just and right, but only so far as their origins are not rational. The principle is “intuitionism” and is pretty well expressed in some 2nd year university course outline I’ll crib from, [quote=“Some prof”]An intuitionist says that certain moral principles are just self-evident, axiomatic; if you reflect, you will see that some things are right or good, other things wrong or bad. We might wish that we could prove the truth of all our moral principles; but proof requires premises, and there doesn’t seem to be any way of proving moral principles from premises which do not include moral principles.[/quote] There are a number of good arguments against the most popular advocate of intuitionism (John Rawls, the single most influential political theorist of the last 50 years), arguments with which I often agree, but they’re arguments made by pinko-leftie theorists heavily committed to multiculturalism (so I doubt I’ll have to deal with them here).

Our political commitments are not established by wholly rational means, nor are they long maintained without emotional investment. None of this seems to me least bit controversial, and you don’t even have to lean on “touchy-feelly pinko-lefties” to agree. In addition to Hume, Edmund Burke, Thomas Hobbes, Adam Smith, and Alexis de Tocqueville (nary a leftie among them) are onside on this one.

Burke reasoned (felt and thought) that human activity was rooted in passionate activities driven by curiosity, pleasure and pain, and sympathy: the constituent motors of our affective faculties. He emphasized the political importance of tradition, prejudice (as in pre-judgments & habit), sentiment, emotion and prudence; all of which, he believed, were essential elements of reason (intelligence broadly defined: felt and thought). Sympathy? Burke, intellectually soft?

Adam Smith’s “Theory of Moral Sentiments” fleshes out “The Wealth of Nations” with passages such as the following, which establishes the character of primary ends: [quote=“Adam Smith”]Thus self-preservation, and the propagation of the species, are the great ends which Nature seems to have proposed in the formation of all animals. Mankind are endowed with a desire of those ends, and an aversion to the contrary; with a love of life, and a dread of dissolution; with a desire of the continuance and perpetuity of the species, and with an aversion to the thoughts of its entire extinction. But though we are in this manner endowed with a very strong desire of those ends, it has not been intrusted to the slow and uncertain determinations of our reason, to find out the proper means of bringing them about. [/quote] Oh yes, he also discusses such wishy-washy things as the importance of sympathy in that book. Love, desire, aversion? What’s he on about? At least he brought “slow and uncertain” reason in at the end to deal with the means, even if our wits will have to go looking for the means.

De Tocqueville warned of the corrosive character of democracy on society: [quote=“de Tocqueville”]Americans are so enamoured of equality they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.[/quote] Ah yes, the love equality and love of liberty. (His point was that equality’s benefits are preferred because they are more immediate and more generally available, whereas liberty requires a vigilant guard, resources and that specific responsibilities be met; making political philosophy dependent on the constitutional disposition (sloth) of the person. Read, “I just don’t feel like it.” Whatever effort ‘it’ might be. Not an emotion, but a closely related disposition.)

Now, it could be that all of this was just a means of expressing strong commitments, until you read their stuff more broadly and closely, and realize that they meant it and took it very, very seriously. Read Hobbes’ Leviathan: Chapter 6 “Of the Interior Beginnings of Voluntary Motions; commonly called the Passions.” It’s a catalogue of politically significant emotions. These guys understood politics as the froth that appears on the fermentation of various ingredients simmering–if not roiling–in the heat of our passions. And yet “feelings” keeps appearing here in quotes, as an epithet. :unamused:

Ok, so politics play a role in politics and everyday life. So what? What’s the utility of emotion in evaluating political policies?

