Essay V, economy and technology

Lifeworld, economy and technology

Technology is one of the most influential factors that define our lifeworld. Homo faber is an essential part of the definition of humanity. The development of technology with its inventions moulds all aspects of life. In the dawn of humankind, the use of tools made it possible for people to utilise natural resources in ever more multiple ways. At first technology meant just the means of interchanging material resources between humankind and nature. Now technology has occupied communication between people as well. Technology has come onto and under our skin. 

Economy is the way to organize production and the interchange of products and services. Economy and technology are deeply intertwined. From the economic point of view technology means efficiency, using as few resources as possible to produce as much as possible. This is the rationale behind the development of technology. It is easy to “invent” ways to do things less efficiently than it is possible with available means, but it is not the rational way. This of course depends on the goals, but are new gadgets themselves the main goal? Technology seems to develop in its own intrinsic ways. The risk here is that we do not see alternative ways of doing things. We act guided by short-sighted economic interest believing in technological determinism. Technical development has become a value in itself, although technology should only be the means to an end.

The overwhelming strive for efficiency of market economy has blinded people to what the consequences are to nature: means of production that are too efficient are exhausting the resources of nature. Economic result is considered quarterly and we do not see gradual changes that imply eventually fatal consequences to life. It may also be that those who mostly benefit from economic growth just do not care, and yet they are the ones who would have the power to change things. Of course, we all consume natural resources and can choose products and services that help to keep consumption on a sustainable level within the limits of the market. However, as retail chains have been organized into vast hypermarkets in out-of-town locations, you must drive ten kilometres to do your shopping and at the same time make your contribution to the greenhouse effect. Then you may be inclined to buy cheap tuna fish (endangered species) instead of more expensive pike from your nearby lakes (benefitting the condition of lakes). The costs incurred to nature are not sufficiently added to the prices of products.

Economic rationale directs our behaviour as well as the development of technology. It seems to be a law of nature although it is as such a product of market economy. Money has become the sole standard of value. Marcuse said this clearly in his One Dimensional Man: “If mass communications blend together harmoniously, and often unnoticeably, art, politics, religion and philosophy with commercials, they bring these realms of culture to their common denominator – the commodity form.” So, technological reason takes the position of ideology: technological progress, previously a means of achieving well-being, is now an end itself, to which other ends are made subservient. Marcuse does not long for the poverty and toil of the past, but sees that economic system needs a new foundation for the distribution of goods. Marcuse published his book fifty years ago and was more concerned with the consequences of market economy to our form of life and culture than its ecological effects. The now lurking climate change and ecocatastrophe were not such a critical issue then (or it was not yet recognized in public discourse). 

Habermas explained the controversy over the system and the human being raised by Marcuse through the uncoupling of the system from the lifeworld. According to Habermas the lifeworld is maintained through language and communicative action, while the socio-economic system imposes itself upon actors through the media of money and power. On the one hand this economic rationality and technology do seem external powers that set compelling conditions to our lifeworld, but as we take them as given facts we cannot separate them from the lifeworld. There is a great deal of talk about the necessity of economic growth by increasing consumption and productivity. This is the main message of politicians and economists of the finance sector and industry. The punters do not see any alternative. They argue for economic growth with the argument that unemployment will soar unless economy (in fact profits) grows at the same pace as productivity. However, in the case of bulk products the main means of improving competitiveness is to decrease production costs by means of automation or by transferring factories to countries with cheaper labour force. The problem is what Marcuse saw fifty years ago: the distribution of well-being based on the sale of labour time. 

We must break the fetters of the instrumental-rational ideology and free our thinking to rebuild our worldview starting from the genuine values of humanity. We do have a choice, and ironically, we must make that choice, otherwise we will be doomed. Fortunately, making technological choices is not so extraordinary. It happens every day. The planning of a new technical gadget or production line always takes place by means of evaluating various alternatives. The problem is that the criteria for choosing the best one to be implemented are too narrow: too often the criteria of choice are purely technical and economic. We encounter this situation every day in the clumsy usability of electronic devices, for example. This again impairs our moral fiber, or at least, increases the use of bad language. Seriously speaking, the criteria of choice should include the consequences to nature and society. This can be done by means of legislation (as is the case in the EU to some extent) or adding the costs of correcting the damage done to nature and society to production costs. These broader values should become part of our own consumer behaviour too. We should be aware of them as principles of our lifeworld, and not be guided only by the prices of goods, in order to rise above the narrow vision of economic rationality.

