Calculus of Al Shurah

The Calculus of Al Shurah's Assurance

By John Taylor; 4 January, 2006

It just came to my attention that Jeremy Bentham, founder of
utilitarianism, was a bit of an eccentric. He believed that we should
not bury the dead, we should have them stuffed and kept in display
cases. Every home should have dead family members displayed in
prominent locations. This is a fascinating idea worthy of several
Badi' essays on its own. How differently we would relate to our family
heritage if we had the perfectly preserved remains our forebears right
there looking over our every move! But that is not all. He kept a pet
pig that followed him around wherever he went. Bentham was so shy that
he could not bear the presence of more than one guest at a time. When
he died his body was dissected before friends and relations and then
preserved in a glass case, topped with a funny pillow head; it is
still displayed in the hallowed halls of Oxford University. His idea
of punishment for criminals also gets high marks for originality and
is similar to his own ultimate fate, albeit after death. Do not just
throw prisoners into jail and forget about them, put wrongdoers into
glass display cases where they can be spied upon twenty four seven.
Presumably the glass would be one way, so that the prisoner could not
see who was watching him. Being so shy, I suppose Bentham imagined
that this as the worst imaginable sanction. Certainly if people were
already used to seeing the stuffed remains of dead people being
displayed at every turn, the idea of being displayed while still alive
would have a certain repulsiveness even in those who otherwise might
not care one way or another.

Bentham's great contribution to ethics was what he called the
"felicific calculus." This you could call opinion polls with teeth.
You poll the population of the world to find out everything that they
like or dislike. You ask what makes them happy or unhappy on a scale
of one to ten, then punch the results into a spreadsheet and use that
information to inform policy making. In a certain way, this is exactly
what is being done today, on a scale that might have frightened
Bentham himself. No leader can afford to ignore the polled feelings or
opinions of his constituents.

What is more, as James Surowiecki describes in "The Wisdom of Crowds,"
when conditions are exactly right polling groups for their opinion or,
alternatively, setting up a stock market of people's bets about what
will happen can be a surprisingly effective way to extract the
collective wisdom from a crowd. Even the most trivial information is
accessible by averaging out the opinions of large numbers of people.
For example, the average guess of how many jelly beans is in a glass
jar beats the best guess virtually every time. Surowiecki routinely
tests his idea in very impressive ways; for example, once he walked
through Grand Central Station asking people at random how many books
they thought he kept in his office bookshelves. He did not know
himself, but it turned out that the average of their guesses was spot
on, far closer than his own guestimate.

So what if you combine the insights of Bentham's pure genius with the
practical discoveries of Surowiecki about collective wisdom? Policy
makers would then have virtual holographic displays of peoples'
felicific calculus in glass cases all down the hall as they walk into
their conference rooms.

Take a specific example. Should we tear out a city's last remaining
greenway in order to build a superhighway? I am thinking of Hamilton's
Red Hill expressway project here, an idea that sat in the planning and
debating stage for many decades. I remember my teachers in High School
working as activists against this possible construction project. What
if their ideas and opinions had been displayed in city hall, like the
dead would be displayed in a house designed by Jeremy Bentham?

What really happened was that the question was debated so long and
bitterly that eventually Mafiosi figured out a way to get their own
pawn mayor elected. He then ran metaphorical bulldozers through all
popular opposition and had the project approved. Now you can drive
through East Hamilton and watch physical bulldozers ripping to bits
the forest path where I used to hike regularly. That gives me a
sinking feeling -- a negative ten in Bentham's calculus. But then
again, I no longer live in Hamilton, so that destruction is not an
impressive problem anymore for me. Nor am I one of the animals or
trees that used to live there. They have no vote, no say in the
matter; nor do unborn generations of children and adults who might
have benefited from that green area. So I must say that as an
occasional driver in the area, I already find the present Lincoln
Alexander Expressway and no doubt will soon find the new Red Hill
Expressway very convenient indeed.

