I'm going to frame this using the post-Marxist, post-structuralist framework that Cornelius Castoriadis developed in the latter 20th century: "autonomous" vs "heteronomous" societies & individuals. An autonomous individual or society doesn't take an imposed social imaginary as a source of truth, though they may be forced to tailor their actions to it. This is similar to the social imaginary of language, used to communicate among individuals. An autonomous individual will take part in negotiating social imaginaries and change them as needed. Heteronomous individuals or societies will accept social imaginaries without foundation as a firm source of truth, like the word "chair" means something with 4 legs and a back and that's it, or we don't work on Sunday because god says so and that can't change. Full autonomy requires recognition of the agency of others as equal participants in shaping social reality via social imaginaries.
Amos takes social imaginaries imposed on him as a source of truth, making them the foundation of his action. He works best in a moral environment that's heteronomous, and it's only by chance that they're the right decisions. It could be because Amos isn't fully capable of recognizing the agency of others because he wasn't raised right, being able to morally reason through those decisions. When he is autonomous, as you note, he lacks reasoning frameworks for making those decisions. This is why societies that want direct, radical democracy emphasize what the ancient Greeks called "paideia", or properly raising someone to be a fully-participating member of society.
For Jim Holden it's unclear what social imaginaries he uses as the basis for his moral reasoning. He also has the potential for being autonomous, but it could be he's rigidly heteronomous, having a moral code that's incapable of flexibility.
This is just a start for me thinking about the story in that framework, thank you for prompting it...
I don't think this is really right about Amos, is the thing. He *says* he can't morally reaosn himself, but it's him who identifies Naomi and Holden as good people (the show agrees with him!) and he then builds his own moral framework based on what good people do.
so I don't think he lacks reasoning frameworks. he says he lacks them, but I think there's an argument that his moral humility is actually what makes him one of the most ethical people on the show.
(These are open, good-faith questions. I'm not convinced my analysis is completely consistent & correct. I'm just starting to learn how to do this kind of analysis using this framework.)
yeah; I'm not sure it does cause his framework to decay? like, when he's away from Naomi, I'd say he still tries to show mercy where possible, finds people he thinks are deserving of help and risks his life for them, tries to be honorable and kind.
He makes what he thinks may be a bad decision and feels like he would have done better if he had Naomi and Holden to talk to. But it's not clear that means his moral framework is decaying; you could argue it's becoming stronger or more autonomous.
I think a key for me is that Amos is not a reliable narrator of his own moral experience in a lot of ways? He thinks he's a worse person than he is, which is party of why he's a good person.
I started writing my argument as "Amos heteronomous, Jim autonomous", and by the time I got to Jim, I was pretty sure he was heteronomous.
I think maybe you're right, Amos is autonomous, willing to negotiate the social reality around him, but thinking that he needs to heteronomous—a strict, inflexible morality—to be "good".
Gotta think about this more. I appreciate you writing this essay about this show at the right time where I'm learning how to do this.
A thought, possibly not my own, possibly cribbed from a progressive Jewish rabbi or one of my parochial school nuns: there's a subtlety about being god-fearing. Some fear punishment from god. Some fear disappointing her. To the latter, knowing you have disappointed god is a singular kind of hell, worse than any punishment.
Naomi is a kind of god-figure in that kind of reasoning, and Amos's distance from her is what leads to lapses.
"That’s my answer to the Trolley Problem and all similar thought experiments: the right decision is whatever decision the best possible moral decision-maker would make in the situation.
Of course, there is no such moral superagent. No one in this world, making real decisions in real circumstances, has a perfect temperament or is ever perfectly informed or thinking with perfect clarity. The default, in fact, is harried people making thoughtless decisions based on crude heuristics and mental models.
But the crucial point is that we can be better or worse decision-makers, closer or farther away from the ideal described above, and we have a pretty good idea what it takes to help people get closer. (More on that below.)
One thing that doesn’t seem to help is a well-developed set of ethical principles. A 2014 research paper surveyed the empirical evidence collected by studies of various moral behaviors and found 'no statistically detectable difference between the behavior of ethicists and non-ethicists.'
...
Whether we’re seeking better real-world outcomes (as I am) or seeking better answers to longstanding moral questions (as the Trolley Problem is), the right strategy is the same: get help. Try to make society fertile for the development of better moral agents. They will have better answers than we do."
Thanks, Noah! I’m a huge Expanse fan and have read the books too. The show’s casting is superb. Amos is my dearest and most relatable character.