The primary cause for this short-sighted economic order is the investors’ urge to collect profits as quickly as possible. An extreme manifestation of this covetousness is the fact that the handling of stock sales is given to computer algorithms that make decisions in milliseconds. There can hardly be any hope that the transactions take into consideration the consequences to nature or people. Stock values guide the firm managers’ decisions because their bonuses are based on the profits brought to the owners. On the other hand, the problem with planned economy is that it restrains the creativity of actors. There is no such thing as an omniscient administrator who can foresee people’s needs. It can only be some sort of a middle way between a free market and a planned economy that can bring about as good and equal standard of living as possible with constraints of sustainable growth. Adam Smith’s argument for a free market (the invisible hand) was that it would bring about more prosperity than any other economic order. We have, however, seen that the market requires some regulation to guarantee a fair distribution of well-being and the sustainability of natural resources. Net trading gives an illusion of perfectly free market where buyers have the same information as producers, but behind the screen algorithms all the time analyse consumer behaviour and direct pricing for everyone separately. Great research effort is now given to the question of what kind of legislation is needed to control marketing actions made by algorithms, for example to protect consumers from paying for goods more than the market price in a free market situation.

Rationalising production in order to use a minimum of labour, energy and raw materials is a rational goal but its social implications should be taken into consideration. Over-production is one of those risks and it has brought about serious periodical fluctuation in economy. Developing new products and procedures of production requires investments, i.e., capital. Firms can finance their investment by borrowing money from banks or by means of share issues. To motivate investors to buy issued shares they usually expect to gain some profit on their investment through dividends or by being able to sell shares at a better price. The better price is based on expectations about the success of the firm in question. 

However, pure speculation on the stock exchange does not bring about any additional material well-being to society in general. The speculators may get their quick profits (or losses) but the capital in circulation remains at the same level, the money only passes from one pocket to another. Stock speculation is another cause of economic instability. It is a dilemma that the stock market provides motivation for financing industry but at the same time it takes the focus from the real economy that alone brings material prosperity. Would the solution to this problem be something like private investors only being able to sell their shares to publicly controlled finance companies or to public funds, and the profit from selling to another private investor being highly taxed? The main purpose of the funds is to support the strive for the common good, such as pension funds and funds supporting research institutions. Certainly, entrepreneurs can sell their business to another entrepreneur or firm, if the other firm does not get a monopoly in the market. This kind of trade is already regulated by legislation. Speculation on land should also be prevented, because it only hinders the progress of productive business. Market economy is a very complicated thing and its invisible hand should be made visible and controllable.

A major challenge for people today is the development of artificial intelligence to the point that it can totally beat human intelligence and (as some people fear or hope) can subordinate people to computers. This issue is important from the point of view of the lifeworld and humanity. The reasons for developing artificial intelligence are both economic and intellectual. Why shouldn’t we use computers to do complex calculations that exceed our own capabilities? Computers are tireless workers that do not make mistakes. However, we cannot call computers to account for their decisions, they are not responsible actors in society. The responsible one is always the person who has set the computer to do a task. He can again accuse a programmer, but you cannot claim compensation from the computer for the wrong decision. Computers are not fellows of our lifeworld, and they are not moral actors. So, they should not have the ultimate power over us, although we can set great store by their calculations and suggestions. The predicted point of singularity in which computers themselves can develop better computers won’t change this relationship. 

The humankind should use all available means to secure its existence and life in general. People with normal intellect would naturally have an interest in safeguarding their free and moral will. I can imagine a science-fiction scene in which doctors Strangelove and Faust sell their souls to a super-intellectual machine after having reached the conclusion that the human being must give way to intellectually more perfect forms of being (can we call them life?). I look forward to a production of Faust in which a computer sings Mefisto’s role. Its faultless performance would enchant Faust and the audience as well.

Technology gives an expectation towards future in our world view. That expectation gets its psychological tone from our experiences, our view of history and our personality. My personal view is controversial. On the one hand, I believe that I am an optimist, but on the other hand my confidence in the capability of the human kind to control technology and economy is not very high. The chaotic information flow from the media clouds the vision further. The worst fear is that the intellect that has lost its reason will destroy a significant portion of life on earth. The hope lies in the wish that reason will overcome, and that is why I take the trouble to write these essays. Technology is not the answer to all problems. We must also be able to change our way of life. Reason is our ability to set our goal for a better life and subordinate our intellect to that goal.

