Importance of education in trust (why we pay for degrees)
Blackburn touches on the importance of education in the blackmail example by demonstrating its role in what people are concerned about and, therefore, what they choose to do. He also talks about education in a different sense when bringing up Romeo and Juliet. In some sense, the Montagues and the Capulets were educated by the death of their children. They showed that they had learned the costs of their "rational" hate for each other and now have new concerns that include cooperation by erecting the statues.
I had some concerns about this for the argument that Blackburn makes about trust, that by showing little bit by little bit, you act with concern for cooperation allows for maximalization. If education can happen through not acting with concern for cooperation, then it will be really hard to demonstrate that learning as your reputation has already been established as untrustworthy. In some sense this is the hypocrite argument that we talked about earlier in the semester: if someone has betrayed you in the past, and then asks to cooperate, in some sense they have no credibility, and in another they have an epistemic advantage because they have been down the anti-cooperation path and know that it is something they don't want to choose.
The way I see to get around this is through quality education for everyone. Maybe not in the blackmail example, but if the centipede problem, if I know that the other farmer has been educated to the point of realizing it's beneficial for us to cooperate, I am more likely to trust his signs of cooperation. In regards to nuclear weapons and MAD, we can trust that other countries won't use their weapons because they have the knowledge of what will happen to everyone if they do. That knowledge didn't need to be found out through experience, just through education. When it comes to the prisoner's dilemma, both prisoners are educated about the choices they have, but knowing that the other person has a strong moral education and has developed virtues of concern for others will make cooperation easier. This might explain alumni networks, where even though these people have never met me, they will advocate for me because they know I have gone through experiences that develop my concerns and interests into something that aligns with their concerns and interests as well.
You’ve brought up some really interesting points about Blackburn’s take on education and trust, and I think you’re absolutely right to highlight how complex this idea can get. I’d like to add a few thoughts to the conversation, especially on education, and offer a bit of a pushback on Blackburn’s take on trust.
ReplyDeleteI interpreted Blackburn’s argument about trust a little differently than you did. While you mentioned that "little bit by little bit, you act with concern for cooperation" in order to maximize trust, I don’t think this is necessarily a guarantee. Blackburn himself writes, "There is no 'inevitability theorem, showing that trust must evolve, but there is no 'impossibility theorem,’ showing that it cannot evolve, either" (196). In other words, trust isn’t guaranteed to grow just because we show cooperation gradually. It can evolve, but it’s not inevitable. Trust is fragile and even small, consistent efforts might not always result in trust being rebuilt, especially when there’s a history of betrayal.
I thought it was fascinating that instead of focusing on the education of an entire society like past authors this semester, Blackburn focuses on the individual educator. He writes, “The person who confesses does badly if put in a setting of non-confessors: educators, just as much as players, may fail to coordinate, and when they do, educating someone to be a co-operator may be against their narrow interests” (197). This is a really interesting point because it suggests that teaching cooperation can be difficult, not just because people might fail to see the benefits, but because, in certain situations, it might go against the educator’s own self-interest. He gives the example of harmful teaching as someone teaching their son to be sustainable, when everyone else is over-grazing, etc. They are not benefiting from this choice. With this example, he extends teaching to parenting, where teaching can be tainted by biases of love. There is also this tension between teaching "good" moral values and letting children develop their own moral framework.
This gets back to the question: What should we teach our children? Should we be indoctrinating them with "good" values, or should we be supporting their omnilateral will, helping them make moral decisions based on their own reasoning? This question is central to how education plays into trust-building. The conclusion we have come to many times is that it is not just about the content of what’s taught, but about encouraging critical thinking and understanding the consequences of their actions in a cooperative framework. So how can educators collaborate, as Blackburn stresses, to teach this, without adopting indoctrination?
The prisoner’s dilemma is also fascinating to think about. If both prisoners are educated about the consequences of their actions and understand the moral implications, they’re more likely to cooperate. Furthermore, knowing that the other person has a strong moral education, values empathy, and is concerned about the greater good makes cooperation feel much more secure. I loved the example of alumni networks that you brought up, because although I may not know someone personally, I trust them because I know they’ve been educated in similar ways. We share common experiences and values, so it’s easier to cooperate, even without direct personal connection.
Blackburn also touches on the concept of societal trust when he writes, “Society particularly flexes its muscles when a selfish choice flies not only against a cooperative option, but against a course of action that was previously pledged” (198). The idea of “pledge” is directly related to contracts, which are fundamental to how we operate as a society, whether in financial agreements, marriage, or other relationships. Trust is key in upholding these social contracts, but the law is built on a lack of trust of cooperation.