First, Putin appoints a new prime minister seen as a mere placeholder, bypassing the two favored candidates; an action which completely upsets all the assumptions about succession and raise doubts that Putin will step down as President next year, as the current Russian constitution requires.
The same week, Gen Alexander Rushkin, Putin's deputy chief of staff, announces they have just dropped the 'father of all bombs', twice as deadly as the largest US bomb (the so-called MOAB), which, due to nanotechnology, has a core temperature twice that of the US bomb; Rushkin claims that where it explodes, "All that is alive merely evaporates." But some experts think they faked the videotape of the explosion - why, no one knows.
So we have a leader who likely has ordered political assassinations using radioactive polonium, who has subverted the rule of law and the political process, and even sidelined his main intra-party competitors; and has made many menacing comments and over the past year done many things (highlighted in some previous alarming posts) to make Russia an obvious military threat to its neighbors and the world again. In terms of his dangerousness to US interests, he makes Saddam look like a Boy Scout. But Bush has 'looked into his soul' and discovered we have nothing to worry about...
And we know to just trust Bush's judgment on these things.
Update: At least a few in the media have noticed. But CNN et al. continue to ignore Russia unless polonium poisoning is involved.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Greenspan's shocker about Iraq
It's difficult for any revelation to startle about the multifaceted debacle now called the war in Iraq (which includes a civil war, anti-terrorism raids, battles for Kurdish independence, attempts by Iran to undermine Iraqi sovereignty, and who knows how many other conflicts). But Alan Greenspan's new memoir turns the trick - in it, he claims that it's a shame the it was "politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil”.
Or more specifically, Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East - and Bush wants those secured (for his friends in Big Oil) more than anything. As long as the terrorists pose an ongoing danger to Iraqi refineries and their US-compliant officials, it seems Bush's main purpose for the war remains in danger, and hence our troops will not withdraw. We may be there to provide security, all right - but not for ordinary Iraqis, of whom we are now responsible for killing more than 1 million since 2003. Instead, it's their oil wells that must be secured...
And the Iranian oil wells may have to be secured next. Get ready for more bombs!
Or more specifically, Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East - and Bush wants those secured (for his friends in Big Oil) more than anything. As long as the terrorists pose an ongoing danger to Iraqi refineries and their US-compliant officials, it seems Bush's main purpose for the war remains in danger, and hence our troops will not withdraw. We may be there to provide security, all right - but not for ordinary Iraqis, of whom we are now responsible for killing more than 1 million since 2003. Instead, it's their oil wells that must be secured...
And the Iranian oil wells may have to be secured next. Get ready for more bombs!
Saturday, September 8, 2007
When does personhood begin?
Personhood, properly understood, is not a species-specific concept; to believe otherwise is to commit the intellectual sin of speciesism, as well as ignore the raft of science-fiction shows as well as the work on AI that demonstrate the intellectual possibility (if not yet the physical actuality) of non-human persons.
That being said, not all humans are persons - fetuses, for example, are clearly not - rather, they are potential persons; beings which, if their developmental changes go well, will eventually become persons, but do not have such status yet. Analogously, my students are potential college graduates, but not actual college graduates; they have begun a process that, if all goes well and certain changes occur (like passing my class!), will result in their attaining the status of college graduate; but they do not have such status now, and may never do so, if things do not go well.
It is clear that the abilities which one must attain in order to become a person are mental; no body type or specific physical ability, like walking or eyesight, are required. An ability to pass the Turing Test - to convince an interlocutor that one could communicate indistinguishably from a normal human adult - seems sufficient, but perhaps not necessary. The kind of mental autonomy that we consider required for moral responsibility - for holding a person responsible for their actions - seems a better bet for a necessary and sufficient condition. Let's call that agency - the capacity for the rational exercise of free will.
Given the 'ought implies can' principle of ethics, along with the principle of alternative possibilities, a person can thus be defined as a being that has two or more courses of action open to them, and has rational control over which of the courses of action they pursue.
So when do humans make the transition from potential personhood to full fledged personhood? Under normal circumstances, at the age of two; and recent research has reinforced the finding that toddlers of that age have a social intelligence (of the sort required for such agency) missing from our most intelligent species relatives, chimps and orangutans.