Essay IV, ethics

Lifeworld and ethics

The lifeworld provides us with norms and conventions with which we normally comply and become decent members of society. Most of those norms are not regarded as ethical rules of society but just conventions, and departing from them is eccentric behaviour rather than immoral action, if a person does not offend anyone’s rights. The borderline between ethical norms and good behaviour changes with time. Our choices are now made more on practical grounds than by convention. For example, we can wear clothes that are suitable for the weather and a moral code may come into the picture only through certain religious norms. Social conventions certainly still guide our dress code for concerts and special occasions, but these rules are becoming more practical. At least, we do not believe it to be an ethical issue whether or not we should wear white shorts when playing tennis. Crucial ethical issues have become separate from less important everyday questions.

Ethics seeks to establish the grounds of our values and morally acceptable actions. Gaining unanimity about the values and morally acceptable actions is even more difficult than reaching an agreement on scientific explanations, although they both are based on the lifeworld in the end. However, there is a crucial difference between ethics and science in the way they relate to the lifeworld. Scientific research can test its claims and observations (interpretations given by the lifeworld) with experiments on reality, whereas ethics is based only on our own reasoning and the shared beliefs of our lifeworld. In my view, there are no ethical principles outside our society. Even if people refer to the holy scriptures or some omniscient authority, we can only accept their views through our own understanding. Well, religions claim that we cannot understand them, but that I cannot understand. I will discuss these views in the essay on ideologies. My view is that we can only decide on the ethical principles of society by means of our reason.

We can only think of ethics as a feature of a community, concerning the shared values of the community and the voluntary actions of its members. No society can exist without some norms of behaviour, but if people are coerced into following those norms by a tyranny, their actions can hardly be evaluated on ethical grounds. We can doubt the genuineness of their ethics even in the case that they have been indoctrinated in those beliefs (to use the popular expression from 50 years back). We adopt the traditional values of society (lifeworld) through our upbringing, but we can rebel against those values – as teenagers often do. In this context, I address ethics with the assumption that the people of a community comply with some common norms and values voluntarily as responsible members of the community. 

Values and norms are open to debate, and our task here is to analyse what the relevant arguments in this debate are. Of course, I can pick only a few doctrines as examples of the vast philosophical literature on ethics, those that I find relevant to the relationship between the lifeworld and ethics. There are certainly many good textbooks on the topic. (In the Finnish version of this essay I have used Timo Airaksinen’s book). The most relevant references are John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice and Jürgen Habermas’ works on moral philosophy and communicative action. Rawls presents a very interesting idea of reasoning about ethics for a rational individual, whereas Habermas argues for communicative rationality, open discourse, as a true way to ethics. My standpoint is communicative rationality, which can use Rawls’ reasoning pattern as a good argument in the discourse. However, it is obvious that communicative rationality is an ideal type of social order, a goal that we reach for by means of these philosophical discussions.

Rawls derives his theory of justice, justice as fairness, through a very simple but powerful concept of rational choice in an ideal ‘original position behind a veil of ignorance’. His aim is to derive principles of justice that equal, rational persons would agree on when they do not know their share of the utilities ensuing from the principles, their social circumstances or personal characteristics. Rawls assumes a narrow concept of the rationality of economics, that of taking the most effective means to achieve given ends. A rational decision maker avoids risks and seeks to maximise his or her share of wealth in the event of being amongst the least advantaged members of a society. The choice of the principle behind the veil of ignorance guarantees their universality. Rawls’ standpoint of a rational individual is typical of European and American discussion of ethics, which Habermas calls ‘monological’. 

Kant’s universalisation principle is expressed in the categorical imperative: “So act that the maxim of your will could always hold at the same time as the principle of universal legislation.” (Critique of Practical Reason) Habermas replaces it with the principle that is based on formal conditions of discourse: Any valid norm must satisfy the condition that all those affected by the consequences of the norm must accept it when they strive for their interests. Decisions are made in an ideal speech situation which guarantees the participants’ symmetrical and equal chances to express their opinions and raise questions about any issue. 

Habermas and Rawls give two different but rather idealized procedures for the universalisation of ethical principles. Habermas does not, and from his standpoint cannot, provide any substantial ethical principles, because they will be the choice of the community. Habermas has been criticized for ignoring the challenges in implementing the ideal speech situation: not everybody has the same abilities to take part in the discourse and the future generations cannot be heard at all. It is not quite clear where Habermas sees the discourse taking place. 

