Imaginative Political Leaps, Part II

A few weeks ago I complained about the lack of empathy in our political discourse, and I suggested a Kantian version of a "political imagination" as a way around it. In summary, there is a two-step process of reflection: first, with disinterest, you look at someone else's possible positions, imagining all the many ways a person could possible conceive his or her position.

Once this imaginative political leap has been made, the question then becomes: how might one then decide? Considering that you've fully understood the many possibilities of arguments for a certain position still leaves one with the problem of what to do. Following our earlier example, if someone is fully pro-life, even if they could concede that the right to abortion comes within a certain context of women's right's to their bodies, would this mean they will actually decide to support it? Conversely, if someone is pro-choice, would the context of an appeal to someone's private religious faith really convince someone to support pro-lifers? For both, probably not.

Yet, there is another way to think about this. Kant calls this way the "maxims of the common human understanding." There are three: "1. To think for oneself; 2. To think in the position of everyone else; 3. Always to think in accord with oneself." The first he calls an "unprejudiced" way of thinking, the second a "broad-minded" way, and the third, a "consistent" way. Let's look at each maxim and how they help us come to a decision on a certain reflection.

1. "To think for oneself." This is the principle of autonomy, of being an active thinker. In any imaginative variation, one realizes very soon that to imagine another person's position forces you to take stock of your own. This "taking stock" is exactly what to "think for oneself" means. This does not mean you "question everything"; there could be things that are necessary even to think at all! But it does mean that you realize there are numerous sides to one question, and that you actually have to choose which side you're on in an active way once you know all the different positions. You can finally take full responsibility for your decision. E.g., if you decide to be pro-life, given all the context of the abuse of women, and the history of women's oppression, then your decision will be made knowingly. Conversely, if you still choose the right to abortion, even considering the view that every human person has infinite value, then your decision will fully be your own. Being "unprejudiced" doesn't necessary mean you give up your view, but rather you take full responsibility for it.

2. "To think in the position of everyone else." This is similar to the imaginative variation we talked about before, but now it means that the actual decision must start to include other people's view. While the first imaginative variation was disinterested, now one must choose an interest. This interest should then be based on everyone's position. This does not mean a "majority" of people (like: make a poll, see what most Americans think), but rather the thought must include all the different positions. So, abortion again: it must be recognized that abortion comes in a context where women have been oppressed, and so the possibility of her having a right to her own body must be preserved. At the same time, the baby's body must be preserved as well, since there is an infinite value in that human person. These are goods that everyone must strive for, even in the fact of a seemingly problematic option.

3. "Always to think in accord with oneself." The principle of consistency is important, because only then can a solution actually fit both position. This is normally a basic requirement, because in reality, if there are inconsistencies, with one group giving up more and the other less, then eventually the conflict will just erupt again, and the same problems will occur. In our example, we could say this: first, for pro-lifers who see infinite value in every human being, we might want to actually show, beyond mere words, this in practice. Thus anyone woman who gets pregnant will have support for their child in a number of different ways: from free education for the mother, to free child care for the child, to parenting classes, greater restrictions on the fathers, etc. There is a whole host of social support activities that might be encouraged to give support to women and children (and maybe, just maybe, we could spend a little less on developing weapons, and put a little more into children?). For pro-choicers, who see the context of women's oppression and bodily restrictions, we might want them to concede that having an abortion ends up as an evil, and thus work to promote healthy sexual practices, and reduce rhetoric against pro-lifers, who often are more concerned with the child than the parent.

Whether or not my particular suggestions would be advisable to anyone, I don't know. However, I think that if we take these three maxims, and apply it to policy questions after we've imagined all the possible positions, we might come away with more empathy, and hence more effective, political dialogue.