How are all these complex considerations to be given a fair say in a
world full of uncertainties and voices that have no say in the matter,
where money and profit speak so much louder than permanent, intangible
riches? Where those who should have a say do not and cannot say a
thing? After all, even Bentham could not poll unborn children or
woodland animals. It would help if there were an entire profession
designing fair and impressive displays of dead statistics for the
cases lining the hallway leading into the city hall conference
chamber. Preposterous as it seems at first, two of the world's largest
religions insist that the participants in a deliberation or meeting
are not alone if they gather in the right spirit. God is present, if
only in spirit or imagination. Jesus said,

"Again, assuredly I tell you, that if two of you will agree on earth
concerning anything that they will ask, it will be done for them by my
Father who is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together
in my name, there I am in the midst of them." (Matt 18:19-20, WEB)

In a similar vein, the Qu'ran states:

"Seest thou not that God doth know (all) that is in the heavens and on
earth? There is not a secret consultation between three, but He makes
the fourth among them, - Nor between five but He makes the sixth,- nor
between fewer nor more, but He is in their midst, wheresoever they be:
In the end will He tell them the truth of their conduct, on the Day of
Judgment. For God has full knowledge of all things." (Q58:7, Yusuf
Ali)

Similarly, `Abdu'l-Baha promised Baha'is He will sit in on meetings
held in the proper spirit. Do we need a display? Probably not for
monotheists. Visual demonstrations of God, Jesus, or Abdu'l-Baha would
be blasphemous. But we are looking for images that are scientific, not
religious here. We need to see the silent majority and what they think
we should do. Would that be enough to scare away the Mafiosi,
lobbyists and other secret agents of special interests? Not likely,
admittedly.

What would? Perhaps we could change things by giving more attention to
consultation, what makes it succeed and what fails. Lately I did a
search on the word "consultation" in my newly bought DVD edition of
the Encyclopedia Britannica, and the word is given only oblique
references. There is no main entry; hard to believe that there would
be no article but it is so. We are so used to having questions like
whether to build the Red Hill expressway decided for us behind closed
doors that we do not even bother to think about how to decide things
better, or even look up the word "consultation" in an encyclopedia.

One thing that did turn up in my Encyclopedia search was a surprising
reference to a chapter in the 42nd chapter of the Qu'ran called, Al
Shura, Consultation. It is so named, I learned, because of this
passage:

"Those who avoid the greater crimes and shameful deeds, and, when they
are angry even then forgive; Those who hearken to their Lord, and
establish regular prayer; who (conduct) their affairs by mutual
Consultation; who spend out of what We bestow on them for Sustenance;
And those who, when an oppressive wrong is inflicted on them, (are not
cowed but) help and defend themselves." (Q42:37-39, Yusuf Ali)

In itself, this is nothing surprising for a Baha'i. We become veterans
of this six step process described here not long after entering the
Baha'i community; we know all about good actions, forgiveness, prayer,
consultation, proper spending and standing up for what is right; we
may not think of them as consistent steps in a single process, but we
are generally aware of each. What surprised me when I jumped to other
references in the Qu'ran to Shura was how seriously Muhammad took step
five, the almsgiving step of the consultation process. In fact He all
but required it of anyone entering into conference with Him:

"O ye who believe! When ye consult the Messenger in private, spend
something in charity before your private consultation. That will be
best for you, and most conducive to purity (of conduct). But if ye
find not (the wherewithal), Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Is
it that ye are afraid of spending sums in charity before your private
consultation (with him)? If, then ye do not so, and Allah forgives
you, then (at least) establish regular prayer; practice regular
charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger: and Allah is
well-acquainted will all that ye do." (Qur'an 58:12, 13, Yusuf Ali)

How would this practice affect our hallway displays leading to the
Mayor's chambers? Perhaps each holographic image could have a coin
slot built in underneath where deliberators beforehand could offer
contributions to the charities involved. There might be a display of a
woodland scene, with a slot for contributions to the preservation of
their habitat; a giant baby display representing the stake of unborn
future generations might have a slot for charities that affect their
interests. That way no matter what is decided, if a deliberant has
given money for all sides, he or she may be spiritually absolved of
the bad consequences of the part he took in the process.

--
John Taylor

badijet@gmail.com