Well, going back to Hobbes (disclosure: my MA thesis in political theory is on Thomas Hobbes and the corrosive effects of emotion on rational choice), consider his introduction to Leviathan. [quote=“Thomas Hobbes”]“Read thy self” […] teaches us, that for the similitude of the thoughts, and Passions of one man, to the thoughts, and Passions of another, whosoever looketh into himself, and considereth what he doth, when he does think, opine, reason, hope, feare, ect, and upon what grounds; he shall thereby read and know, what are the thoughts, and Passions of all other men, upon the like occasions. i say the similitude of Passions, which are the same in all men, desire, fear, hope, ect; not the similitude of the objects of the Passions, which are things desired, feared, hoped ect: for these the constitution individual, and particular education do so vary…[/quote] Whoa. You mean that if I want to figure out what the hell the PM was thinking, I ought to “put myself in his place”? That I ought to cultivate my imaginative and affective faculties, to better know not just what George thought when he got that deer-caught-in-the-headlights look while reading “My Pet Goat”, but what men in general think in specific situations? It ain’t all cold, instrumental rationality? Damn, that’s a pretty important evaluative roll for emotion in political reasoning. (Actually, as it’s Hobbes, it’s a constituent of “prudence” and “judgment” in politics.)

Basically, it boils down to a “gut check”. Not in the sense of “having fortitude”, but of “going by feel”.
Our political commitments are derivative emotional commitments, and in the rough, sometimes political policies can be expected to elicit an emotional response. No?
“I’m raising your taxes.”
“Aarrrgh!” :fume:
:laughing: Ok, hardly a precise, or universally valid guide. All this tells me is that you prefer having your money rather than spending it on good of dubious direct value to yourself. (But that’s still something.)

2

Do I really have to go through the trouble of making this point? Truly, I’ve been shaking my head over this goofy prejudice against “feeling”. Political propaganda runs on emotional manipulation, but that’s simply the abuse of natural and extremely useful faculty. The gut check, if you pay attention and consider carefully what and why you’re having reaction X, pays off. It’s particularly useful when things have gone wrong.

[Insert your own political boogy-men here: images of poverty, genocide, torture]

But it is also a good indication of things going right.

[Insert your own political shining moments: fall of the Berlin wall, Mandela’s release, Gandhi’s salt march]

Shame, anger, joy, exultation: these things give clues to the character of what’s going on. In and of themselves they’re not reason enough to reverse your course, but if the signals are wrong you damn well better ensure that your ship of fools isn’t running aground.

The emotions–being largely constitutive of our dearly held values–may function something like a constitutional court (of varying strength and effectiveness). If it “just feels right/wrong”, that’s valuable information. Not sovereign, but valuable. To use another analogy, our emotions are the Chairman of the Board, our rationality the CEO. (Hey, Hume said it was a master/ slave relationship, I’m not going nearly that far.)

Am I going to prove the point here? No. Not even close. I’m not even going to try. It’s too long an argument and I’m not interested in dragging the thread, kicking and screaming, that far.

Have I provided reason enough to demonstrate that out of hand dismissal of “your feelings” is foolish? I think so. And that’s good enough.

Again, should our feelings dictate policy? NO.
“Passion serves passion’s interests poorly.” Rationality understands the means, but the means alone. Again, it’s “that whore” and “is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions.” Passions provide our ends, rationality the means to achieve those ends, reason (thought and feeling) keeps both in check.

If there were full agreement on our ends and their relative importance, our political problems would be reduced to technical challenges. There is no such agreement. More seriously, we do a pretty poor job when it comes to learning, in detail, what even our own ends. As such, they regularly come into conflict.

I’ve got a thing for kindness, excellence, justice and liberty: a political problem that I’ve been chewing on FOR YEARS concerns a conflict between kindness and justice; when are we to exercise kindness and practice forgiveness rather than pursue justice? Not a political issue? Check out the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions established in South Africa and Peru. (There are also commissions established in Bolivia, Brazil, Burundi, C

3

This is silly.

Emotion without a good dollop of reason is near useless.

Reason without a bit of passion (or perhaps compassion) is not always useful.

4

For me, it’s like asking the question 'would it be better to live the rest of your life hopping around on your right leg or hopping around on your left leg?"

You’re going to have your resolutely practical thinkers who are going to claim that your right leg is clearly the better choice. You’ll inevitably also have your contrarian thinkers who will argue that the left leg is the better choice and the “right-leggers” will argue with some degree of truth that’s just because the “left-leggers” are jealous because their right legs aren’t as strong as “real right-leggers’.” That counter-argument won’t be entirely true though because the “left leggers” will also be motivated by a sincere desire to level the playing field and other equally esoteric but not unimportant considerations.

