|
Law in Contemporary Society
|
|
Is the Great the Enemy of the Good?-- By SamMatthews - 12 Mar 2017 On December 2, 1859, John Brown was executed for his raid on Harpers Ferry. Eight days earlier, Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species; earlier that year, Peter Cooper established the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, which would eventually furnish a young Thomas Edison with much of his early education. In 1859, slavery was the world’s greatest injustice. John Brown took what he knew (logistics) and applied it to that problem. Compared to ending slavery, advancing scientific understanding and providing access to education seem rather less pressing concerns. Should Cooper have donated his fortune to abolitionist causes instead? Should T.H. Huxley have foregone his debate with Bishop Wilberforce and traveled to America to debate Josiah C. Nott instead? Was John Brown’s cause better or more important than the others? In exploring this topic, I will be using “cause” as a stand in for “a series of related goals having to do with combating some injustice or promoting some justice,” and will say that a cause is “better” than another if it does more to make the world a better place. Obviously, this choice of terms could itself be a topic of debate, but I’ll leave that for another essay. By asking the question of which cause is best, I’m really asking a normative question: what should I do? How should I devote my energies? In policy circles, the question has been asked “why are we trying to go to Mars when we still have starving children back on Earth?” Our world is full of injustice to be corrected. Lamar Smith, chair of the House Science Committee, denies the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Drug enforcement is heavily biased against minority communities. Big Placebo has successfully convinced millions of consumers that natural means healthy, and that getting E. Coli at Chipotle is preferable to eating a Genetically Modified Organism. An Indian Sikh was shot in Seattle; the shooter told him to “go back to [his] own country.” No one can work to correct all of these. Which should I chose? As a scientist, I find myself drawn to injustices related to science. Science advocates are often targeted by SLAPP lawsuits and FOIA requests. Snake-oil salesmen can claim that their worthless products “promote a healthy immune system,” thanks to the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. But here’s the thing: I’m not sure if the anti-vax movement is as serious a problem as police brutality. I can’t say for certain that increasing our nation’s scientific literacy is more important that stamping out islamophobia. An hour spent promoting scientific literacy is an hour not spent combatting unjustified incarceration. Given the choice between two good causes, which do I choose? What balance should I strike between good causes and the best causes? It is plausible that, like complex numbers in mathematics, causes cannot be so ranked. The question “is 2 + 3i greater than 3 + 2i?” is conceptually incoherent. Maybe the same thing can be said for causes. If one cause prevents children from contracting malaria, while another combats racism in the American immigration system how do you compare the two? This theory is also attractive because it gets me off the hook. If combatting surveillance state is no more important than defending science advocates in SLAPP lawsuits, then I can’t be faulted for gravitating to the latter over the former. Attractive as this solution is, it doesn’t feel right to me. In 2014, a group raised $101,000 on Kickstarter to film an unlicensed Star Trek fan film, Axanar. When they were sued by Paramount for copyright infringement, they were defended pro-bono. While fair-use doctrines are important in the marketplace of ideas, I don’t think that this kind of pro-bono work is on the same level as those opposing President Trump’s travel ban. At the far end of the spectrum, “causes” such as Homeopaths Without Borders (yes, this is a real thing) are of no value, and possibly are of detriment, to society. On the other hand, I think that there is value to society in advancing a multitude of causes, even if the causes themselves are unequal. Charles Darwin was a scientist, not a politician or a soldier. Had he decided to devote his energies to ending slavery (in my view, the greater cause) rather than study finches on the Galapagos, would he have done more to make the world a better place? I doubt it. Darwin did what he knew, and countless lives have been saved by the scientific advances unlocked by evolutionary theory. There are so many ways I could combat injustice. John Brown knew logistics. I know science. What I want to do is fight against scientific illiteracy and the proliferation of pseudoscience. By choosing to pursue this, rather than some “better” cause, am I indulging in self-deception and comfortable vanity? I don’t think that of myself. But then again, nobody does.It's not very good arithmetic to assume that if one man can dig a post-host in sixty seconds, sixty men could dig one post-hole in one second, as Ambrose Bierce—who also knew logistics—points out. So it follows that even if there were a most important cause, almost everybody would have to work on some other one, unless they wanted to screw up the most important cause beyond recognition. Yours is not, therefore, a major worry, so far as I can see. The important things to do are to figure out exactly what you want to accomplish, and exactly how to accomplish it. If you have done that once, you either have the cause, or a cause that will be important to your life. You will soon see that most troubles occur in "civil society" because people cannot grant rough equality of importance to one another's causes, and are unable to let go of the arithmetically ridiculous opinion that everyone should really be working on their own. Another draft of this essay, that let go of the self-doubt and embraced instead the uncertainty would be very good for the author to have written. You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
|
|
