Friday, January 15, 2016
Thursday, January 14, 2016
Scientific certainty
Sometimes things come to be so supported by evidence coming from all over the place that it is essentially proved. The laws of conservation, the second law of thermodynamics, the inverse square relationship of gravity, that evolution has occurred, and so on.
I look at science as a big complicated building ("edifice" is a good word in this metaphor). It might be that someday some central part of the structure will prove unsound and a major rebuild of much of the building become necessary, but as time passes this becomes less and less likely, as more and more rooms and all are added on.
The last really large "paradigm shift" I remember happening when one day all the respected Science Journals came out with plate tectonics, completely replacing what had gone before. At the time no real rebuilding of the scientific edifice was needed as the previous theory didn't actually replace anything but just was recognized as answering a lot of questions. While it is conceivable that some basic aspect of physics could be seriously wrong, we know that whatever that error must be it must be subtle, as the world seems so behaved with the laws we have. This implies that any error will be only a revision or an addition of more detail, not a huge mistake.
The reality of existence is that nothing is, or even could be to an infinite mind, absolutely certain. The set of things an infinite mind know might be infinite, but there is no way such a being could be certain it included all things.
Even the tautologies known as "mathematical proof," convincing as they are, have at least two elements of possible uncertainty. An axiom or definition used in the proof may be false or wrongly applied, and the logic may contain unseen errors.
I look at science as a big complicated building ("edifice" is a good word in this metaphor). It might be that someday some central part of the structure will prove unsound and a major rebuild of much of the building become necessary, but as time passes this becomes less and less likely, as more and more rooms and all are added on.
The last really large "paradigm shift" I remember happening when one day all the respected Science Journals came out with plate tectonics, completely replacing what had gone before. At the time no real rebuilding of the scientific edifice was needed as the previous theory didn't actually replace anything but just was recognized as answering a lot of questions. While it is conceivable that some basic aspect of physics could be seriously wrong, we know that whatever that error must be it must be subtle, as the world seems so behaved with the laws we have. This implies that any error will be only a revision or an addition of more detail, not a huge mistake.
The reality of existence is that nothing is, or even could be to an infinite mind, absolutely certain. The set of things an infinite mind know might be infinite, but there is no way such a being could be certain it included all things.
Even the tautologies known as "mathematical proof," convincing as they are, have at least two elements of possible uncertainty. An axiom or definition used in the proof may be false or wrongly applied, and the logic may contain unseen errors.
Thinking for oneself and skepticism
The ability to think for oneself includes the willingness to accept the authority of people better informed and who have spent their lives studying a subject.
It includes being skeptical of claims of people who think they've discovered the secrets of the universe and who call stupid people who doubt them.
My ophthalmologist told me I had a small cataract and gave me a list of things to do to slow its growth. Do you think I will, "think for myself" and ignore him?
There is independence of thought (I am skeptical of medical studies paid for by drug companies just as much as I am skeptical of smoking studies paid for by tobacco companies and global warming studies paid for by oil or coal interests), and this is to be encouraged, but there is also humility -- that we are not able to be experts on everything and that because we thought something up is poor evidence for it. Moderation in all things, including skepticism and self-confidence.
It includes being skeptical of claims of people who think they've discovered the secrets of the universe and who call stupid people who doubt them.
My ophthalmologist told me I had a small cataract and gave me a list of things to do to slow its growth. Do you think I will, "think for myself" and ignore him?
There is independence of thought (I am skeptical of medical studies paid for by drug companies just as much as I am skeptical of smoking studies paid for by tobacco companies and global warming studies paid for by oil or coal interests), and this is to be encouraged, but there is also humility -- that we are not able to be experts on everything and that because we thought something up is poor evidence for it. Moderation in all things, including skepticism and self-confidence.
Inner compass or conscience in ethical decisions
Now that is an interesting discussion I would enjoy. I don't know about our inner compass, more often referred to as our conscience.
I see people posting the most evil and heartless and bigoted things, about immigrants, alcoholics, suicides, and so on, all the time. Do they have a conscience to think that way? If inner compass is to be accepted as valid, do we need to accept their inner compasses?
Also, slavery, as seen in this discussion, was perfectly acceptable to Christianity (and all of the world's other religions too) for thousands of years. I have even seen it defended as a necessary evil when one doesn't have machines (although in fact it was the presence of slavery in so many cultures that held their invention back so long and why the Romans got just to the edge of an industrial revolution but never went there).