I’m not sure which side I’m on.

5

Emotions got me into caring about politics. But reason led me to decide which path was better.

jdstonecold

6

Politics should be about reason - but the feelings of the mob are the reality.

7

I think that when we say that “feelings” are bad or where they are even contemptible is where they take the place of any solid evidence or facts. Even when confronted with the facts, various politicized individuals may “feel” that they are still right. Bush hatred is a good point. Peace at all costs is another. War is always wrong. We must always help others. Charity is always good. Taxing the rich is fair. Not taxing the poor is right. Nations with much must always give to those with little. The Kyoto Treaty is good because it shows we “care” about the environment. These seem to betray an excess of feeling above all else including factual evidence to the contrary. So while I have no problem with passion, love, feelings or whatever in a political discussion, I do have a problem with the adherent has little to nothing else. I just do not want to get into feelings about feelings and how people feel about them. If I wanted that I could head to the Open Fourm. And by the way Jaboney, sterling effort on collecting all of the theories and quotes. Very interesting. Not sure that it is 100 percent applicable but you made a good start.

8

So…

[quote]Meanwhile, a Christian organization dedicated to nonviolence said four Western aid workers kidnapped in the Iraqi capital over the weekend were all affiliated with it.

According to Monday’s statement on the group’s Web page, “On November 26, 2005, two members of [b]Christian Peacemaker Teams /b and two members of a CPT visiting delegation were taken in Baghdad.”

The group provided no other details on the abductions or the identities of those taken, but their governments have said the aid workers include two Canadians, one American and a Briton. The British Foreign Office in London identified the British citizen as Norman Kember.

On its Web site, CPT said it had been present in Iraq more than three years, "providing first-hand, independent reports from the region, working with detainees of both United States and Iraqi forces, and training others in nonviolent intervention and human rights documentation."[/quote]

cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/ … index.html

So we have a Christian group that “feels” that what they are doing is good, but they are doing what? helping document abuses by US and Iraqi troops? and teaching non-violent intervention? This is where my contempt comes in. This is the type of thinking that I abhor. The focus is on US and Iraqi troops as if they are the problem. Yet all evidence to the contrary would suggest that the insurgents and terrorists are the ones that need more help with nonviolent intervention, no?

Anyway, again a case in point. I hope this helps you understand where I am coming from in how I “feel” about these views.

9

Feelings are important to reason – we have to “feel” what is desireable before we can use reason 1) to find an appropriate path toward it or 2) to try to reach a compromise acceptable within a group that does not necessarily share the same desires.

For example, most societies have come to an agreement that they “feel” certain kinds of deaths are different than other ones – it’s not a Chomskyesque world in which all deaths no matter what the cause are all equal. We use reason to determine how to divide them up – deaths from natural causes, deaths from pure accidents, deaths from negligence, deaths from recklessness, deaths from intentional acts, and so on.

We use our “feelings” to determine what punishments are appropriate. Some people “feel” that an eye-for-an-eye solution is great for them, others “feel” rotting in a jail cell for life is worse than death, and so on. We try to use reason to deal with the issues of such punishments to limit them appropriately to what the court has specified.

10

[quote=“fred smith”]I think that when we say that “feelings” are bad or where they are even contemptible is where they take the place of any solid evidence or facts. Even when confronted with the facts, various politicized individuals may “feel” that they are still right. Bush hatred is a good point. Peace at all costs is another. War is always wrong. We must always help others. Charity is always good. Taxing the rich is fair. Not taxing the poor is right. Nations with much must always give to those with little. The Kyoto Treaty is good because it shows we “care” about the environment. These seem to betray an excess of feeling above all else including factual evidence to the contrary. So while I have no problem with passion, love, feelings or whatever in a political discussion, I do have a problem with the adherent has little to nothing else. I just do not want to get into feelings about feelings and how people feel about them. If I wanted that I could head to the Open Fourm. And by the way Jaboney, sterling effort on collecting all of the theories and quotes. Very interesting. Not sure that it is 100 percent applicable but you made a good start.[/quote]“Saddam is bad”, “Democracy is good”, “I care about the Iraqis”, “I don’t want to get blown up by a muslim” are also feelings that lead to political reasoning. See, proof that Fred Smith is really just a big loveable softie at heart, he just tries to hide it.