So a normal neonate is not a person, but a normal two-year old has become one. One becomes a person (no matter what the species) when one becomes an agent. And although it is certainly conceptually possible to have members of many different species demonstrate agency, at the moment, only one species has convincingly demonstrated what it takes to be a person - Homo sapiens sapiens. (Although it is VERY interesting, to me anyway, to speculate on whether Neanderthal man had what it takes - I tend to believe (s)he did, and so two different species of persons co-existed for a while - perhaps until our species wiped them out, perhaps even eating them.)
So while I doubt very much that any extraterrestrial persons exist, it isn't because they are conceptually impossible - not at all. Rather, it's because I suspect that once persons evolve in any particular biosphere, they rapidly destroy themselves and the ecosystems required for their survival. In other words, I suspect many species across the Universe have attained personhood in the past - and none of them have lasted, or else we would be aware of them (or members of them!) now. It is the nature of intelligent civilizations to destroy themselves. Alas, that's another version of the Argument for Doomsday - from the Fermi Paradox. Hopefully I'll publish it in more detail soon... before it's too late!
That being said, not all humans are persons - fetuses, for example, are clearly not - rather, they are potential persons; beings which, if their developmental changes go well, will eventually become persons, but do not have such status yet. Analogously, my students are potential college graduates, but not actual college graduates; they have begun a process that, if all goes well and certain changes occur (like passing my class!), will result in their attaining the status of college graduate; but they do not have such status now, and may never do so, if things do not go well.
It is clear that the abilities which one must attain in order to become a person are mental; no body type or specific physical ability, like walking or eyesight, are required. An ability to pass the Turing Test - to convince an interlocutor that one could communicate indistinguishably from a normal human adult - seems sufficient, but perhaps not necessary. The kind of mental autonomy that we consider required for moral responsibility - for holding a person responsible for their actions - seems a better bet for a necessary and sufficient condition. Let's call that agency - the capacity for the rational exercise of free will.
Given the 'ought implies can' principle of ethics, along with the principle of alternative possibilities, a person can thus be defined as a being that has two or more courses of action open to them, and has rational control over which of the courses of action they pursue.
So when do humans make the transition from potential personhood to full fledged personhood? Under normal circumstances, at the age of two; and recent research has reinforced the finding that toddlers of that age have a social intelligence (of the sort required for such agency) missing from our most intelligent species relatives, chimps and orangutans.
So a normal neonate is not a person, but a normal two-year old has become one. One becomes a person (no matter what the species) when one becomes an agent. And although it is certainly conceptually possible to have members of many different species demonstrate agency, at the moment, only one species has convincingly demonstrated what it takes to be a person - Homo sapiens sapiens. (Although it is VERY interesting, to me anyway, to speculate on whether Neanderthal man had what it takes - I tend to believe (s)he did, and so two different species of persons co-existed for a while - perhaps until our species wiped them out, perhaps even eating them.)
So while I doubt very much that any extraterrestrial persons exist, it isn't because they are conceptually impossible - not at all. Rather, it's because I suspect that once persons evolve in any particular biosphere, they rapidly destroy themselves and the ecosystems required for their survival. In other words, I suspect many species across the Universe have attained personhood in the past - and none of them have lasted, or else we would be aware of them (or members of them!) now. It is the nature of intelligent civilizations to destroy themselves. Alas, that's another version of the Argument for Doomsday - from the Fermi Paradox. Hopefully I'll publish it in more detail soon... before it's too late!
Team USA recap
A little belatedly, a quick recap of Team USA's mostly successful summer of FIBA qualifying for the 2008 Olympics, and a suggestion about what they should do next summer:
The basics you likely know: the team went undefeated, and was never seriously challenged. In their closest game, their second-round match vs Argentina, they led by 15 (28-13) at the end of the first quarter - and the same margin at game's end. That game revealed the potential weakness of the team; at the end of two hard weeks of playing a game nearly every day, the team looked tired and was outscored the second half, despite the Argentinean star Luis Scola being in foul trouble and barely playing after that blowout first quarter.
The team had far better defensive intensity than past national squads, and their 3-point shooting was improved as well. If they continue that, they may be unbeatable - but Argentina gave a game while missing 5 current or former NBA players (Ginobili, Nocioni, Oberto, Herrmann, and Pepe Sanchez). And Spain, Italy, France and other Euro squads are also laden with NBA talent, and Greece beat the last USA squad with an advanced pick and roll game the US defense still struggles to stop. The depth of Team USA should make them better positioned to prevail at the ends of games and play better and better deep into a tournament in which games are played every day, and less talented teams must play their starters nearly 40 minutes every night. But the USA oddly seems to play worse in second halves - and this goes back to their losses over the last several competitions.
