Quality Of Life For All

QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL

PREFACE

This book is intended to hearten thought about what could be possible and with that encourage support for the academic and professional development of quality of life for all politics, quality of life for all economics and open and transparent knowledge education. It is not for any other purpose.

In order to give free rein to novel thinking, the book has been written in the utopian tradition, comprising statements of opinion presented in a near-reality fiction. Thus, it explores new ideas and seeks to inspire readers’ thoughts about future possibilities but it is not advisory, nor is anything within it to be used in any way as a source of fact or advice.

In Part I, chapters 1 to 7 set out the groundwork thinking from which the ideas have emerged; this includes observational thoughts regarding quality of life, as well as identifying a wide range of constraining and enabling factors. In Part II, chapters 8 & 9 present the social principle intended to provide the backbone for the development of quality of life for all. Chapter 10 looks at the vital question of how that core-principle stands up to an initial moral and practical evaluation, including comparisons with other social theories. Chapter 11 then discusses what can be done to take things forward now. In Part III, chapters 12 to 15 expand on the ideas, examining what could be different about open and transparent knowledge education and quality of life for all politics and economics.

It is recommended that the chapters be read in sequence to allow the picture to emerge logically. If, though, a reader does look at a particular topic of discussion on its own, please do bear in mind that in the end the book needs to be read as a whole to provide the overall context.

INTRODUCTION TO THE DIALOGUE ON AN IMAGINARY EARTH

What follows is a record of a series of conversations on an imaginary Earth, a very similar planet with a very similar form of human life and history to the real Earth but as imagined by the writer. All references in the dialogue, including references to the world, to humanity, to historical figures, to all forms of knowledge, etc., are to those things on the imaginary Earth. It is for the reader to decide in what ways and to what extent life in this imagined world reflects life on the real Earth.

The historical context of the conversations is around the time when mobile telephones and personal computers are coming into increasingly popular use around the world. The conversations are between a young person referred to as ‘TYQ’ (The-Young-Questioner) and an older person considered by some to be wise and by others to be foolish and referred to in this record as ‘WORFT’ (that is to say a Wise-OR-Foolish-Thinker), neither one of them is an expert in any field of knowledge.

PART I

GROUNDWORK THINKING

CHAPTER ONE

WHY CANNOT WE JUST SAY WE WANT EVERYONE TO HAVE A GOOD QUALITY OF LIFE AND THEN GET ON WITH IT?

Day one of the dialogue on an imaginary Earth: A conversation starts to extend beyond the usual pleasantries…

TYQ: … So you say that you agree with me that life around the world is far from being as good as it could be. You also agree that there is far too much abuse. Furthermore, you have not disagreed that whatever the initial intentions, civilizations have often ended up allowing those who are in power to impose rules that favour themselves at the expense of the rest of us.

Yet, then you say that you think that implementing reactionary ideas is not the answer: that such reactions can too easily result in the mere replacement of one ruling class by another, which, however different in appearance, simply imposes its own set of factional preferences and biases as an alternative to those that existed before. You also say purely reactionary ideas cannot be expected to reduce antagonisms between different communities.

All right, but why cannot we just say we want everyone to have a good quality of life and then get on with it?

WORFT: Your anger is understandable yet do not demand of me a quick and overly simplistic response just because you have expressed your question with emotion. To fall into that trap will merely perpetuate the problem. If you want a constructive answer then you must allow time for both of us to think.

Take for example your idea that we simply say we want everyone to a have a good quality of life and then get on with it. In the humanitarian tone that I am sure you intend, I would broadly agree with that proposal but, unfortunately, I must point out some weaknesses.

First, there is the question of what is meant by quality of life. If you start from the point of view that it means every individual being free to do whatever one likes then you have a problem, because it does not just mean you can do what you like, it also means everyone else can. This includes those who feel that they should have the freedom to act in their own self-interest irrespective of the consequences for you. In addition, because of the uncertainty that this type of freedom creates you might be wary of becoming involved with cooperative endeavours, not knowing if those whom you are working with now might eventually use their freedom to turn against you when it suits them. Such an environment is likely to be more suspicious and defensive than not, and hardly conducive to achieving an optimal quality of life.

