Godwinian Determinism, Buddhism, & Reflections on Trumpism

Photo by Artem Beliaikin on Unsplash

Having friends and family that are supporters of Trump and the Republican Party puts me in an awkward position where I am constantly confronted by the cognitive dissonance of caring about my loved ones and also thinking that they are, in some sense, bad people. The reality is that if you support bad politicians and bad policies that harm innocent people and thereby increase the amount of suffering in the world, you are behaving unethically. I am certain that Trump supporters, and supporters of the Republican Party in general, are mistaken in their politics. They support policies and personalities that do real harm in the world. That support is utterly unethical and reprehensible. That does, in my estimation, make them bad people in some sense. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, they’re either bad in the head or bad in the heart. They either support bad politics because they have mal-intent or because they are mistaken. More often than not, I think it is the latter.

Honestly, I don’t think it matters much what their motivation is. Either way, their politics harms people and is unethical. Intentions are irrelevant. In old times, they killed women “to protect the children from demonic influence.” It doesn’t matter if you burn a woman to death because you believe she is a witch working for the devil or because you just like to hurt women; the act is unethical regardless of the intentions because the reality is that you are harming a person who hasn’t harmed anyone — and reality is the only thing that really matters! To do good is to increase happiness and lessen the suffering in this world. To do bad is to increase the suffering in this world. It doesn’t matter why you did such-and-such. The only thing that matters is the real consequences of what you did and whether those consequences increased or decreased suffering. Even if Hitler’s motivations had been pure, even if he was truly convinced that he was maximizing human happiness through genocide, his actions actually increased human suffering and harmed innocent people — it doesn’t matter what his motivations or intentions were.

When I say that Trump supporters and Republicans are bad people, I mean that their beliefs and behaviors are harmful to others. This is an undeniable moral fact from a consequentialist perspective. Your vote for a politician with policies that cause more harm than good is an unethical act. Supporting Trump and/or the Republican Party absolutely does make you a bad person in that regard. You may be a good father, a good brother, a good electrician, a good friend, etc; but as a voter and a citizen, you are bad. We all have different personas — masks, roles, or personalities we assume in different contexts. I may be a bad person in my role as an employee at work, but a good person in my role as a volunteer at the soup kitchen. All people are a mixture of good and bad.

“If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?
“During the life of any heart this line keeps changing place; sometimes it is squeezed one way by exuberant evil and sometimes it shifts to allow enough space for good to flourish. One and the same human being is, at various ages, under various circumstances, a totally different human being. At times he is close to being a devil, at times to sainthood. But his name doesn’t change, and to that name we ascribe the whole lot, good and evil.
“Socrates taught us: ‘Know thyself.’
“Confronted by the pit into which we are about to toss those who have done us harm, we halt, stricken dumb: it is after all only because of the way things worked out that they were the executioners and we weren’t.
“From good to evil is one quaver, says the proverb.
“And correspondingly, from evil to good.” — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (The Gulag Archipelago)

I want to analyze more closely what Solzhenitsyn says here, “One and the same human being is, at various ages, under various circumstances, a totally different human being. At times he is close to being a devil, at times to sainthood. But his name doesn’t change, and to that name we ascribe the whole lot, good and evil.” A person that votes for bad politicians may be a good father, brother, electrician, and friend, but he or she is a bad voter and a bad citizen. As I said, we all have different personas — masks, roles, or personalities that we assume in different contexts. A mugger is a bad person when he acts in his role as a mugger, putting on the persona of a criminal, but he is a good person as a father when he uses the stolen money to feed his child. All people are a mixture of good and bad. And, according to the modular theory of the mind, the current scientific understanding of how the mind works, these different roles may very well be different personas. The “module” running when a cop is on duty isn’t the same one that is running when he is playing with his grandbabies on the weekend. The idea of a persistent “self” or unified personality is an illusion. This is an insight that the Buddhists arrived at through meditation, but evolutionary psychologists reached this same conclusion through science.

Within the human mind, there are different “modules” which evolved for different purposes which helped to preserve our species. There is a module for self-protection, another for mate-attraction, another for kin care, another for status acquisition. All of these modules had their role in ensuring the preservation of the species throughout our evolution. Split-brain experiments have demonstrated that the two sides of the brain are really separate centers of consciousness united by the corpus callosum. Individual’s with severe epileptic seizures can be cured by surgically severing the corpus callosum. Once this surgery is done, the two sides of the brain can no longer communicate. Split-brain experiments have demonstrated that commands can be given to one side of the brain, causing the person to behave a certain way, and the other side of the brain will rationalize the behavior and fail to realize that it is not actually in control of what the person is doing at that moment. The illusion of a unified self, a single conscious actor or CEO in the head, persists even when we know that the side of the brain doing the act is motivated by something entirely different from the justification offered by the other side of the brain and that the two sides of the brain can’t possibly communicate to one another.