Hence, my suggestion: NBA players are psychologically used to playing 32-36, or even 40, minutes a game, but are used to playing tired on 'back to backs', much less when they have to play 3 or even 4 nights in a row. And easy way to make the Olympic schedule more like an NBA one would be to divide the roster into 3 groups of 4, and have 2 of those groups (8 men) play each game, while the other group of 4 gets the night off. That way, no one would ever play more than two nights in a row, and the team would truly be the freshest when it came to the games that really counted at tourney's end.
Here's how I'd divvy the roster up - first, from this summer's roster:
Group 1: Howard, LeBron, Kobe, Kidd
Group 2: Amare, Melo, Redd, Billups
Group 3: Chandler, Prince, Miller, DWilliams
That also corresponds to their pecking order in status. But I suspect Chris Bosh, Dwayne Wade, and less certainly, Elton Brand (if healthy), Chris Paul, and perhaps Shane Battier or Joe Johnson will make the team next season. So here's my projected groups, based on my expectations for next year's roster:
Group 1: Howard, LeBron, Kobe, Kidd (the same)
Group 2: Brand, Melo, DWade, Billups
Group 3: Bosh, Amare, Redd, DWilliams
Bosh would bump up to group 2 if Brand isn't healthy. Group 1 would be the fastbreak specialists, group 2 is better in the halfcourt, and group 3 would provide a shooter, 3rd PG, and size. If they use this roster with my proposed rotation, with group 1 and 2 playing against the toughest opponents, I suspect they could waltz to the gold. In any event, I think Team USA fails to take full advantage of its depth, and some system like mine should be instituted to help avoid another upset in 2008.
The basics you likely know: the team went undefeated, and was never seriously challenged. In their closest game, their second-round match vs Argentina, they led by 15 (28-13) at the end of the first quarter - and the same margin at game's end. That game revealed the potential weakness of the team; at the end of two hard weeks of playing a game nearly every day, the team looked tired and was outscored the second half, despite the Argentinean star Luis Scola being in foul trouble and barely playing after that blowout first quarter.
The team had far better defensive intensity than past national squads, and their 3-point shooting was improved as well. If they continue that, they may be unbeatable - but Argentina gave a game while missing 5 current or former NBA players (Ginobili, Nocioni, Oberto, Herrmann, and Pepe Sanchez). And Spain, Italy, France and other Euro squads are also laden with NBA talent, and Greece beat the last USA squad with an advanced pick and roll game the US defense still struggles to stop. The depth of Team USA should make them better positioned to prevail at the ends of games and play better and better deep into a tournament in which games are played every day, and less talented teams must play their starters nearly 40 minutes every night. But the USA oddly seems to play worse in second halves - and this goes back to their losses over the last several competitions.
Hence, my suggestion: NBA players are psychologically used to playing 32-36, or even 40, minutes a game, but are used to playing tired on 'back to backs', much less when they have to play 3 or even 4 nights in a row. And easy way to make the Olympic schedule more like an NBA one would be to divide the roster into 3 groups of 4, and have 2 of those groups (8 men) play each game, while the other group of 4 gets the night off. That way, no one would ever play more than two nights in a row, and the team would truly be the freshest when it came to the games that really counted at tourney's end.
Here's how I'd divvy the roster up - first, from this summer's roster:
Group 1: Howard, LeBron, Kobe, Kidd
Group 2: Amare, Melo, Redd, Billups
Group 3: Chandler, Prince, Miller, DWilliams
That also corresponds to their pecking order in status. But I suspect Chris Bosh, Dwayne Wade, and less certainly, Elton Brand (if healthy), Chris Paul, and perhaps Shane Battier or Joe Johnson will make the team next season. So here's my projected groups, based on my expectations for next year's roster:
Group 1: Howard, LeBron, Kobe, Kidd (the same)
Group 2: Brand, Melo, DWade, Billups
Group 3: Bosh, Amare, Redd, DWilliams
Bosh would bump up to group 2 if Brand isn't healthy. Group 1 would be the fastbreak specialists, group 2 is better in the halfcourt, and group 3 would provide a shooter, 3rd PG, and size. If they use this roster with my proposed rotation, with group 1 and 2 playing against the toughest opponents, I suspect they could waltz to the gold. In any event, I think Team USA fails to take full advantage of its depth, and some system like mine should be instituted to help avoid another upset in 2008.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
A Doomsday Device? Really?