TYQ: You seem to be assuming that humans are inherently nasty.

WORFT: No, I merely observe that humans are complex beings that are individually and collectively capable of a wide diversity of emotions and thoughts. Sometimes we understand and empathize with one another, sometimes we do not. The trouble is that when we do not, we can feel justified in ignoring the impact of our actions on others, or at worst, even feel justified in intentionally taking advantage of people and otherwise abusing them.

Anyway that is not the only problem that can arise from taking the view that having a good quality of life means being free to do what one likes. Another problem is that it says nothing about the knowledge base used by people when deciding what it is that they want to do. Yet do you not think that the depth and breadth of quality of life you could achieve, where you are able to make decisions based on an informative education and with good access to knowledge, might be a rather different experience from one where you are constrained to making decisions based on limited information and with restricted comprehension?

Let us then look at the matter from another standpoint. Perhaps quality of life should be defined not by individual freedom but by social happiness. In order to achieve that there would need to be sets of social rules driven by education, encouragement and enforcement. Yet this brings us to another problem, which is how to write the rules in such a way to ensure that they are neither abusive nor abused.

From what you have already said to me, it is clear that you distrust political leaders. I am more nuanced in my scepticism. I consider there are many people who are actively involved with politics who have good intentions but, regrettably, it remains too easy for biased decisions to be made both intentionally and unintentionally. Leaders can too easily say, and even to believe, that they are seeking to give everyone a good quality of life but then base their decisions on very narrow ideas as to what that means and how it can be achieved. A particularly unpleasant version of this can arise when a leadership - following what seems to be an instinctive process in human thinking, which is to seek to classify and sub-classify any and everything - divides people into categories according to some characteristics (whether based on race, culture, gender, educational background, etc.). Then, whether with malice aforethought or, more likely, just in biased ignorance, the leadership goes on to state that, for everyone within a selected category, a good quality of life is achieved by following certain restrictive rules. The rules being written by the leadership based on its opinion as to what is best, with little if any consideration of the real abilities and aspirations of the individuals affected and the impact of the restrictions imposed on their lives.

Furthermore, as one thinks about that problem one sees that there is an additional underlying issue, which is that when a leadership can materially influence what is, and what is not, accepted as knowledge in a community, it then has the power to justify almost anything.

TYQ: I understand the various issues you are raising but what is the solution?

WORFT: Well some years ago I met a person who put the following idea to me, which I remembered because I thought it was rather well-expressed.

‘We should seek to encourage the development of a social and political model that is focused on improving quality of life for all, without requiring people to live under the constraints of a singular ideology or a mono-culture. A model that is, in addition, inclusive without being dictatorially communist, that encourages people to improve their personal quality of life without diminishing it for others and that is pragmatic without losing its aspirations.’

This started me thinking that perhaps there is a better way other than persistent ideological conflict and I have been working on that since.

TYQ: Are you going to tell me your solution then or am I going to go away as frustrated as when we began this conversation?

WORFT: Are you expecting a quick answer or a proper one?

TYQ: I want a real solution.

WORFT: Then understand several things. It will take several days of discussion to set out a real solution; to understand it properly you will need to participate in a thoughtful process of asking and answering a wide range of questions; and you should not expect the result to be a simple and idealistic utopian dream.

TYQ: Just how much thought are you going to require of me? Am I going to be able to follow this or is it going to be complicated?

WORFT: The overall concept is not complicated but if there are occasionally things I raise that you are unfamiliar with, I will seek to discuss them in a way that at least makes it easy to grasp the important issues.

TYQ: Okay but I have another question. What do you mean by ‘I should not expect the result to be a simple and idealistic utopian dream’?

WORFT: I would suggest that classical utopian models, if they could ever work at all, could only work for people who are willing and able to submit to uniform thinking (i.e. where one accepts being told what to think) and I know that I would not regard myself as having a good quality of life if I had to suppress my personality in that way; would you?

TYQ: No, I wouldn’t.

WORFT: So instead of taking that approach, I consider that our discussions need to allow for human nature and human diversity. We also need to recognize the many real complexities and uncertainties that exist, which means that we can never know all the answers in advance – there will always be some questions that can only be answered by going through the experience of trying out solutions at the time. Therefore, you should not expect the outcome of our discussions to be a master plan; instead, it will be an exploration of ideas intended to help in the development of a set of observations and guiding principles to enable us to steer towards quality of life for all.

