In Praise of Experimentation

“How much can you know about yourself if you've never been in a fight?” (Tyler Durden, ‘Fight Club’)

Most of us love to try new things. As we should. Nevertheless some of us are more willing to take a walk on the wild side than others. Today I’m going to say why we should, generally, be more open to experimenting. I’m going to do that by painting a picture; and when conditions I describe below are met, I’d say you should just do it.

So, take Betty. Betty’s a pretty open and curious girl. She’s as adventurous as I think people should be; she’s done a lot of stuff and, in the process, learnt a lot about herself and society. While some of the stuff she’s done has ended up having detrimental effects in her life, she’s content since she knows that her experiences have made her a more complete and well-rounded person. But there’s stuff she hasn’t done; stuff I don’t think she should do. For example Betty’s never done any illegal drugs. Why? Because she’s never been interested in, or curious about, drug consumption; she lacks the requisite desire about it that’s necessary for her to consider doing it. As such, she shouldn’t experiment with drugs. The fact that she hasn’t done it isn’t sufficient for her to ought to do it; you shouldn’t try something just for the sake of trying it. For it to be the case that you ought to try something, you need to want to try it. That’s the key standard that needs to be met: if you’re curious about something, interested in seeing what it’s like, or whatever, you should do it.

Even when that standard’s been met, though, there are times when you still shouldn’t try something. Specifically, when you have a major deterrent to trying it. So, returning to Betty, she’s also never been in a brawl and she’s curious about what it’s like to fight someone. Here I’d say that she shouldn’t do it because she has a major deterrent: the harm that would be caused to others. But not every reason for not trying something qualifies as a major deterrent. There are also minor deterrents. No number of minor deterrents is sufficient reason for not trying something you want to try. An example of a minor deterrent might be, say, being worried about what others will think. So, if Betty has a friend, Jimmy, who enjoys being in fights the harm-to-others concern wouldn’t count as a major deterrent. Sure, it might still be a minor deterrent since it’s bad to hurt other people, but were Betty to want to fight Jimmy that wouldn’t be enough to prevent them from throwing some punches (since he won’t mind fighting her). Get it?

Figuring out when a concern or inhibition is a minor, rather than major, deterrent is the tricky bit. While it’s better to err on the side of caution, we can still be reasonably clear on where to draw the line. Thinking of an arbitrary objective standard might be the best means of figuring this out; Maybe a la a Rawlsian-esque Original Position: determine if a concern is major or minor from a position wherein you don’t know anything about yourself, you just know what you’re interested in trying and what the possible deterrent is – like if a stranger was considering trying that thing and had that concern, would you think she should try it anyway? (That’s a very ad hoc solution to this indeterminacy problem and, I’ll admit, I’m not sure how well it’ll hold up under scrutiny.)

Really, what I’m arguing for here is a slightly stronger position than I think most people have. Here I’m saying that, unless you’re either not interested/curious about trying something or have a major disincentive for doing it, you ought to do it. It’s through experimentation that you learn more about yourself; what you like, what you don’t like. And it’s one of the better ways to be able to form a meaningful opinion about something. (Note, though, that while it can often be helpful in understanding something, having tried it is not critical to having a meaningful opinion about it.) Putting my point differently, you could say that I’m arguing against being reserved; against holding back. Avoiding new experiences is a surefire way to stay naïve and sheltered. People who are naïve and sheltered, and want to stay that way, are dangerous. They’re hell bent on being narrow minded; they’re often the radicals who destroy tolerance. I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. This is just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.

NB: Learn More about the Rawlsian Original Position here.