Ok, I’m off back to the pets forum to talk about kittens.

11

BUT… there is a rational and factual basis for stating the above. You do see the difference… er, maybe you don’t…

That is not in dispute. The problem is when there are only wispy feelings that are grounded in nothing else but subjective self-absorbtion.

The only thing that is soft about me is the flesh under my chin and the muscles around my midriff.

Ok then, it that is where you feel more comfortable posting.

12

[quote]On Tuesday, Al-Jazeera broadcast video of the four men held by a previously unknown group calling itself the Swords of Righteousness Brigade. The group claimed they were spies working under the cover of Christian peace activists.

Christian Peacemaker Teams said it was saddened by the videotape of their workers, who the statement said were working against the occupation of Iraq.

"
We are angry because what has happened to our teammates is the result of the actions of the U.S. and U.K. government due to the illegal attack on Iraq and the continuing occupation and oppression of its people
," the group said.[/quote]
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177152,00.html

Talk about delusional self-righteousness. These people think that by protesting against the US and UK governments that they can somehow grovel for safety from insurgents and terrorists? hahaha What is this some kind of messiah-martyr complex. These fools along with their bright-bulb counterparts who went to Iraq to serve as human shields before the war … What can you do with people like this? Remove them from the gene pool?

13

Fred’s post reminds me that there should be a third, “peg-legger” category added to the metaphorical “right leg”/reason, “left leg”/feelings debate.

“Peg-leggers” often have a love/hate relationship with their underdeveloped member which leads to them to all sort of passionate over-reactions whenever the subject of their handicap is raised.

That’s how I feel about it anyway.

14

Yes, I have a real love of the uniformed, deluded, narcissistic, self-absorbed, selfish, stupid, lazy, mindless and amoral. So that would by the very nature of your argument mean that I would be the embodiment of the exact opposite? Fine. I can live with that.

15

Whats all this about spook feeling-up peg-leggers? :heart:
Shouldn’t that be moved to the “Dating & Relationships” forum? :ponder:

(or maybe the Penthouse letter’s section)

16

I feel with my hands, reason with my mind, and you guys feel with your minds?? :laughing: What do you do with your hands?? Beat your wife? :roflmao:

17

I’d appreciate it if you guys wouldn’t fool around here. I’m trying to give Fred some guidance while also advancing Jaboney’s important debate proposition concerning feelings vs. reason.

Fred, I may get nailed on an “Americans With Disabilities Act” infraction for saying this but many emotional retards are perfectly capable of living useful and productive lives. Just remember that while having the emotional maturity of a fence post may give you some clear advantages in any rhetorical ass-kicking contests, it’s not always for the greater good including your own to give in to your inner “peg-leggism.”

18

Sage advice Spook. I will certainly take your words to heart where I “feel” them burning away right now. Must run. Got a plane to catch.

Freddy

19

Well, this has already been more popular than the usual theory thread. Cool. I had to spend my caffeine-fueled insomnia-stretched night-time hours somehow… this was it.

[quote=“Tigerman”]This is silly.

Emotion without a good dollop of reason is near useless.

Reason without a bit of passion (or perhaps compassion) is not always useful.[/quote]
I’ll counter that intentional blindness is foolish, but acknowledge that corrective revisions often over-reach. I don’t think that this over reaches; I do feel that recent dismissals have been silly.

Emotion without a good dollop of reason is worse than near useless; it’s dangerous. But then I wasn’t advocating putting political policy on “emote-control”. If that were the case, civil servants could hash things out on Oprah or with Dr. Phil, and policy wonks would be evaluated on their proficiency at employing the Stanislavsky Method.

Reason with a bit of com/passion is still more dangerous. If we’re going to take it to extemes, would you rather face a madman spouting irrational drivel about his wounded, bleeding soul, or a madman ruthlessly implementing a coldly calculated plan? But then going to extremes is silly. The issue isn’t whether or not we have the strength to follow our reason to it’s end, but whether or not we have a reason to follow our strength to it’s end. Obviously, as an advocate of moderation, I don’t think we do.