The modular theory of the mind posits that the notion that the conscious mind is in control, as a unified self that functions like a CEO or king inside the skull, is an illusion. In reality, the mind has these different “modules” that serve various evolutionary purposes. These modules compete for control. These modules are activated by external cues and start throwing out thoughts. Which module gains control seems to depend on which module/thought has the most emotion attached to it — that is, the module that gains control is the one associated with the strongest feeling at the moment. Brain scans can be used to predict behavior before a person consciously “decides” what to do. The notion that the conscious mind is a decision-maker inside the head is an illusion. The decision is already made before the thing enters the field of consciousness. The conscious “decision-making” of the person is mostly an after-the-fact rationalization of a decision made solely on emotional grounds.

When a heterosexual man sees an image of a naked woman, it switches control of the mind over to the sex-seeking (procreative) module, giving dominance to that part of the mind due to the extreme emotions aroused by the visuals. When the same man sees his partner with another man, the jealous emotion will switch on another module that may totally change his state of consciousness and literally cause him to “lose control.” The person in charge is no longer the same. In An Inquiry Concerning Political Justice, William Godwin argues that a person’s beliefs and behaviors are not voluntarily chosen. Given an individual's genetic makeup and all of their previous experiences, it is impossible for them to believe or act in any way other than the particular way they do.

“Who is there in the present state of scientifical improvement, that will believe that this vast chain of perceptions and notions [upon which right conduct is based] is something that we bring into the world with us, a mystical magazine, shut up in the human embryo, whose treasures are to be gradually unfolded as circumstances shall require? Who does not perceive that they are regularly generated in the mind by a series of impressions, and digested and arranged by association and reflexion?…
“Pity has sometimes been supposed an instance of innate principle; particularly as it seems to arise more instantaneously in young persons, and persons of little refinement, than in others. But it was reasonable to expect, that threats and anger, circumstances that have been associated with our own sufferings, should excite painful feelings in us in the case of others, independently of any laboured analysis. The cries of distress, the appearance of agony or corporal infliction, irresistibly revive the memory of the pains accompanied by those symptoms in ourselves….
“From these reasonings it sufficiently appears, that the moral qualities of men are the produce of the impressions made upon them, and that there is no instance of an original propensity to evil. Our virtues and vices may be traced to the incidents which make the history of our lives, and if these incidents could be divested of every improper tendency, vice would be extirpated from the world. The task may be difficult, may be of slow progress, and of hope undefined and uncertain. But hope will never desert it…” — William Godwin (An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice)

Godwinian determinism holds that people act the way they do because they have no choice but to act that way. Given my biological makeup and all of my experiences up to this point, it is impossible for me to do anything other than what I am in fact doing at this moment.

The modular theory of the mind gives us insight into why the illusion of free will is so persistent. How one will act depends on which module is switched on at the time the decision is made. Thus, one may make radically different choices in nearly identical scenarios. Environmental cues can cause emotional changes that switch the dominant module. An example of this is a study in which researchers were able to demonstrate that they could get people to change their time-preference by showing them pictures of beautiful women. A heterosexual man will suddenly have a shorter time-preference if he is simply shown a picture of a beautiful woman, and this radically changes the way he makes financial and economic decisions. Although human behavior is deterministic, the will is seemingly indeterminate because there is no single “self” in control. The conscious “self” isn’t in control because decisions are actually made behind the scenes, at the subconscious level, on the basis of feelings. The dominant module determines the course of action, but subtle environmental cues can trigger the mind to switch control over from one module to another. The struggle for power amongst the modules takes place subconsciously and is determined by a multitude of factors so complex and varied that it might as well be non-deterministic if you are trying to predict outcomes from the outside. A third-party observer can’t know for sure which module will be switched on or which choice will be made prior to the moment when the decision is made.

The notion of free will persists for two reasons: (1) the conscious self, which is merely an observer, is under the illusion of being in control and (2) the causal chain that leads to human action is too complicated for anyone to predict human behavior with any degree of accuracy. This can be seen as analogous to certain phenomena observed in quantum physics. Because it is impossible for us to understand the causality behind quantum phenomena, they seem to be “free,” random, or indeterminate in nature. I suspect that natural selection is at play both in quantum phenomena and in the inner working of the human mind. The determination of will and decision in the human mind is not irrational but, rather, non-rational. Like with quantum phenomena, human psychology follows complex “rules” that we cannot understand at all, so they seem to be random. Arguably, it could simply be the case that the human mind doesn’t have the capacity to understand these things well because there was never any evolutionary value to being able to comprehend them.

