The Total Approach and the Sufficient Approach

Original text Luciano Carlos Cunha · Volume VIII, p. 35 of the PDF edition · English translation

5.1. Introduction

In this chapter we will look at two possible approaches to trying to get more people to accept the goal of pursuing a better world for all sentient beings: the total approach and the sufficient approach. We will see some advantages and disadvantages of each of these approaches, and it will be argued that it is more promising to combine them, at least in most contexts. Several examples will also be presented of particular contexts in which they can be applied and combined, and of how this could be done.

5.2. Ranges of compatibility: open and closed

What we will call the range of compatibility concerns the number of additional ideas that need to be accepted in order to accept a given idea. The more additional ideas are needed, the more closed the range will be, since fewer people accept those additional ideas together. The fewer additional ideas are needed, the more open the range will be, since in that case it is more likely that more people will accept the idea, whatever they think about other questions.

It is important to identify how wide an idea’s range of compatibility is, because if we think an idea has a more closed range when in fact it has a more open one, we will miss the opportunity to get many more people to accept it. This is illustrated by the following example.

Suppose we want to defend idea A, and we believe that, to accept it, one must also accept idea B. We then start defending B in order to get people to accept A. In doing so, we imply to the public that, to accept A, one has to accept B. Imagine that we manage to convince some people to accept A, but that other people do not accept it precisely because they do not accept B. But imagine that we later discover that, to accept A, it was not necessary to accept B. Then we could have convinced many more people to accept A if we had not defended B (or, at least, if we had not implied that, to accept A, it was necessary to accept B).

Thus, if, for people to accept an idea A, it is not necessary for them to agree about other ideas B, C, D, E, and so on, then it is better to emphasize that, whatever they think about these other ideas, they can still accept A.

Emphasizing that, even if there is disagreement about other things, there could still be agreement about what we are proposing has at least two advantages. The first, an obvious one, is that it increases the likelihood that a much larger and more diverse number of people will accept what we are proposing. The second is that it tends to reduce polarization⁴⁴, since it emphasizes that, despite the many disagreements, there may be some goals in common.

5.3. Examples of views compatible with multiple views in ethics and politics

To accept the following goals, it is not necessary to adopt a specific view, whether in terms of ethical theory or in terms of political orientation:

• Consideration for all sentient beings.
• Rejection of speciesism.
• Abolition of animal exploitation.
• Veganism
• Reduction of the suffering of wild animals.
• Prevention of risks of future suffering.
• Concern for the long-term future.
• Consideration for nonorganic sentient beings, should they come to exist in the future.

Thus, instead of defending a specific view in ethics or politics and pointing out that one implication of that view is accepting those goals, we are more likely to get people to accept these goals if we argue that they should be accepted by everyone, regardless of which view in ethics or politics they adopt. Defending specific positions may give the mistaken impression that, to accept the goals in question, it is necessary to accept those specific views (with the result that those who do not accept such views reject these goals).

5.4. The total approach and the sufficient approach

Above we gave examples of goals that can be accepted in their entirety by various positions. At other times, however, depending on what someone thinks about other questions, they will accept a given goal only to a certain extent.

When we argue in favor of an idea, we usually understand the situation in terms of accepting it or rejecting it entirely. However, there is the possibility that someone might accept it partially. Of course, if we defend a given idea, we will think it best that other people accept it fully. However, it can be well worth emphasizing that certain arguments that are sometimes put forward in an attempt to reject the idea we are proposing do not actually imply rejecting it, but rather accepting it partially. By emphasizing this, we increase the chances that even those who disagree with its complete acceptance will still accept it at least to some extent.

In this sense, we can distinguish two approaches:

Total approach: defending what we believe to be the best decision.

Sufficient approach: emphasizing that even those who disagree with our position can accept it partially or accept some of its implications.

Important: these are not mutually exclusive strategies. In fact, at the end of this chapter it will be argued not only that we have better chances of better results if we combine both, but also that it is risky to employ only one of them.

The following table lists several examples of these approaches with regard to various topics:

5.5. Conclusion: it is important to combine both strategies

As we have seen above, both strategies, if used in isolation, carry risks. The risk of the total strategy is that people will mistakenly understand that, if they do not fully accept a certain view, they have no reason to partially accept what is being proposed. The general risk of the sufficient strategy, in turn, is that it does not discuss questions that are in fact very important and about which people perhaps ought to change their minds.

Thus, the question is about the degree of focus we should have on each strategy, since it seems better to use both. For example, one option is to focus on the total approach and emphasize that even those who do not agree could still partially accept what has been defended. Even if we opt for a greater focus on what is sufficient, this does not mean that arguing in favor of the total goal is not important. For example, a world in which many people are antispeciesist certainly has very different consequences from a world in which many people merely consider nonhuman animals, but to a lesser degree. Thus, the total approach is also very important (at least in many of the contexts listed above).

The decision to focus more on the total or on the sufficient approach depends on knowing what would achieve our goals most efficiently. For example, would they be better achieved if a larger number of people accepted them partially or if a smaller number of people accepted them completely? The answer to this will depend, in the case of each goal: (1) on the number of people who would accept it fully versus the number of people who would accept it partially; and (2) on how much more each person who accepts it fully would do to achieve the goal, compared with those who accept it partially.

Regardless of the answers to these difficult questions, it seems that arguing only in favor of the ideal, without emphasizing what is sufficient, involves high risks. On the other hand, talking only about what is sufficient means not daring to discuss very important controversial questions. Starting to discuss these questions as soon as possible can make a difference in the long term, by making the public less averse to thinking about them.