I think having answers for political questions is compatible and required by rationalism. Instead of ‘apolitical’ consequentialism I would advise any of the following which mean approximately the same things as each other:
• politically subficial consequentialism (as opposed to politically superficial consequentialism; instead of judging things on whether they appear to be in line with a political faction, which is superficial, rationalists aspire to have deeper and more justified standards for solving political questions) • politically impartial consequentialism • politically meritocratic consequentialism • politically individuated consequentialism • politically open-minded consequentialism • politically human consequentialism (politics which aim to be good by the metric of human values, shared as much as possible by everyone, regardless of politics) • politically omniscient consequentialism (politics which aim to be good by the metric of values that humans would have if they had full, maximally objection-solved information on every topic, especially topics of practical philosophy)
I agree that rationalism involves the (advanced rationalist) skills of instrumentally routing through relevant political challenges to accomplish your goals … but I’m not sure any of those proposed labels captures that well.
I like “apolitical” because it unequivocally states that you’re not trying to slogan-monger for a political tribe, and are naively, completely, loudly, and explicitly opting out of that status competition and not secretly fighting for the semantic high-ground in some underhanded way (which is more typical political behavior, and is thus expected). “Meritocratic,” “humanist,” “humanitarian,” and maybe “open-minded” are all shot for that purpose, as they’ve been abused by political tribes in the ongoing culture war (and in previous culture wars, too; our era probably isn’t too special in this regard) and connotate allegiance to some political tribes over others.
What I really want is an adjective that says “I’m completely tapping out of that game.”
The problem is that whenever well meaning people come up with such an adjective, the people who are, in fact, not “completely tapping out of that game” quickly begin to abuse it until it loses meaning.
Generally speaking, tribalized people have an incentive to be seen as unaffiliated as possible. Being seen as a rational, neutral observer lends your perspective more credibility.
“apolitical” has indeed been turned into a slur around “you’re just trying to hide that you hate change” or “you’re just trying to hide the evil influences on you” (or something else vaguely like those) in a number of places.
I think having answers for political questions is compatible and required by rationalism. Instead of ‘apolitical’ consequentialism I would advise any of the following which mean approximately the same things as each other:
• politically subficial consequentialism (as opposed to politically superficial consequentialism; instead of judging things on whether they appear to be in line with a political faction, which is superficial, rationalists aspire to have deeper and more justified standards for solving political questions)
• politically impartial consequentialism
• politically meritocratic consequentialism
• politically individuated consequentialism
• politically open-minded consequentialism
• politically human consequentialism (politics which aim to be good by the metric of human values, shared as much as possible by everyone, regardless of politics)
• politically omniscient consequentialism (politics which aim to be good by the metric of values that humans would have if they had full, maximally objection-solved information on every topic, especially topics of practical philosophy)
I agree that rationalism involves the (advanced rationalist) skills of instrumentally routing through relevant political challenges to accomplish your goals … but I’m not sure any of those proposed labels captures that well.
I like “apolitical” because it unequivocally states that you’re not trying to slogan-monger for a political tribe, and are naively, completely, loudly, and explicitly opting out of that status competition and not secretly fighting for the semantic high-ground in some underhanded way (which is more typical political behavior, and is thus expected). “Meritocratic,” “humanist,” “humanitarian,” and maybe “open-minded” are all shot for that purpose, as they’ve been abused by political tribes in the ongoing culture war (and in previous culture wars, too; our era probably isn’t too special in this regard) and connotate allegiance to some political tribes over others.
What I really want is an adjective that says “I’m completely tapping out of that game.”
The problem is that whenever well meaning people come up with such an adjective, the people who are, in fact, not “completely tapping out of that game” quickly begin to abuse it until it loses meaning.
Generally speaking, tribalized people have an incentive to be seen as unaffiliated as possible. Being seen as a rational, neutral observer lends your perspective more credibility.
“apolitical” has indeed been turned into a slur around “you’re just trying to hide that you hate change” or “you’re just trying to hide the evil influences on you” (or something else vaguely like those) in a number of places.