Given my Godwinian determinism, I don’t think that “guilt” is that important to ethics. The way that a person behaves is wholly the result of a combination of nature and nurture. Given an individual’s biology, genetics, and past experiences, it is not possible for them to behave in any way other than the one in which they do behave. This means that retributive justice and punishment for punishment’s sake is irrational. Of course, this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t point out when people are behaving badly. Our interactions with others are part of the nurture end of the equation. Pointing out such things is part of “nurture,” which can change the way people behave in the future. If you can demonstrate that their behavior harmed someone else, it may make them feel remorse, which can be a powerful motivation for behaving more ethically in the future. Guilt and remorse are not the same thing. Guilt is a judgment placed upon one by others. You may be guilty in the eyes of a court, a judge, a friend, or a community —you are guilty in the eyes of some person or group — , but remorse is a self-conviction that stems from compassion. Guilt is a concept from retributive justice, whereas remorse relates to reformative justice. You may be guilty without feeling remorse or you may feel remorse without being guilty.

Ignorance and immorality are entangled phenomena. The biggest disagreements in the realm of ethics are not about principles but about facts. One person says abortion is murder because they believe that a fetus is a living person entitled to the same rights as an adult, while another person thinks that a fetus is not yet a person and so has no such rights. One person regards homosexuality as immoral because they believe that God created mankind male and female for procreative purposes and that homosexuality violates God’s plan, while another person does not believe in God and consequently can find nothing wrong with two people of the same sex having intercourse. These disagreements aren’t about fundamental principles, but rather are disagreements about facts. Our systems of morality derive from shared moral sentiments that all humans have in common. The differences between our ethical systems stem from different assessments of the nature of reality. How do we apply the basic values that all humans share? and how do we live accordingly? Ethics is about right action and the right course of action really depends upon the situation. This means that facts are central to ethics. In order to behave ethically, one must have knowledge of relevant facts. Is it wrong to shoot someone? It depends on the particular circumstances. One cannot behave perfectly ethically while remaining ignorant of relevant facts. But knowledge of facts comes to us through experience. If one was never made aware of certain facts, they cannot act upon those facts. Given the “facts” (or supposed facts) that one “knows” and the feelings that one has, it is impossible for anyone to do anything other than what they do in fact do.

All ethics is consequentialist. Even the deontologist that thinks moral obligations come from divine commandments is ultimately a consequentialist. Ask them, “Why should I care what God commands?” and they will quickly expose themselves as consequentialists. They may say, “Because you want to please God” or “because God will punish disobedience” or something along those lines. Their theory of ethics is ultimately predicated on supposed facts and their consequences. I say all this because it is important to recognize that bad systems of ethics/politics arise from mistaken assessments of reality. The person who supports Trump or the Republican Party is doing so because they are mistaken about facts, which is to say that they are ignorant. Immorality is an ignorance problem. The worst form of immorality is bad politics since bad politics involves the systematic imposition of bad moral ideas —and, again, immorality is really an ignorance problem! Supporting a bad political party or bad politician is just politicized ignorance/immorality. Facts and values are entangled; so are knowledge and morality — they aren’t identical things, but they are so intertwined as to be inseparable.

“Hardly anything is evil. But most things are hungry. Hunger looks very like evil from the wrong end of the cutlery. Or do you think that your bacon sandwich loves you back?” — The Doctor (Doctor Who, Episode 265)

This statement is so much more profound if we think of hunger as metaphorical. Hunger here is a metaphor for desire, yearning, and lust. In the teachings of the Buddha, the first two of the Four Noble Truths are (1) that life entails dukkha — which is often translated as “suffering” but really means suffering resulting from unsatisfactoriness or from being unfulfilled — and (2) that the origin of such suffering is taṇhā (thirst, desire, or craving). We are under the illusion that our thoughts and desires are ours, when in reality they kind of just pop into our minds from outside. We are not identical with our bodies, our thoughts, or our desires. The three characteristics of life are dukkha (suffering/unsatisfactoriness), anicca (impermanence), and anattā (not-self). The doctrine of not-self doesn’t state that the self or soul does not exist, although that is a genuine possibility. What it states is that everything we usually associate with the self is actually distinct from it and “not the self.” The sensations you feel are not the self, the thoughts you think are not the self, and the desires you have are not the self. We tend to cling to our ideas and our desires because we identify them with our self. We think that they are part of us, but they aren’t. Meditating upon this fact does seriously raise the question of whether or not the “self” is really a thing at all, so most Buddhists do interpret non-self as being a metaphysical truth too. Naturally, as products of evolution, we cannot be satisfied for long. When we have sex, eat food, and drink water, the satisfaction is only temporary. Shortly, we will be desiring more things. It’s natural to do so. But, often our desires can control us and cause us anxiety and suffering. When I’ve already eaten enough, I may still be hungry. When I’ve had sex, I may want more. Trying to satisfy all these desires, which are insatiable, will just lead to suffering in the long run. We need to recognize that our ideas and our desires are not who we are. They aren’t something that we should cling to. We need to see past this illusion (māyā) and see reality for what it really is, as best we can. We need to discern what we really need and not indulge our desires when they go beyond what we actually need to the point of causing us troubles and anxiety.