TYQ: That sounds as if you think your ideas might actually be useful, rather than being just a pipe dream.

WORFT: That will be for you to decide.

CHAPTER TWO

WHAT KNOWLEDGE BASE AND METHODS ARE AVAILABLE TO DEVELOP SUCH THINKING?

Shortly afterwards on the same day…

TYQ: When can we start our discussion?

WORFT: I will need to refer to some notes of mine so I suggest that we start in earnest tomorrow but there are a couple of preliminary matters that we can cover today. They relate to the question of what knowledge base and methods we might use to develop such thinking if our discussions are to be for more than just amusement or to reinforce prejudices. Now there is of course an enormous amount of knowledge available to be drawn upon. Humanity’s quest for better social models has already been running for many thousands of years and today we are able to refer to over 2,500 years of written history of the development and application of ideas. Not only ideas in the physical sciences but also, in human psychology, sociology, politics and economics - the subjects may not have been classified in those ways until more recent times but that does not mean that the underlying issues were not discussed before then. This provides a vast resource not only of successful but also of failed hypotheses from which to synthesize and refine better ideas. We have also seen, particularly over the last 300 years or so, how human knowledge can increase almost exponentially, constantly building on the work of others both competitively and collaboratively, which should encourage us to continue such progress. On top of this we now have the World Wide Web as a means to collect ideas, bring together thinkers, share new concepts and obtain feedback on a scale previously unthinkable.

TYQ: Nonetheless, you and I cannot feasibly draw on all this knowledge on our own at this moment.

WORFT: No, we are inevitably both informed and limited by the knowledge we have learned and retained. Therefore, we must try to think in as much breadth and depth as we can in our discussions over the next few days (just as I have tried to do in my thinking to date) and we must also try to foresee the criticisms that might arise. In addition, I am going to suggest that we record this preliminary dialogue and then afterwards invite others to participate in the discussion, asking them to voice their suggestions and criticisms both in a spirit of goodwill and following the principles of open and transparent knowledge to help continually improve the model.

TYQ: What do you mean by following the principles of open and transparent knowledge?

WORFT: I will set out a more complete set of suggested principles of open and transparent knowledge another day. At this moment though, it is sufficient to say that it means where one does not seek to restrict knowledge, where there is openness about sources and assumptions as well as limitations of any knowledge and where there is a willingness to undertake and accept the checking, challenge and comparison of knowledge. Also, a key characteristic of a discussion undertaken within the principles of open and transparent knowledge is that it is not performed as if in a debating society game, seeking to win arguments by any means (and with a ready willingness to resort to twisted reasoning and other forms of sophistry). Instead, it is undertaken in an honestly philosophical way seeking to enhance understanding (even if that means identifying weaknesses in one’s own perceptions).

TYQ: I like that idea particularly as it seems to me to insist on honesty as well as openness. Will our discussion meet the criteria for open and transparent knowledge?

WORFT: We will try to meet the spirit of open and transparent knowledge, and where we fail, we will certainly keep our minds open to sound and valid criticism. I, however, must be entirely clear upfront that because we are exploring speculative ideas and seeking innovations, nothing here can be considered as constituting advice. This discourse is only intended to prompt reflection and wider discussion leading to the asking of questions, the constructive expression of alternative concepts and the expert development of ideas.

TYQ: So we are innovators are we? - And before you answer - I will correct myself by saying: ‘No, we are seeking to be innovators’.

WORFT: We are certainly seeking to be, although I must add that we should be mindful that if we succeed in any measure it would only be because we have been able to build on the great innovative work done by others before. My understanding of the potential for a better form of politics has undoubtedly been informed and inspired by works of politically related thinking written since the time of Plato in the West and Confucius in the East, taking account of a diversity of perspectives such as those of both Adam Smith and Karl Marx, up to and including John Stuart Mill and Nietzsche.

TYQ: So are you going to be looking to justify your ideas based on the works of such past political philosophers?

