Freedom

Oppenheimer stressed that reason is vital for achieving peace and a freer world. Building on his point, I argue that true reason can only be attained when we systematically weigh and rank our reasoning.

In the context of atomic energy and weaponry, a politician with a personal grudge managed to exclude Oppenheimer from pivotal discussions about the future of the field. This underscores how individual personalities, driven by power, revenge, or other petty motives, can significantly influence our history and the world’s trajectory. Oppenheimer’s exclusion was less about genuine concerns over his loyalty and more a punitive action against his views and character. This approach resembles the classic image of a monkey covering its ears, opting to “hear no evil” rather than face differing opinions.

Such a strategy, which seeks to control and silence dissent instead of engaging with it, exposes a societal flaw and a reluctance to embrace open dialogue. It’s particularly baffling that this narrow-mindedness persists in our internet-connected era. Why would politicians choose to limit viewpoints when we can crowd-source a thorough cost-benefit analysis and evaluate the pros and cons of each position? There’s no defensible reason to avoid this more inclusive approach, which could ensure that perspectives like Oppenheimer’s, often ahead of their time, are given fair consideration before it’s too late.

Oppenheimer stressed that “if there is hope in [the quest for peace and a freer world], that lies not least in man’s reason.” So why don’t we care?

In the context of atomic energy, Oppenheimer pushed for “the complete abolition of secrecy.” When politicians excluded him from discussions about the future of atomic policy, they essentially deprived themselves of his invaluable insights. Their actions are reminiscent of the monkey covering its ears, opting to “hear no evil” rather than face differing viewpoints, instead of the statue of justice that blindfolds her bias to weigh both sides of an issue. Such an approach, which aims to control, silence, and dissent rather than engage with it, indicates a societal flaw and a fear of openness. The fact that this mindset persists in the internet age is particularly puzzling. Why limit perspectives on any issue when we can crowd-source an exhaustive cost-benefit analysis and evaluate the pros and cons of each viewpoint? There’s no justifiable reason to refrain from doing so.

The common argument for limiting contributors is that hearing all viewpoints, regardless of their validity, would be time-consuming and unproductive. However, with straightforward algorithms like those behind Google, we can bring structure to an open society. We can subject each issue to automated conflict resolution and cost-benefit analyses. These analyses rank conclusions based on the likelihood of each cost or benefit, supported by the strength of pro/con sub-arguments. The ranking would also consider whether the causal relationship is logically sound verified and whether the cost or benefit is significant (perhaps ranked within Maslow’s hierarchy of needs).

We could establish a dedicated political party beyond just our atomic arsenal, advocating for the complete abolition of stifled debate. For every issue, whether contentious or not, we should employ an open, transparent, crowd-sourced cost-benefit analysis, ethical evaluation, and conflict resolution process to understand each position’s pros and cons fully.

Oppenheimer noted that the themes of coercion and openness are prevalent in nearly all critical foreign policy issues. The success and very existence of science are owed to the possibility of open discussion and free inquiry. War and laws, by their nature, are acts of coercion. Oppenheimer acknowledged that we can’t eliminate coercion and secrecy but also pointed out that these concepts are deeply rooted in our ethical and political traditions. They are captured in the earnest, simple words of the nation’s founders and are integral to the idea of human dignity. This principle has guided and sustained our nation’s vitality and well-being.

Coercion, Oppenheimer said, points “toward persuasion as the key to political action,” while “openness” points to “free discussion and knowledge as the essential instrument of persuasion.” He said, coercion and oppeness “are so deep within us that we seldom find it necessary, and perhaps seldom possible, to talk to them.” However, “When they are challenged by tyranny abroad or by malpractice at home, we come back to them as the wardens of our public life—and for many of us they are as well wardens of our private lives.”

He said we are not unfamiliar with the use or the need for power. Yet we are stubbornly distrustful of it. We seem to know and come back again and again to this knowledge that the purposes of this country in the field of foreign policy cannot, in any real or enduring way, be achieved by coercion.

We have a natural sympathy for extending to foreign affairs what we have come to learn so well in our political life at home: that an indispensable, perhaps in some ways the indispensable, element in giving meaning to the dignity of man and in making possible the taking of decision-based on honest conviction, is the openness of men’s minds and the openness of whatever media there are for communion between men, free of restraint, free of repression, and free even of the most pervasive of all restraints, that of status and of hierarchy.