My favorite film, Dr. Strangelove, is the tale of a rogue US general launching an accidental nuclear war, and the errors of command and control that result in one bomber not being recalled, even after everyone realizes it was all a mistake. The grim joke at the end of the movie, however, is that the USSR has built a 'Doomsday Device', so that if any nuclear attack on them is successful, they will automatically detonate numerous cobalt-jacketed hydrogen bombs all around the planet, releasing enough deadly fallout to render the Earth uninhabitable for humans for 93 years. Nothing can stop the device, once activated.
But surely this is all just a fantasy. As Dr. Strangelove himself says in the movie, what's the point of a Doomsday Device if you keep it a secret? Presumably no one actually wants the end of human life on Earth, so the only point of building a Doomsday Device is for its deterrent effect - and it can't have any deterrent effect if your enemy doesn't know of its existence!
Alas, we have reason again to think that reality is stranger than fiction. There's reason to believe the Soviets have built such a device, and have recently taken steps to reactivate it. Or more properly, they never deactivated it, and may be upgrading it. The claim: a system named Kosvinsky exists inside a mountain in Russia, able to communicate via VLF radio, which could work even during the massive radiation of nuclear fallout, and would coordinate and launch all Russian nuclear forces after an initial strike. This and more are part of a new book by P.D. Smith detailing the severity of the risk of all-out nuclear war using such a 'superweapon', whether started accidentally or otherwise.
The further rumor: Nuclear launch risk specialist Bruce Blair intimates that Bush's recent requests for a nuclear 'bunker-buster' bomb, supposedly for Iraqi or Iranian nuclear facilities, may actually have the Kosvinsky system in mind. And Putin has eagerly made clear that Russia's nuclear bombers are back in the air, saying “Our pilots have been grounded for too long. They are happy to start a new life.”
In short, Russia appears to be actively preparing for nuclear war, and has never been too keen on safeguards against accidental launch - preferring a certain counterattack, and a last-chance Doomsday machine that means the rest of the world will lose a nuclear war if they do. The Doomsday clock is at 5 minutes to midnight; I increasingly worry it should be closer.
But surely this is all just a fantasy. As Dr. Strangelove himself says in the movie, what's the point of a Doomsday Device if you keep it a secret? Presumably no one actually wants the end of human life on Earth, so the only point of building a Doomsday Device is for its deterrent effect - and it can't have any deterrent effect if your enemy doesn't know of its existence!
Alas, we have reason again to think that reality is stranger than fiction. There's reason to believe the Soviets have built such a device, and have recently taken steps to reactivate it. Or more properly, they never deactivated it, and may be upgrading it. The claim: a system named Kosvinsky exists inside a mountain in Russia, able to communicate via VLF radio, which could work even during the massive radiation of nuclear fallout, and would coordinate and launch all Russian nuclear forces after an initial strike. This and more are part of a new book by P.D. Smith detailing the severity of the risk of all-out nuclear war using such a 'superweapon', whether started accidentally or otherwise.
The further rumor: Nuclear launch risk specialist Bruce Blair intimates that Bush's recent requests for a nuclear 'bunker-buster' bomb, supposedly for Iraqi or Iranian nuclear facilities, may actually have the Kosvinsky system in mind. And Putin has eagerly made clear that Russia's nuclear bombers are back in the air, saying “Our pilots have been grounded for too long. They are happy to start a new life.”
In short, Russia appears to be actively preparing for nuclear war, and has never been too keen on safeguards against accidental launch - preferring a certain counterattack, and a last-chance Doomsday machine that means the rest of the world will lose a nuclear war if they do. The Doomsday clock is at 5 minutes to midnight; I increasingly worry it should be closer.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
The gods work in mysterious ways?
How does Pat Robertson et al. explain this one? Bunky Bartlett said he made a deal with his gods - let him win the Mega Millions lotto jackpot, and he would begin teaching Wicca fulltime. Amd guess what? He won.