Rawls’ idea of the original situation is likewise a hypothetical construction. We can combine their universalisation strategies so that Rawls’ idea of the original situation can be used as an argument in a real discussion: A claim that is meant solely to support personal interests at the expense of others is not a valid argument in the ethical discourse. Rawls’ conclusion is that the rational decision maker’s choice would be justice as fairness, which is expressed in two principles:

1.   Equality of basic rights and duties;
2.   Social and economic inequalities are just only if they result in compensating benefits for everyone, and in particular for the least advantaged members of society.

The goal is to maximize the welfare of the least advantaged members. I cannot recognise any society that has set Rawls’ idea as its goal, and if we take the global view of the matter, humankind is far away from this goal.  And the global perspective is how we must now define society. In the present situation, we must seriously take into consideration the limitations of the ecosystem as well.

 

My aim is to bring the discussion about ethics to bear on our lifeworld, to provide real debate with good principles. This discussion needs some “first” principles. They are the first ones merely in the sense that they are something to start with.

On what kind of principles can we base our argumentation, if we can question the beliefs given by our lifeworld as well? When philosophers have not recognized the role of the lifeworld, they have presented moral norms and values as self-evident (i.e., how they are given by the lifeworld) or given by intuition, which again can only rise from our human (=social) nature. I see ethics as a developing endeavour, but there are certainly some principles that have become rooted deep in our notion of humanity, for example: we must not cause any other human or animal unnecessary pain. In the history of ethics there are good candidates for the first principles. Based on the previous ethical discussion, I see ethical argumentation always relying on the social essence of ethics: (1) the moral code must be the same for the whole community, meaning that ethics is universal (within the limits of society and the capabilities of its members, ~categorical imperative); and (2) socially meaningful, morally acceptable acts always produce some common good, beneficial or, at least, harmless to everybody and nature. In other words, the second principle says that no one has the right to use other people only to advance his or her individual aims. Kant said that the human being must not be just a means to an end. The term ‘socially meaningful’ points to the idea that our moral code should say as little as possible about people’s individual habits of behaviour in other respects. So, for example if I want to go fishing at night and it does not harm anybody, I have the right to do so (if not very practical).

These principles are built into the present concepts of good and right. They should be understood as criteria for ethically valid argumentation, not as an authorization of any despotic order of society. So, these principles come before any other moral norms. For example, a totalitarian community cannot use these principles to coerce its members to submit to the will of an authority. The universality principle says that it is not a valid ethical argument to claim that a moral code concerns only others and I can do as I wish. Those who say so and act so, in fact set themselves outside the community. Society can protect itself against such acts that threaten its members’ health and rights by legal means. 

The idea of the common good is a historical one and depends on the living conditions of the people. At the dawn of humankind, the main concern must have been finding something to eat and getting protection from the dangers of nature. The struggle for survival dictated the ethical code to a large extent. This struggle affected humans even deeper than just in ethics. In the long prehistory of human race, under the conditions of the scarcity of food the greed managed better. So, greed has remained in the genetic code for some of us at least. The irony is that while we, as humankind, could afford to provide the needful for all, greed stands in the way. Even today millions of people live in hunger. We control nature by means of technology, but we cannot control ourselves. Now we can foresee an ecological catastrophe brought about by our own actions threatening our existence and the survival of the other species as well.

A popular but a very broad answer to the concept of the common good is given by various tenets of utilitarianism: the maximum pleasure over pain divided among everybody. This maximum can be reached in many ways. For example, some people may be extremely happy, so happy that it compensates for the unhappiness of others. A more equal idea would be to safeguard at least a certain level of pleasure to everybody by means of Pareto-optimality: the increase of pleasure for one person must not diminish the share of pleasure for other people. Rawls showed that his idea of fairness isn’t quite the same as the one the supporters of utilitarianism seek.  

Rawls published A Theory of Justice in 1973, when the economic expectations were mainly pointing upwards. He did not define how the optimal economic situation could be achieved politically. The principle (2) is the same one for a recession and a boom, but it will be more painful to take care of the least advantaged members in the case of declining economy. Rawls’ second principle does not reject the situation in which some people increase their wealth more than others, if the living conditions of the least advantaged get better. Those whose defend economic inequalities argue that the economic growth for some, even for only a few, always brings the good for everybody. So, in the public discussion they accept the second principle, but very often this talk is meant to camouflage the pursuit of their own aims only. Accumulating wealth does not automatically trickle down to the whole of society. However, this shows that we have some hope of agreement on this moral principle.