The emotion is allows there. Deny it and there’s a risk of ending up like Shylock: employing rational means (the law, in his case), but nonetheless doing so in blind rage, and in pursuit of bitter ends, only to come to a bad end. I’m not arguing that emotions consistently contribute to thinking more clearly; they are often corrosive. Emotions inform–for better or worse–our deliberations. Ignoring that is foolhardy. Shylock’s not bound to deal with his grief and rage anymore than he is to extend compassion or pity to Antonio, or to please us with his answers: but it’s these lacks that ultimately condemn him.

[quote=“spook”]For me, it’s like asking the question 'would it be better to live the rest of your life hopping around on your right leg or hopping around on your left leg?"

I’m not sure which side I’m on.[/quote]
Oh. I rather thought it was like asking that we quit hobbling one of our legs in order to walk properly, on both.

Why the mob? Why not deal with finer feelings? A love of justice? Joy in empowering individuals to freely pursue their own ends. Pride in seeing our efforts bear fruit.

But if you want to dwell on harsher emotions, well, righteous indignation is an entirely appropriate response to some violation. It may not be prudent to act under it’s influence, but it’ll certainly motivate you to pursue justice. Politics should be conducted reasonably, but to be fully reasonable, as opposed to only rational, the appropriate emotional resources have to do their parts.

[quote=“jdsmith”]Emotions got me into caring about politics. But reason led me to decide which path was better.

jdstonecold[/quote]

Fair enough. I did say that the means are for reason to decide. I just think a regular ‘gut-check’ regarding those means is good and necessary.

Agreed, agreed, yes, and again.
I will, however, qualify that by saying that intuition seems to serve me well. Difficult to verify, because how can you prove a negative when it comes to avoiding trouble? But if I have a strong feeling–a premonition–about something and ignore it, I often end up regretting it.

Again, agreed. Compassion commitment isn’t enough. I noted in one of the original posts that I have excellence really does it for me. I seldom notice it arising out of sheer enthusiasm. In fact, with Thomas Hobbes, I believe that enthusiasm is “a form of madness”. That said, properly channeled and directed, it gets the job done.

Thank you, sir. :bow: And once more, I agree: it’s not all 100% directly applicable. I beg pardon: it was a very late night, caffeine-fueled effort, and as my library remains back home I’m working from memory and without a net (save for the 'net and a few etexts). I had considered throwing in a list of recent Nobel Prize winners in Economics because the number of recipients who have got the prize for their work in behaviour economics and on the utility of emotional (or other) dispositions to decision-making is impressive. But except for John Nash, they and their political leanings are not well-known.

I’d absolutely love to hear what anyone else can add to, or correct in this.

20

I know I agreed to a couple of days but 25 odd hours or so has gotta be close enough…

The problem here is that the “feeling” argument is always trotted out by the right as though their own feelings might not also be blinding them to the truth.

This trait is certainly not limited to any particular individual or group.

There are plenty of logical reasons to hate Bush and his administration if you value things like environmental protection, honesty in government, fiscal responsibility and articulate speech.

I’ll grant you this one. Some individuals seem to think that it might be possible to sweet talk tyrants out of power.

See above.

“You do not help a man by doing for him what he can and should do for himself.” If you keep this in mind it probably is true that we should always strive to help others. Help comes in many forms though of course. Sometimes it involves merely helping them to see the error of their ways. :wink:

Charity to those who genuinely need it “is” always good.

Taxing the rich “is” fair. Taxing them to the extent that they are no longer motivated to be productive is not.

Not taxing the desperately poor “is” right.

Yes but the giving must be done in ways that do not encourage further dependence.

It wasn’t a very good treaty but if it had been it would have been good because it protected the environment not because it assauged our guilt.

The same charges could certainly be made against those who refuse to accept the fact of global warming and man’s contribution to that process regardless of how much evidence there is of that fact.

Patriotism and the rush you get when the four barrel kicks in are feelings too.