Like all the other falsifications of the core beliefs of fundamentalist Christianity, this will no doubt be shrugged off and never mentioned. It simply shows how much the Christian religion has turned into a socio-political unfalsifiable ideology, rather than the all-encompassing worldview of the past that supposedly makes factual, testable assertions. Fundamentalist Christians are supposed to look condescendingly at those who treat the Resurrection of Jesus, or the Virgin Birth, or multitudinous other miracles as anything other than literal historical fact. They are supposed to be on the side of Elijah against the prophets of Baal, in which only those who believe in the true God have their prayers answered - and believers in false Gods have their prayers fall on deaf ears, unanswered, doomed to die at the hands of those who are the winners of the divine experimental method.
If so, why aren't they all Wiccans today? Christopher Hitchens explains it very well.
Like all the other falsifications of the core beliefs of fundamentalist Christianity, this will no doubt be shrugged off and never mentioned. It simply shows how much the Christian religion has turned into a socio-political unfalsifiable ideology, rather than the all-encompassing worldview of the past that supposedly makes factual, testable assertions. Fundamentalist Christians are supposed to look condescendingly at those who treat the Resurrection of Jesus, or the Virgin Birth, or multitudinous other miracles as anything other than literal historical fact. They are supposed to be on the side of Elijah against the prophets of Baal, in which only those who believe in the true God have their prayers answered - and believers in false Gods have their prayers fall on deaf ears, unanswered, doomed to die at the hands of those who are the winners of the divine experimental method.
If so, why aren't they all Wiccans today? Christopher Hitchens explains it very well.
Jimmy loves John, and thoughts on competition
"Jimmy Carter stops short of endorsing John Edwards, but calls him a candidate “whom I really admire.”
More: “I can say without equivocation that no one who is running for president has presented anywhere near as comprehensive and accurate a prediction of what our country ought to do in the field of environmental quality, in the field of health care for those who are not presently insured, for those who struggle with poverty.”
Of course, I couldn't agree more. Edwards' health care plan has successfully split the baby, by having an expanded version of Medicare available to all, but without that program being mandatory - so private insurers still have every chance to compete on price and coverage, but every citizen is covered, one way or another. It's an experiment that can help resolve the conservative canard that private business is always more efficient than government bureaucracies at providing the same services. In fact, China and Russia are already disproving that claim daily, as government businesses there routinely outperform private competitors in what is termed "state capitalism". Government bureaucracy has gotten a bad name because monopolies, whether private or public, breed sloth and poor management. The breakup of AT&T heralded an amazing growth in telecommunications in the US, and many believe Linux and Macintosh have far better operating systems than any version of the Windows monopoly. And so likewise for public businesses - think how much better the US Mail has gotten since Fedex, UPS, et al. came into being.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Bombing Iran?
Given the complete and utter debacle in Iraq - a fine book about it was aptly titled Fiasco - it beggars the imagination that we are actively planning a massive bombing attack on Iran that would (in theory) reduce the entire Iranian military apparatus to rubble in three days.
Verily, though, it appears we are; but surely we are leaking word of this proposed attack as a feint, a bluff, a threat of the stick in order to get Iran back to the carrots of the negotiating table, and get the IAEA inspectors back to their nuclear plants and achieve a diplomatic solution, right?
If some of those at the front lines are reading their tea leaves correctly (and telling the truth), then no - it's no feint; it's all too real, and we are at a stage much like Iraq in early 2003, in which the military decision has already been made, and the only question is the exact timing. According to this diary, all the "Air Operation Planning and Asset Tasking" have already been completed - all the targets inside Iran have been carefully selected, given a priority, and even the specific aircraft, bases, carriers, missile cruisers and so on have already been assigned their missions. The only query left - when does it begin?
The diary notes that officers and senior commanders who raised doubts about striking Iran have recently all been replaced. I am wary of trusting anonymously sourced testimonials from frontline military sources on future plans, but the source here sounds all too believable, and even admits she could be compromising a secret attack - but doesn't care, as she senses it is morally questionable, contrasting it to morally clear missions in Kosovo or helping tsunami victims.
If this is all a bluff, Bush is a better poker player than I think. So, I suspect it is not a bluff. Instead, look at where things are headed: Benjamin Netanyahu, a prominent Israeli politician who has repeatedly compared Iran's President Ahmadinejad to Hitler in 1938 (and helped persuade fundamentalist Christians that the US would be nuked right after Israel), has recently and easily won the race to lead Israel's hardline Likud Party, making him the favorite to become the new Israeli prime minister.