Suffering and evil are the result of taṇhā (thirst, desire, or craving). The Doctor said, “Hardly anything is evil. But most things are hungry. Hunger looks very like evil from the wrong end of the cutlery.” When people do bad things, they are motivated by hunger or desire (taṇhā). When a married man cheats on his spouse, he does it because he hungers for sex. He’s seeking to satisfy insatiable lust. When a man robs another man, he does so because he hungers for more possessions and wealth. Often people do “evil” because they are over-indulging their hunger.

“The demoniac, taking shelter of insatiable lust, pride and false prestige, and being thus illusioned, are always sworn to unclean work, attracted by the impermanent.” — Bhagavad Gita

Bad behavior can be the result of over-indulging hunger or desire, but sometimes people do “evil” because they have a hunger and they are mistaken about what it is that can satiate it. I think that this is what usually motivates people with bad politics. The Marxist-Leninist hungers for justice and mistakenly believes that socialism can satisfy his hunger. He is vexed by the exploitation of workers and by the injustices of poverty and homelessness, so he looks to socialism as a means of satisfying his hunger for justice. The Trump supporter likely longs for security, for stability, and for protection, and he looks to Trump to satisfy his hunger for such things. He is gravely mistaken about reality; for Trump’s policies and conduct only make all of his problems worse. The Trump supporter and the Leninist both endorse bad politics because they entertain delusions about what will actually satisfy their hunger. The strong emotions associated with this hunger trigger their mind to irrationally put a fear/hate module in control.

In A Treatise of Human Nature, David Hume refers to reason as the slave of the passions, feelings, or emotions. The motivation for human action, according to Hume, is “passion” or strong feelings. “Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason of itself is utterly impotent in this particular.”(ibid. Book 3, Part 1, Section 1) Hume, like most Buddhists, denies the existence of the self, although Hume is not a Buddhist. The existence of the self is an illusion. The self is but a bundle of perceptions. The conscious mind is just observing things, not controlling things. Our behavior is determined subconsciously by the “passions” and reason merely does the apologetical task of attempting to justify our “decisions” after the fact. The conscious mind is a witness to the decision, but not the real decision-maker.

In Eastern Christianity, there is a practice of silent contemplative meditation/prayer, which is akin to Buddhist mindfulness meditation or vipassana in many ways. The Christian practice is called hesychasm, which derives from the Greek word for “stillness” or “silence.” Wikipedia defines hesychasm as “the process of retiring inward by ceasing to register the senses.” In the hesychast tradition, thoughts are referred to as logismoi. It is emphasized that these thoughts (logismoi) do not arise from us. If we examine them closely, we find that they are things that seem to just pop into our mind from the outside. According to the Orthodox Christian teachings, thoughts may come from angels or from demons. It is held that when you are praying and thoughts arise in your mind, these thoughts are put there to distract you from your prayer and to keep you from reaching theosis, which is the highest state of consciousness within the Christian tradition. The hesychast will utter the Jesus Prayer (“Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.”) as a sort of mantra and will focus on their breathing as they pray. They will attempt to still their mind and keep themselves from dwelling on the thoughts (logismoi) that arise. Our thoughts and actions are not part of us. They are foreign to us. These observations about human psychology are there to be found in any tradition that looks inward at man.

I am a disciple of both William Godwin and of the Buddha, but sometimes it’s really hard to reconcile the head with the heart. It’s hard to reconcile these truths that I know with how I feel. It’s hard to not be angry and upset and hold a grudge against people who are behaving in a way that is bad. There are people that I care about who are Trump supporters and supporters of the Republican Party. If you supported Trump, you literally put my life and the life of the person I love most of all in danger. For years we have been facing constant anxiety and stress and the very real possibility of death, directly as a result of your shitty politics, and I’m supposed to sit in a state of equanimity and act as if it is all okay. And that’s hard as hell to forgive. Yes, we were lucky. All of our problems got worked out and we’re safe now, but it was in spite of the policies that you and your demagogue have imposed upon us. If circumstances had been just slightly different, one or both of us would be dead because of the policies you supported by default. I recognize that “evil” isn’t a thing. There’s only ignorance and hunger. (The word “bad,” in my vocabulary, is merely a utilitarian judgment. Something is bad if it increases suffering and good if it minimizes suffering.) I know all this in my head, but often in my heart I just want Trump supporters and Republicans to suffer for the pain they have inflicted on others out of ignorance and fear. I sit here knowing that innocent people will suffer and/or die as the result of your bad politics…and I’m supposed to just “be civil” and just “agree to disagree” as if nothing is really at stake here?!