In the last few posts I noted the following virtues that John Dewey thought accompany intelligent action:
- Being conscientious or being interested in finding out what the actual good of a certain situation is
- Maintaining a bias toward fairness and objectivity when judging and evaluating conflicting values and opinions
- Seeking the good of a situation in a community of inquiry if possible
- Being emotionally sensitive and especially sympathetic to the values and feelings of those in the situation
- Carefully reflecting upon the relevant aspects of the situation
- Exercising one’s imagination to see new possibilities and have a sense of the situation as a whole
- Being willing to change our beliefs in light of consequences and learn from the past
We have been looking at how we can use these virtues of intelligent action to intelligently deal with tragic conflict or an unavoidable conflict of momentous values and/or obligations in which some values and/or obligations are sacrificed causing suffering. In the last two posts I covered the first four virtues on the list; now I will cover the fifth and sixth. The next post will cover learning from the past.
Intelligent reflection demands that we reflect on the relevant aspects of the situation and avoid superimposing what worked in the past onto the present. Of course we can use various principles and rules as guides. But we must see them as hypotheses to be employed rather than rigid rules to be followed. Moreover, we shouldn’t assume a fixed end of inquiry. Instead, we must have ends-in-view which are ideals of what we conceive the future to be. Such ideals play a role in orienting our inquiries and can alter as our inquiry brings new data to light. We must also be self-corrective regarding our principles, that is, we must be willing to revise or abandon a principle if the consequences to which it leads don’t square with our predictions or intentions. Dewey calls this experimental form of situated reflection the logic individualized situations. Those who employ this logic in a tragic situation must find their way among the conflicting claims and try to give each one of them a voice. The hope is that as much as possible of each voice may be incorporated in some shared interest which is accepted because the alternatives are less satisfactory. In order to do this, they will try and investigate every relevant feature about it, the conditions under which it emerged, its proximate causes and consequences, the costs of gratifying it, and the available alternatives and their costs. Of course, such comprehensive inquiry can be difficult. Therefore in his essay “Ethics of Controversy” Sidney Hook outlines some helpful guidelines:
(1) Nothing and no one is immune from criticism.
(2) Everyone involved in a controversy has an intellectual responsibility to inform himself of the available facts.
(3) Criticism should be directed first to policies, and against persons only when they are responsible for policies, and against their motives or purposes only when there is some independent evidence of their character.
(4) Because certain words are legally permissible, they are not therefore morally permissible.
(5) Before impugning an opponent’s motives, even when they legitimately may be impugned, answer his arguments.
(6) Do not treat an opponent of a policy as if he were therefore a personal enemy of the country or a concealed enemy of democracy.
(7) Since a good cause may be defended by bad arguments, after answering the bad arguments for another’s position present positive evidence of your own.
(8) Do not hesitate to admit lack of knowledge or to suspend judgment if evidence is not decisive either way.
(9) Only in pure logic and mathematics, not in human affairs, can one demonstrate that something is strictly impossible. Because something is logically possible, it is not therefore probable. “It is impossible” is a preface to an irrelevant statement about human affairs. The question is always one of the balance of probabilities. And the evidence for probabilities must include more than abstract possibilities.
(10) The cardinal sin, when we are looking for truth of fact or wisdom of policy, is refusal to discuss, or action that blocks discussion (See Philosophy and Public Policy. Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 1980).
One cannot employ the logic of individualized situations if one doesn’t have a strong imagination. First, without imagination we would not be able to consider possible alternatives of action and mentally trace their consequences. In fact, Dewey defines deliberation as “a dramatic rehearsal (in imagination) of various competing possible lines of action” (The Middle Works, Vol. 14, p. 132). Now if intelligence requires deliberation, and imagination is required for deliberation, then intelligence is not possible without imagination. Second, Dewey tells us that imaginative vision “elicits the possibilities that are interwoven within the texture of the actual” (The Later Works, Vol. 10, p. 348). But if the job of intelligent action is to “grasp and realize genuine opportunity, possibility,” then imagination is indispensable to intelligent action (MW Vol. 14, p. 161). And third, without imagination our intellectual analysis would have no orientation. For imagination is “a way of seeing and feeling things as they compose an integral whole,” and without a qualitative sense of the whole situation we would have no guide to our reflection (LW Vol. 10 p. 271). Of course, imagination can by no means dispense with reflection. For visions are not understood by vision. But imaginative vision is certainly indispensable to any comprehensive assessment of a situation.
This is certainly the case when it comes to a tragic situation. For imagination enables us to get a sense of the bigger picture which, when it comes to tragedy, is very often exactly what people lack. Of course, to see and feel a situation as a whole is necessary if one is to better anticipate certain consequences and causes within the situation. But more importantly, imagination can prevent us from performing in an irresponsible and even cruel manner. In his essay “Intelligence and Evil in Human History” Hook writes: “We are all crueler than we know, not because we are evil, but because our senses and imagination have such a limited range”. He goes on: “I am speaking now of those great ranges of cruelty in modern history, involving the fate of millions, that flow from the limitations of human imagination and sensitivity, of the cruelty men do because it is easy to stand what is out of sight, and still easier to stand what is out of mind”. The habit of imagining can help make us more aware of what goes on around us so we can become less inconsiderate and cruel. Without this awareness it is hard to see how we can engage in a comprehensive and conscientious investigation of a situation.
Go here for part six.