The result: the Israeli military now has a new spy satellite specifically designed to track the Iranian nuclear program, and the combination of Netanyahu's popularity and the apparent decision of the US to bomb has the current prime minister, Ehud Olmert doing - guess what? Well, in an article in Germany's Bild newspaper, Olmert compared Iran's president with Adolf Hitler for calling for Israel's destruction! Hmmm - I sense a rhetorical trend, and to Israeli ears, there's only one thing to do to someone who threatens a new Holocaust - and it's not containment or negotiations.
The context makes it even clearer: the remarks were published a day after the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Iran had failed to observe a deadline for halting uranium enrichment activity. And that's not all: Olmert went on to say:
Verily, though, it appears we are; but surely we are leaking word of this proposed attack as a feint, a bluff, a threat of the stick in order to get Iran back to the carrots of the negotiating table, and get the IAEA inspectors back to their nuclear plants and achieve a diplomatic solution, right?
If some of those at the front lines are reading their tea leaves correctly (and telling the truth), then no - it's no feint; it's all too real, and we are at a stage much like Iraq in early 2003, in which the military decision has already been made, and the only question is the exact timing. According to this diary, all the "Air Operation Planning and Asset Tasking" have already been completed - all the targets inside Iran have been carefully selected, given a priority, and even the specific aircraft, bases, carriers, missile cruisers and so on have already been assigned their missions. The only query left - when does it begin?
The diary notes that officers and senior commanders who raised doubts about striking Iran have recently all been replaced. I am wary of trusting anonymously sourced testimonials from frontline military sources on future plans, but the source here sounds all too believable, and even admits she could be compromising a secret attack - but doesn't care, as she senses it is morally questionable, contrasting it to morally clear missions in Kosovo or helping tsunami victims.
If this is all a bluff, Bush is a better poker player than I think. So, I suspect it is not a bluff. Instead, look at where things are headed: Benjamin Netanyahu, a prominent Israeli politician who has repeatedly compared Iran's President Ahmadinejad to Hitler in 1938 (and helped persuade fundamentalist Christians that the US would be nuked right after Israel), has recently and easily won the race to lead Israel's hardline Likud Party, making him the favorite to become the new Israeli prime minister.
The result: the Israeli military now has a new spy satellite specifically designed to track the Iranian nuclear program, and the combination of Netanyahu's popularity and the apparent decision of the US to bomb has the current prime minister, Ehud Olmert doing - guess what? Well, in an article in Germany's Bild newspaper, Olmert compared Iran's president with Adolf Hitler for calling for Israel's destruction! Hmmm - I sense a rhetorical trend, and to Israeli ears, there's only one thing to do to someone who threatens a new Holocaust - and it's not containment or negotiations.
The context makes it even clearer: the remarks were published a day after the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Iran had failed to observe a deadline for halting uranium enrichment activity. And that's not all: Olmert went on to say:
"The West - above all under the leadership of the United States - will ensure that Iran under no circumstances comes to possess unconventional weapons.The president of the United States is a very brave man who understands that very well."Putting 2 and 2 together, I'm guessing it is too late for Iran to have a peaceful end to its uranium enrichment activity. The Israelis now even have a new spy satellite that will help the American bombers do their jobs - and it just became operational. I'm guessing we will have a three-day war in Iran before the New Year - and no one knows what the terrible fallout of that will be. Only that it will take Iraq off the lead on the news!
Friday, August 31, 2007
Virtue ethics and the best candidate for President
From the perspective of virtue ethics, the worst moral dilemmas arise when people of virtue find themselves caught in situations in which the institutions in which they play their assigned roles are themselves corrupt; so that acting virtuously in your role, doing what you ought to be doing for the good of the institution, nonetheless detracts from the good of society. That is, what is good for you and the institution that defines your role, is simultaneously bad for the larger society in which you and your institution play a role.
Everyone understands this when we say that being a deadeye shooter helps one function excellently as a hitman for the Mob, but nonetheless your excellence in that role is not virtuous for the larger society. But the Mob is widely perceived as an illegitimate institution (Tony Soprano notwithstanding!), and so this is not a true moral dilemma. A truly calamitous moral situation is when an institution widely seen as moral, or the guardian of public morality, occupies such a negative role in the health of the body politic. And so the most grievous institutional evil is the moral failure of government - to have a government so wedded to corruption and pursuing its own agenda at the expense of the commonweal that even its virtuous members find themselves constantly tempted to do things that will advance their personal fortunes, but be terrible for society at large. Horribly, this now describes the US government. A true leader will face this and identify it as the crucial problem to be solved - the rest is all details.