WORFT: No, if we were trying to write a dissertation on the merits and limitations of applying past political theories today, then we would need to put forward arguments for where they might be seen to work and not work but that is not the purpose of our discussion. We are here seeking to push the boundaries of social and political expectations and to put forward ideas as to how those expectations might be achieved. In order to do that, rather than being tied down by previous political thought, we must be willing to innovate.

There is a second reason why I do not want to refer constantly to famous political writers and I will explain it by asking you a question. Which is better for you: to judge critically both what I say and the reasoning that I give for what I say; or that you forgo making a personal critical judgment and instead accept anything I say as long as I can demonstrate that some famous historical figure said something similar?

TYQ: It would be better that I try to make a critical judgment for myself, but what if I do not know the subject well enough to feel confident to make such a judgment?

WORFT: Then you should allow yourself to be uncertain and demand better information. I do not claim any authority for the model I will propose other than that provided by its own arguments. If the arguments are not good enough, then they should be challenged and you should demand better supporting evidence.

Anyway, back to the main point, which is to answer your question about whether we will meet the requirements of open and transparent knowledge? The answer is that this is not going to be a discussion on the history of political theory. Nor is it going to be the submission of a completed theory supported by academic study. What it is going to be is a preliminary proposal to invite others to support the development of a body of work that shares the proposal’s aspirations and that would eventually meet the full requirements of the principles of open and transparent knowledge.

TYQ: That reassures me that you do not think that this can be achieved by just two people.

WORFT: Far from it, and I would add that the more people who participate in a thoughtful way and the greater the level of open and transparent dialogue, then the more confidence I would have that a sound way forward can be found.

Then, the other preliminary matter that I am going to raise today is the subject of the thinking techniques I have used so far and that I propose we continue to use for this endeavour. There are three techniques that I particularly want to mention and for us to keep in mind as our discussions proceed.

The first is the technique mostly associated with Socrates (and this is one of the few times I am going to refer to a philosopher by name). The technique is of course the Socratic method of questioning to help bring to light and understand the assumptions behind accepted knowledge.

TYQ: Okay but I am mindful that Socrates is also associated with questioning a matter to a point of irresolvable stasis and if that is all we do then this discussion will be barren.

WORFT: A very good point and that is why we will draw on ideas of ‘pragmatism’ as well. There are different versions of pragmatism, so to be clear when I refer to pragmatism I simply mean that, when we are faced with a theoretic or idealistic impasse, we will not allow ourselves to be stopped by that impasse but instead we will make what we think is the choice that appears to offer the best way to proceed. Although I would add that in so doing it may be necessary to later review and refine such thoughts to take account of new information.

Over and above both these approaches, we also need to use a technique that enables us to think creatively, since this is after all a highly aspirational quest. In that regard I have found ‘synthesis’ to be a powerful thinking tool. When I refer to synthesis, I do not merely mean seeking to extract good parts from not so good parts of a political thesis and of its antithesis and then combine them in ways that appear to work. I mean recognizing that a political ideology and its antithesis will almost definitely have been developed within constrained perspectives based on particular circumstances, with the art of synthesis then being to seek broader perspectives from which to observe the situation. So that, with that broader perspective, one can not only impartially identify the strengths and weaknesses of each thesis but one can also be free to reformulate ideas, and the expression of ideas, and use different thought processes to enable one to build a sounder proposal with more universal application.

TYQ: So our main techniques will be to ask questions particularly about things we perhaps take for granted, to seek to take broader perspectives of political and social issues in order to develop a synthesis of ideas and, when faced with theoretical impasses, to seek to take pragmatic decisions.

Then, if I understand the implications of that properly, it also means that we will try not to be bound by political and social ideologies.

WORFT: That is, I agree, a helpful summarization and you are right to point out that we are trying not to be ideologically bound. Let me in fact emphasize that point by saying that I have tried and we will continue in our discussions to try, to treat ideas as tools not as masters.

CHAPTER THREE

WHAT DO WE MEAN BY QUALITY OF LIFE AND QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL?

Day two of the dialogue on an imaginary Earth…

WORFT: If a society is to seek quality of life for all then first it needs a suitable description of quality of life. Let me emphasize from the beginning that what is required is not a definition of how people ‘should’ make such an evaluation. What is required is a broad framework, which can be used as a basis on which to ask everyone to think about and give feedback on individual quality of life, in a way that can help in assessing the level of quality of life for all. That is what we are going to spend today considering.

