I was a bit surprised this morning to see my very lengthy article "Greed Versus Evil" not only got one but two responses. I was less surprised that my resident liberal comment writer had found fault with my arguments. But, expected as that may be, one of the comments was interesting in that it is an argument one often hears on the left, and sometimes on the right. So, rather than dilute my argument by responding to all the comments, let me focus on just one, the argument that conservatives, especially those given to extreme positions are guilty of "all or nothing" thinking.

First, this is a bit absurd on its face, as I am both a proponent of absolute positions (see "Smaller Government , Fair Weather Friends and Special Cases", "My Vision of Government Part II",  "Inescapable Logic" or, best of all "A Strange Reaction"), but I am also a proponent of accepting partial solutions in order to build upon them, as evidenced by my posts "Single Issue Voting", "The Need for Realism", "One More Reason Not To Sit It Out", "Why I am a Republican" and "Learning Too Much From History". I am hardly a good example of a single minded obsessive.

Not that there aren't single minded conservatives. As I wrote in the posts above, there were those who would have voted in Karl Marx rather than vote for McCain,  and there are a number who would see NARAL fill every seat in congress before they would vote for a Republican who called himself pro-choice.

On the other hand, this is hardly a conservative issue. One need only think of Obama's near suicidal opposition tot he BAIPA in Illinois to see that. The man was so single minded, he even had left wing papers mocking him. Nor is he alone. A casual reading of the DailyKos or Huff'n'Puff Post will show a host of those on the left every bit as rigid and uncompromising as those on the right.

Ah, but is that a bad thing? Even assuming psychologists are right (a risky assumption) and single mindedness is bad, do they mean it in all cases? Is it single minded to ALWAYS believe that arsenic is a bad choice in foods? Should one "be open" to lepers and tuberculosis carriers as nannies? Should one "consider the possibility" that gravity won't pull you down when you step off a high ledge?

Clearly the point made is not that speaking in absolutes is always bad*. When one is speaking of physical laws, or verifiable facts, and other such certainties, I doubt any but the most ardent of relativists (and perhaps Bishop Berkley) would argue that we should not think in absolutes.

So, where does "all or nothing" thinking cause problems?

And that is where the dispute arises. The Ayn Rand followers used to always toss out her aphorism that "in any compromise between food and poison, poison wins" and think that settled the question. And, in some sense it does. However, depending on how one reads it, it could also lead to those suicidal all-or-nothing voters I think do so much harm to themselves by being unwilling to accept a 25% conservative, and thus allow in a 100% liberal.

I think that point may be where we could all agree, or almost all. When one is speaking of reality, of politics, or business, and of everyday life, one must be willing to accept some degree of compromise. Unless you live in total isolation, you must be willing to  engage in some give and take, to put up with some things you find sub-optimal to get other, more important goals. And it is this area about which I think the psychologists were speaking, the common human interactions.

But what of other areas? What of morality? Or the subject of my article, economics? Or political science?

And that is where the problem comes in. Some psychologists, and my commenter, obviously take the need to compromise in everyday conflicts and extend it to ethics. Others do not.

Here is where the Rand quote comes in handy, as I think ethics is the best application. I wrote on this before, in "Non-Judgmental Ethics?", "The Costs of Understanding", "The Problem With Cultural Relativism", "More Harm From Multiculturalism", "Children's Programming Versus Self-Improvement", "Mainstreaming hate" and "Eurocentrism? Racism? Liberal Traits All", so I will be brief and deal with only the most common mistaken arguments. (Though see "A Point I Thought Clear" to hear a bit about the grief I got from those who confused economic and moral values.)

First, the obvious case for ethical absolutes. If something is wrong, if something is harmful by whatever standard one uses to establish ethical values, then it is wrong. How does one "compromise"? By allowing a little evil? But doesn't that invalidate the entire purpose of ethics? If you allow a little evil, then what of the next compromise? And the next? As compromise always involves allowing in more evil, or at least error, isn't it nothing but a progressive decline? (For an argument making a similar point, though about political philosophy rather than ethics, see "Inescapable Logic".)