One man running for President has done so; one is brave enough to say the following:
That man's name is John Edwards. You should read the entire speech, recently given in New Hampshire; and then you should write him a check and tell him he has your vote. Those in power don't wish you to think hard about the culture of corruption, not when they benefit from it so much.
They also wish to trivialize the campaign and make nonsense of the true concepts of hypocrisy and concern for the poor. They wish to use the tools of media manipulation, fear, and false and mendacious advertising to twist you away from the truth - that their corruption continues only as long as you don't notice and don't put up a fight.
A real 'candidate for change' will have to be one who refuses to allow the accumulation of power and money by those in Washington upstage the search for truth and accountability. He or she must be one who can say (and act upon) the following:
Everyone understands this when we say that being a deadeye shooter helps one function excellently as a hitman for the Mob, but nonetheless your excellence in that role is not virtuous for the larger society. But the Mob is widely perceived as an illegitimate institution (Tony Soprano notwithstanding!), and so this is not a true moral dilemma. A truly calamitous moral situation is when an institution widely seen as moral, or the guardian of public morality, occupies such a negative role in the health of the body politic. And so the most grievous institutional evil is the moral failure of government - to have a government so wedded to corruption and pursuing its own agenda at the expense of the commonweal that even its virtuous members find themselves constantly tempted to do things that will advance their personal fortunes, but be terrible for society at large. Horribly, this now describes the US government. A true leader will face this and identify it as the crucial problem to be solved - the rest is all details.
One man running for President has done so; one is brave enough to say the following:
"Real change starts with being honest -- the system in Washington is rigged and our government is broken. It's rigged by greedy corporate powers to protect corporate profits. It's rigged by the very wealthy to ensure they become even wealthier. At the end of the day, it's rigged by all those who benefit from the established order of things. For them, more of the same means more money and more power. They'll do anything they can to keep things just the way they are -- not for the country, but for themselves."
That man's name is John Edwards. You should read the entire speech, recently given in New Hampshire; and then you should write him a check and tell him he has your vote. Those in power don't wish you to think hard about the culture of corruption, not when they benefit from it so much.
They also wish to trivialize the campaign and make nonsense of the true concepts of hypocrisy and concern for the poor. They wish to use the tools of media manipulation, fear, and false and mendacious advertising to twist you away from the truth - that their corruption continues only as long as you don't notice and don't put up a fight.
A real 'candidate for change' will have to be one who refuses to allow the accumulation of power and money by those in Washington upstage the search for truth and accountability. He or she must be one who can say (and act upon) the following:
Only one candidate is willing to say this - John Edwards. Please support him."Politicians who care more about their careers than their constituents go along to get elected. They make easy promises to voters instead of challenging them to take responsibility for our country. And then they compromise even those promises to keep the lobbyists happy and the contributions coming.
Instead of serving the people and the nation, too many play the parlor game of Washington -- trading favors and campaign money, influencing votes and compromising legislation. It's a game that never ends, but every American knows -- it's time to end the game.
And it's time for the Democratic Party -- the party of the people -- to end it."
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Facts, values, and ethics
Query: Is there a clear distinction between facts and values? Do we have a world of hard facts about physical objects on one hand, and a wealth of intangible, fuzzy claims about 'values' on the other? Can 'values' just be whatever we want, or can they be different for different people?
Let's ask this a different way: Are value-statements clearly true or false (a view called cognitivism)? Notice this is a separate query from that of whether or not we can ever know that a value claim is true or false – you must answer the first question in the affirmative to have any chance of answering the second affirmatively.
The belief in an objective morality – involving a confutation of ethical relativism – depends on answering the first query in the affirmative. In other words, it depends on (at least) some values being facts. Hence, an inquiry into objective ethics already assumes a position in what’s called meta-ethics – the process of deciding between different ways of justifying moral judgments, which are made on basis of reasons.
The belief in an objective morality normally corresponds to a metaethics of moral realism (the idea that moral claims correspond to an external moral reality, independent of the individual or society). Here are some other possible metaethical views: Nihilism is the view that no way of justifying moral judgments is possible, because moral facts don’t exist. Contrast that to moral relativism (moral facts are relative to the individual (subjectivism) or a society/ culture (cultural relativism). Or emotivism – moral claims are simply disguised emotional attitudes/ outbursts. And so on.
