Anderson's "Morality"

            I wish to preface this post by expressing my support for Anderson's ideas about how we can use collective identities to solve social justice issues and global problems. I found this reading very interesting. But I would also like to present a critique.

            Anderson argues for the necessity of humans to make committed actions, actions based on “principles (reasons) that it is rational for us (any group of people, regarded as a collective agent) to adopt” (24), in order to solve collective action problems. Furthermore, by assuming multiple group identities, one can develop the individual identity needed to mediate between these identities, and ultimately make both rational decisions and decisions that validate one’s agency to set one’s own priorities. When one assumes this identification with the community of humanity, “[t]his is the point at which rationality coincides with morality” (37).

            In this sense, Anderson believes an action is moral if and only if it aligns with a group’s best interest: “If it would be rational for a collective encompassing all of humanity to adopt a certain principle of committed action, then action on that principle is morally right” (25). If morality depends on the outcomes of cooperation, an act cannot be moral in and of itself; it is wholly dependent on the situation, the undertaking of a cooperative discussion, and the merit of its outcome.

            Consider the following situation: a jury decides that a serial killer should be sentenced to death. According to the jurors, this decision, which came about through cooperation and discussion, will correct the injustice that has been done to the serial killer’s many victims and set a precedent for the punishment of other killers, in order to deter future murders. It has been decided, through the assumption of a collective group identity, and therefore it is morally right. (Also, suppose no more harm would be done if the jury sentenced the murderer to a life in jail, so the decision to not kill him would not bring positive harm to anyone.)

            My intuitions, however, tell me that murder is wrong. Why is it that the act of killing someone can be justified if a group of people deems it so? This is tyranny of the majority—a decision does not possess moral merit just because the vast majority agrees that the outcome is most beneficial. This kind of morality does not seem like morality at all—it is dependent on whether an action is rational for a group, not whether the action is right. In this sense, it is very reminiscent of Posner and Gauthier. I fear that although Anderson's intentions for this strategy of overcoming collective action problems are good, this kind of thinking ignores the idea that morality exists outside of what is rational for an agent to do.