With respect to minds

Brad DeLong has written an interesting post in which he contemplates causes, reasons, and the theory of the mind:

Matthew Yglesias argues that we have a moral duty to take the reasons that people advance seriously. I wish to dissent in large part: we do have a transcendental and practical duty to take the reasons that people advance seriously only under certain conditions: when those reasons form part of a coherent structure of thought that is stable and consistent over time. When those reasons are not stable and consistent over time, then we are dealing not with a Mind but with a deceptive simulacrum of a mind, and it is a waste of our own powers–it is disrespectful to ourselves–to try to take these reasons seriously […]

He goes on to present examples of inconsistencies—inconsistency over time using Andrew Sullivan as an example and inconsistency between writing and deed using Robert Nozick as an example.

I think Mr. DeLong is being a little harsh and, ultimately, self-defeating.

To put things into terms that I’m a little more comfortable with I’d say that mind is a property of human beings. And that every human being at least in part as a result of that property is entitled to respect and consideration regardless of status, ability, or consistency. Further I’d say that neither Matthew Yglesias nor Brad DeLong nor you nor me nor any human being now living is 100% consistent in their stated beliefs over time nor consistent between their beliefs and their actions.

None of us are archangels. We do not have perfectly formed wills. And that has been the common experience of human beings for a very long time: “that which I would not do, I do; that which I would do, I do not do”. That was written about two thousand years ago. Hindus have called that common experience karma. Christians have called it original sin. Freudians call it the death wish. Scientologists call it the reactive mind.

In Christian thought only Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary have had perfectly formed wills. That is what it means when it is said that they are without sin.

So if, as in Mr. DeLong’s view, we should not take the reasons and, implicitly, the mind behind the reasons seriously that we won’t take Andrew Sullivan, Robert Nozick, you, or me seriously. Or Mr. DeLong for that matter.

I think I take a somewhat different view. I think that we evaluate the products of another mind (for we don’t evaluate a mind directly—we just don’t have the equipment to do that) based on a variety of factors. Do the arguments make sense? Have they been compellingly and logically presented? Are they consistent with our own experiences? Does it make sense. We can also evaluate the other actions of a person for they are also products of that mind and it’s reasonable to consider them as evidence as well.

I’d even go a step farther. I think we should consider the results of the actions. Let me give an example. Let’s say you believe that we should be helping the homeless. You give compelling arguments and good reasons for doing this. Let’s also say that you give a panhandler on the street ten bucks. Well and good—that’s certainly consistent with your beliefs and your arguments. Let’s say the panhandler takes your ten spot, gets drunk, falls under an El train and dies. Are the results of your action consistent with your beliefs?

So I’d when you are evaluating someone’s ideas you take all the factors into account: the logical qualities and presentation of the ideas, the character of the person presenting ideas, and the implications of the application of those ideas into account. But you always consider them seriously and with respect.