Initial considerations regarding quality of life

Before we start can we agree that we will be consistent in referring to ‘quality of life’ rather than using alternative phrases such as ‘happiness’, ‘well-being’, or ‘living a good life’? I suggest this because although it is possible to use such words and phrases interchangeably, there are some contexts where their meanings are quite different. For example, the concept of happiness is capable of being used both in the sense of seeking long-term happiness and in justifying short-term actions to satisfy immediate urges and hedonistic pleasures, even though those two concepts of happiness can sometimes conflict with each other. In addition, some interpretations of well-being justify keeping people in ignorance of certain matters and discouraging independent thought supposedly for people’s own benefit. Similarly, living a good life can be associated with prescriptive ideas, telling people how they should live their lives according to a particular ideology.

To put it another way, I propose that when we are referring to quality of life, we are referring to a reasonably all encompassing assessment of a person’s life that is based on subjective evaluations but where those evaluations are made knowledgeably and without being required to comply with an ideological prescription.

Do you agree?

TYQ: Yes, I think so. I will be clearer about that when I have heard your ideas. On a minor point I note that we have been talking about both seeking ‘quality of life’ and seeking ‘a good quality of life’ and so I want to clarify that I understand that both phrases mean the same thing, i.e. they both mean seeking a good quality of life.

WORFT: Yes, we will use both phrases and treat them as meaning the same.

So let me begin by saying that if you were to ask a diverse group of people how they would define the concept of quality of life they could be expected to come up with descriptions that would at first seem to be quite different. One person, for example, might say if I had a good quality of life I would have certain things (a, b, c), I would be able to do certain things (m, n, o), I would have certain relationships (x, y, z), etc.; whilst other people, particularly those in other circumstances, could be expected to come up with a different list of things and maybe even a different way of thinking about quality of life. So I would suggest that the more you try to specify the detailed ingredients required for a person to have a good quality of life the more you are likely only to be defining what a particular group of people, with a particular education and in a particular set of circumstances, would consider that to mean. Even worse, when you use a narrow definition, you are in danger of creating a social environment where it is considered acceptable to dictate to people how they should want to (and how they can) live their lives.

TYQ: Yet you have said that for the purposes of our discussion we need a description of quality of life.

WORFT: That is right but the point I am making here is that the description should be as open as possible. In other words, we should seek to identify broad themes that encapsulate the multitude of different preferences and diverse ways of achieving a good quality of life.

TYQ: So do you have such a description?

WORFT: I would suggest that a suitable description for our purposes could be as follows. A person with a good quality of life is one who has a sense of living in a good physical and social environment, of living a fulfilling life and of having self-respect, where all such judgments are made in a thoughtful, autonomous and knowledgeable way.

TYQ: You will need to explain that in more detail before I could comment.

In so far as reasonably possible to make such judgments thoughtfully and autonomously with the benefit of open access to all current relevant knowledge and being free of thinking errors

WORFT: Well let me first start with the observation that to have a robust quality of life one should be able to make relevant judgments in a thoughtful, autonomous and knowledgeable way. This, quite obviously, combines three ideas. The first idea is that people need the ability to make judgments thoughtfully when it is possible and suitable to do so (i.e. except when it is vital to rely on reflex reactions). The second idea is that people need to be able to make their own judgments free from impositions (such as being subject to coercion or manipulation). The third idea is that of being free from being mistaken by a lack of knowledge or by false knowledge or due to a thinking error. When one is able to meet these three requirements then one could perhaps say that one has a good level of freewill within the limits of human capability.

TYQ: Is that your definition of freewill?

WORFT: It is a description that I think is relevant for the purposes of this discussion and do remember I am talking about a good level of freewill within the limits of human capability. Therefore, while it means more than just being free from coercion, it should be understood to recognize that human abilities are still subject to some constraints. In other words, I am referring to a high level of freewill within the limits of what is functionally achievable by human beings; I am not talking about some unattainable theoretical concept.

Now I put to you that this requirement for a good achievable level of freewill is an