Ethics is not merely an intellectual tool; its use (and misuse) informs many roles and jobs in our society. There are 4 basic types of moral investigation, or applying reason to morality:
Social Scientists – usually engage in descriptive ethics, describing the moral codes of a group, usually without passing judgment on their rightness or wrongness – e.g., a sociologist, or anthropologist, or some psychologists.
Casuists – apply ethics to concrete situations, usually to attempt to achieve some goal; they offer adjudication, defense, advice, enforcement, and a whole host of other activities related to a moral code for specific situations. Such casuists obviously include lawyers, but also judges, police, social workers, psychiatrists, therapists, teachers, and others.
Moralists/ Hortatory specialists – these people specialize in exhorting/persuading people to adopt certain moral rules or codes, or to adopt a certain way of life as better than others – they include ministers, politicians, and advertisers.
And finally, there’s what I do (and am doing right now), the:
Ethical theorist – who engages in critical examination and evaluation/ invention of ethical theories; they specialize in meta-theorizing - judging which systems can best render rational moral judgments. They evaluate the rational defensibility of various theories of ethics, and hence primarily engage in metaethics, or act as a philosopher of ethics. The primary focus is not directly on what one ought or ought not to do, but how to rationally justify whatever claims are made about what one ought or ought not to do. Of course, if the most rational ethical theory is the correct one, an ethical theorist will also have considerable practical information about what one ought to do, as one means of testing the metaethical virtues of competing theories. But the focus is on whether particular ethical theories (such as virtue ethics or utilitarianism) are true or false, and not on the practical issue of whether or not you should, say, give to charity.
So what ethical theory is the best – the truest? Or is it all relative? Stay tuned…
Let's ask this a different way: Are value-statements clearly true or false (a view called cognitivism)? Notice this is a separate query from that of whether or not we can ever know that a value claim is true or false – you must answer the first question in the affirmative to have any chance of answering the second affirmatively.
The belief in an objective morality – involving a confutation of ethical relativism – depends on answering the first query in the affirmative. In other words, it depends on (at least) some values being facts. Hence, an inquiry into objective ethics already assumes a position in what’s called meta-ethics – the process of deciding between different ways of justifying moral judgments, which are made on basis of reasons.
The belief in an objective morality normally corresponds to a metaethics of moral realism (the idea that moral claims correspond to an external moral reality, independent of the individual or society). Here are some other possible metaethical views: Nihilism is the view that no way of justifying moral judgments is possible, because moral facts don’t exist. Contrast that to moral relativism (moral facts are relative to the individual (subjectivism) or a society/ culture (cultural relativism). Or emotivism – moral claims are simply disguised emotional attitudes/ outbursts. And so on.
Ethics is not merely an intellectual tool; its use (and misuse) informs many roles and jobs in our society. There are 4 basic types of moral investigation, or applying reason to morality:
Social Scientists – usually engage in descriptive ethics, describing the moral codes of a group, usually without passing judgment on their rightness or wrongness – e.g., a sociologist, or anthropologist, or some psychologists.
Casuists – apply ethics to concrete situations, usually to attempt to achieve some goal; they offer adjudication, defense, advice, enforcement, and a whole host of other activities related to a moral code for specific situations. Such casuists obviously include lawyers, but also judges, police, social workers, psychiatrists, therapists, teachers, and others.
Moralists/ Hortatory specialists – these people specialize in exhorting/persuading people to adopt certain moral rules or codes, or to adopt a certain way of life as better than others – they include ministers, politicians, and advertisers.
And finally, there’s what I do (and am doing right now), the:
Ethical theorist – who engages in critical examination and evaluation/ invention of ethical theories; they specialize in meta-theorizing - judging which systems can best render rational moral judgments. They evaluate the rational defensibility of various theories of ethics, and hence primarily engage in metaethics, or act as a philosopher of ethics. The primary focus is not directly on what one ought or ought not to do, but how to rationally justify whatever claims are made about what one ought or ought not to do. Of course, if the most rational ethical theory is the correct one, an ethical theorist will also have considerable practical information about what one ought to do, as one means of testing the metaethical virtues of competing theories. But the focus is on whether particular ethical theories (such as virtue ethics or utilitarianism) are true or false, and not on the practical issue of whether or not you should, say, give to charity.
So what ethical theory is the best – the truest? Or is it all relative? Stay tuned…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