This series has been in my queue but I'm moving it to the top. Thanks.
nicely done
I'm going to frame this using the post-Marxist, post-structuralist framework that Cornelius Castoriadis developed in the latter 20th century: "autonomous" vs "heteronomous" societies & individuals. An autonomous individual or society doesn't take an imposed social imaginary as a source of truth, though they may be forced to tailor their actions to it. This is similar to the social imaginary of language, used to communicate among individuals. An autonomous individual will take part in negotiating social imaginaries and change them as needed. Heteronomous individuals or societies will accept social imaginaries without foundation as a firm source of truth, like the word "chair" means something with 4 legs and a back and that's it, or we don't work on Sunday because god says so and that can't change. Full autonomy requires recognition of the agency of others as equal participants in shaping social reality via social imaginaries.
Amos takes social imaginaries imposed on him as a source of truth, making them the foundation of his action. He works best in a moral environment that's heteronomous, and it's only by chance that they're the right decisions. It could be because Amos isn't fully capable of recognizing the agency of others because he wasn't raised right, being able to morally reason through those decisions. When he is autonomous, as you note, he lacks reasoning frameworks for making those decisions. This is why societies that want direct, radical democracy emphasize what the ancient Greeks called "paideia", or properly raising someone to be a fully-participating member of society.
For Jim Holden it's unclear what social imaginaries he uses as the basis for his moral reasoning. He also has the potential for being autonomous, but it could be he's rigidly heteronomous, having a moral code that's incapable of flexibility.
This is just a start for me thinking about the story in that framework, thank you for prompting it...
I don't think this is really right about Amos, is the thing. He *says* he can't morally reaosn himself, but it's him who identifies Naomi and Holden as good people (the show agrees with him!) and he then builds his own moral framework based on what good people do.
so I don't think he lacks reasoning frameworks. he says he lacks them, but I think there's an argument that his moral humility is actually what makes him one of the most ethical people on the show.
Why does being away from Naomi cause his framework to decay? And why is he aware of it?
(These are open, good-faith questions. I'm not convinced my analysis is completely consistent & correct. I'm just starting to learn how to do this kind of analysis using this framework.)
yeah; I'm not sure it does cause his framework to decay? like, when he's away from Naomi, I'd say he still tries to show mercy where possible, finds people he thinks are deserving of help and risks his life for them, tries to be honorable and kind.
He makes what he thinks may be a bad decision and feels like he would have done better if he had Naomi and Holden to talk to. But it's not clear that means his moral framework is decaying; you could argue it's becoming stronger or more autonomous.
I think a key for me is that Amos is not a reliable narrator of his own moral experience in a lot of ways? He thinks he's a worse person than he is, which is party of why he's a good person.
I started writing my argument as "Amos heteronomous, Jim autonomous", and by the time I got to Jim, I was pretty sure he was heteronomous.
I think maybe you're right, Amos is autonomous, willing to negotiate the social reality around him, but thinking that he needs to heteronomous—a strict, inflexible morality—to be "good".
Gotta think about this more. I appreciate you writing this essay about this show at the right time where I'm learning how to do this.
By the way, did you see this?
https://hachyderm.io/@StuWatts/111839427318395475
A thought, possibly not my own, possibly cribbed from a progressive Jewish rabbi or one of my parochial school nuns: there's a subtlety about being god-fearing. Some fear punishment from god. Some fear disappointing her. To the latter, knowing you have disappointed god is a singular kind of hell, worse than any punishment.
Naomi is a kind of god-figure in that kind of reasoning, and Amos's distance from her is what leads to lapses.
Nice piece -- and it makes me think of this David Roberts essay: https://www.volts.wtf/p/why-i-am-a-progressive
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"That’s my answer to the Trolley Problem and all similar thought experiments: the right decision is whatever decision the best possible moral decision-maker would make in the situation.
Of course, there is no such moral superagent. No one in this world, making real decisions in real circumstances, has a perfect temperament or is ever perfectly informed or thinking with perfect clarity. The default, in fact, is harried people making thoughtless decisions based on crude heuristics and mental models.
But the crucial point is that we can be better or worse decision-makers, closer or farther away from the ideal described above, and we have a pretty good idea what it takes to help people get closer. (More on that below.)
One thing that doesn’t seem to help is a well-developed set of ethical principles. A 2014 research paper surveyed the empirical evidence collected by studies of various moral behaviors and found 'no statistically detectable difference between the behavior of ethicists and non-ethicists.'
...
Whether we’re seeking better real-world outcomes (as I am) or seeking better answers to longstanding moral questions (as the Trolley Problem is), the right strategy is the same: get help. Try to make society fertile for the development of better moral agents. They will have better answers than we do."
Amos reminds me of a character in the Louise McMaster Bujold (Vorkosigan novels) series named Bothari. Excellent writing by her(IMO).