The counter-argument that is often made is to argue that ethics are "situational" and thus "relative", but that is not a valid argument. Yes, killing for no reason is bad, while killing to defend one's family is good, but that does not prove ethics are "relative", simply that one did not understand the rules well enough. One has a right to life, so I may not kill anyone. However, once you attack another, you lose that right, so killing is no longer wrong. It is the violation of rights which is wrong, not the killing. So there is no "situational" component. You no longer have the right to life, so killing no longer matters**. Of course other ethical systems may have differing rules, but that may be the problem. If your rules are such that you must make them "conditional" and "relative", perhaps the system itself is the problem***.

And what of economics and politics? Well, that is actually two questions.

The first is easy. As far as the goals of the system are concerned, that is an ethical question, and that was answered above. Beyond that, economics and political science are still sciences, with rules that predict outcomes. Just as one would not argue you should be "non-absolute" about the speed of light in a vacuum or the laws of conservation of momentum, I can argue that the outcomes of inflating the money supply are just as absolute. Yes, humans are volitional, and some of their responses cannot be predicted, but so long as humans behave both consistently and in a generally rational manner, and all evidence points to those fact, then there is sufficient regularity to predict in broad outline how they will respond to actions. And so, in that sense, there is no argument for not being absolutist about economics or politics****.

And so I say that the "all or nothing" argument is misplaced. Yes, were I "all or nothing" in my daily dealings or my casting of votes, perhaps it would be a legitimate complaint. But when one is arguing about principles of the science of human behavior, then it is proper to be absolutist about them. You should "keep an open mind" in the sense of being open to evidence which may modify or refute your beliefs, and you should be willing to accept conclusions no matter whether they agree with your beliefs or not, but with that in mind, there is still nothing wrong with assuming those things that have been proved are absolute rules. In fact, doing anything else would be improper.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

* The funniest pop culture instance of this is the scene in "Revenge of the Sith" where Obi-Wan Kenobi says "Only a Sith thinks in absolutes", himself thinking in absolutes. It reminds me of the many college liberals I knew who told me they "could not stand" judgmental people. Then again, relativism does tend to open one up to that sort of conundrum. How do you establish absolute rules for relativism? And if the rules aren't absolutely pro-relativist, then doesn't that allow in absolutism? It is quite a difficult question, and one I avoid by happily believing in absolutes.

** I won't go into the "fire in a crowded theater" bit, or all the other supposed "contextual" rights and wrongs. Perhaps another time. For now, just accept that rights are absolute.

*** I am here distinguishing between social ethical rules, which are fit for governing a society and personal ethics, which one sues to guide his own actions. What is good for an individual is rarely good to be imposed on all individuals by society. However, in both cases, societal ethics and individual ethics, I think internal consistency is very important. And please, no objections form those, be they Rand fanciers or religious zealots who argue that one cannot split personal and societal ethics. Clearly one can. While many ethical systems may argue it is good to tithe, imposing tithing through the state could clearly be a major force for evil, allowing corruption and bankrupting families. So there is a clear distinction between the rules we use to govern a state and those we use to govern ourselves.

**** Before I am accused of inconsistency, economics is a science, but it can only predict within certain limits. As I wrote in "Why Do People Consider George Will Bright?", and more recently in "Why Do People Consider George Will Bright?" and "Greed Versus Evil", we cannot predict with certainty the price of goods or the amount of price increase from inflation. However there are still broad regularities we can predict. So while we cannot efficiently engage in "scientific" management of the economy, I can show that a free market is more efficient than any other system.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

In some ways this relates to other issues, such as arguments for political pragmatism, or the call for "empathy" from judges. If our societal rules should not be "absolute" and "all or nothing", then we must adopt an inconsistent set of rules, which leads to unpredictable results. To read my thoughts on pragmatism, read "The Shortcomings of Pragmatism" and "Pragmatism Revisited". For my refutation of "empathy" and other inconsistent systems, see the links following the article ""Empathy" Threatens not "Justice" but Predictability", as well as the article itself..