When economists speak about utilities, they do not define them in any way. People acting in the market choose between products and services according to their own preferences. People may decide to keep their money in the bank account or invest it in stocks. The common idea is that the more money you have the happier you are. So, does society have the right to prevent people from enjoying their growing bank accounts? The prevalent opinion is that society can collect taxes to maintain public services, even in the manner that the wealthier you are the more you pay taxes, also progressively. This is the usual and accepted way to even out economic differences. However, an ever more popular practice seems to be to take one’s savings to tax havens to avoid taxation. This is not regarded morally right, because those who have extra money to spare do it secretly by means of complex cover-up procedures. Most countries define this also as criminal activity. Moreover, these activities erode the moral basis of society, because those people are often in such high social positions that they are pillars of society. The risk is that tax evasion becomes morally acceptable and taxation is regarded as interference in peoples’ freedom. In the end, it is a risk to social cohesion, i.e., the very purpose of ethics. 

In the current situation, we should recognize the survival of nature and human society as the most important issues of ethics. This is so mainly because humankind has such powerful technology to deploy the resources of nature. Other human endeavours would then be subordinate to these objectives. We should then use this as the first principle: (0) No human action can put the survival of nature or society into danger. This principle can restrict our freedom or striving for personal welfare. Under the condition of the stated principles, we can see that there are positive aspects in aspirations to amass as large a fortune as possible. Under progressive taxation a few large incomes yield more taxes than many small incomes. This is acceptable if tax revenues are used to better the living conditions of the least advantaged members of society to the maximum. The least advantaged are probably people who do not earn their income through employment in a firm or the public sector, i.e., elderly people and the unemployed part of active population. This may well be the fate for many people, when robots and industrial automation take over production, and those who own the means of production gather the profits. But there won’t be any profits unless consumers have money to buy the products, so the income must be distributed in one way or another. The group that will suffer the greatest losses maybe the middle classes, and then Rawls’ second principle can be questioned.

The human values should be reconsidered, when we begin to understand that economic growth consumes natural resources more than nature can sustain. The obvious reaction would be such that the measure of welfare and social prestige is no longer based on material property and consumption. I do not see much value in billionaires’ mania to earn the next million dollars or pounds. How satisfying a feeling can that be? It seems to me more like an addiction, comparable with any other dependency on something that gives a pleasure for the passing moment. Of course, there is a difference if the million is earned by means of selling products that help humankind or if it comes from selling stocks with profit. The inventor’s satisfaction may be more due to helping humankind than the good pay earned. 

In modern democracies decisions on the distribution of income takes place on the one hand in negotiations between employer and employee organisations and on the other hand through the decisions of political representatives in parliaments. This takes place mostly on the national level, but in Europe the parliament and commission of EU exert major influence on national decisions. Globally it is mainly the market and trade treaties that direct how income is distributed among states. Are these the forums of rational discourse? Well, they should be. Only the market is not a suitable place for rational debate, because money has taken the place of communication media there.  

Where else is rational discourse going on? Well, it is going on right here; you are reading a comment in this discourse. At least this is an attempt to take part in the discussion on ethics on rational grounds. In the same vein, we should read the classics of ethics, so I wonder why Habermas saw those texts as monological. Therefore, moral philosophers have not generally recognized Habermas as one of them.

There are many challenges facing the community that seeks rational ethics. A major problem with ethical discourse it the fact that we take all traditions and conventions of the lifeworld as granted. They define our identity, but in the same manner as science begins with wondering and asking for explanations we should raise questions about those traditions of which we do not quite understand where they come from. We cannot throw away all the conventions at the same time, because society must have some building blocks to keep it together. Ethical principles can only be changed piece by piece. This is the same as Kuhn’s idea about how a new paradigm of science can replace the prevailing one. Another problem is the fact that hidden personal interests lurk behind every corner. An open discourse is the remedy for this problem.

Developing society means developing humanity, defining the human being through the idea of rich life. Ethical discourse will hopefully have a significant role in this process, because technology and especially biotechnology provide very powerful means to affect the concept of the human being in a tangible way. Science makes it possible to change our genotype and for what purpose this new technology will be used is very much an ethical issue.

The famous Nazarene said, so the chronicles tell, that he is “the way, the truth, and the life”. Never mind the road, but truth and life are important; especially a true life is. And what would that be? In my vision a true life is based on understanding and developing the living conditions of humankind and developing oneself in those qualities that mostly benefit humankind and, obviously, oneself as well. To give everybody the chance to cultivate his or her talents would be a source of the common good. We are thrown into the lifeworld and first take is as granted, but we can together mould it to be a more harmonious place of rich experiences. That I would call a rich and a true life.