Slavery is easily seen as an evil now, as cruel, arrogant, vicious, so why did't even God see it for the evil it was back when the Bible was being written? Well of course that proves absence of divine inspiration in such books, as we have to presume God would have.
In short we cannot trust our inner compass. Usually it is a good guide, and in good people it is an excellent guide (although of course we all think we are good people).
Most of the time we can go through our lives living through habit and what others do, but sometimes we are faced with genuine moral choices, and we must then become mindful of what we are doing and ask ourselves if it meets rational ethical choices. Is it maximizing harm and minimizing hurt to the best of my ability to tell? Is it compassionate? Does it avoid "using" another person? Does it violate the Golden Rule or some equivalent (I prefer Kant's Moral Imperative as a better formulation)?
I see people posting the most evil and heartless and bigoted things, about immigrants, alcoholics, suicides, and so on, all the time. Do they have a conscience to think that way? If inner compass is to be accepted as valid, do we need to accept their inner compasses?
Also, slavery, as seen in this discussion, was perfectly acceptable to Christianity (and all of the world's other religions too) for thousands of years. I have even seen it defended as a necessary evil when one doesn't have machines (although in fact it was the presence of slavery in so many cultures that held their invention back so long and why the Romans got just to the edge of an industrial revolution but never went there).
Slavery is easily seen as an evil now, as cruel, arrogant, vicious, so why did't even God see it for the evil it was back when the Bible was being written? Well of course that proves absence of divine inspiration in such books, as we have to presume God would have.
In short we cannot trust our inner compass. Usually it is a good guide, and in good people it is an excellent guide (although of course we all think we are good people).
Most of the time we can go through our lives living through habit and what others do, but sometimes we are faced with genuine moral choices, and we must then become mindful of what we are doing and ask ourselves if it meets rational ethical choices. Is it maximizing harm and minimizing hurt to the best of my ability to tell? Is it compassionate? Does it avoid "using" another person? Does it violate the Golden Rule or some equivalent (I prefer Kant's Moral Imperative as a better formulation)?
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
Freedom and the fraud of republican democracies
"Rights" and freedoms are necessarily limited. Physics, our own health, the rights of others, and many other factors serve to restrict us. Therefore just parading a slogan about "surrendering your rights" is almost meaningless and just propaganda that you have swallowed. America is not a free country. In fact I could cite dozens of ways Vietnamese are freer (and others where they are not). Cambodia, where I live now, has free elections where a given party and a given leader somehow manages to always be re-elected, but the country is much freer than any other I know of, I guess because that particular guy is smart and well intentioned and good at what he does (kinda puts me in mind of The Patrician in Ankh Moorpark).
Representative democracies where officials are said to be "elected" are nowadays just frauds. The people are rarely if ever happy with the very limited choices they are provided with, and the majority of voters are prejudiced, illiterate, emotional, easily swayed by propaganda, slogan lovers, and even people who vote for someone because they like their looks. It is a joke even if the choices were honest.
And look at the roll of Congress -- only a few are not lawyers. American has a dictatorship of the legal class.
I do not advocate socialism. I advocate a mixed economy where government and private interests are both involved, constantly adjusted as needed.
A final point, if I may.
Representative democracies where officials are said to be "elected" are nowadays just frauds. The people are rarely if ever happy with the very limited choices they are provided with, and the majority of voters are prejudiced, illiterate, emotional, easily swayed by propaganda, slogan lovers, and even people who vote for someone because they like their looks. It is a joke even if the choices were honest.
And look at the roll of Congress -- only a few are not lawyers. American has a dictatorship of the legal class.
I do not advocate socialism. I advocate a mixed economy where government and private interests are both involved, constantly adjusted as needed.
A final point, if I may.
Something I should have dealt with earlier but just now thought of. I am not "utopian." I have no dreams of perfection in any government. That doesn't mean we should not keep an open mind and look at different systems and try to see what is good and what is bad in them. Americans are blind in that way.
I start out with the fact that controlled fusion is not economical. It will probably be so at some point in the future, we hope, but does not appear to be a solution to the problem, except longer term.
The problem as I see it is to drastically reduce emissions of greenhouse gases while not stopping world economic growth. Technologies that capture greenhouse gases are being developed, but I again am pessimistic about them for the shorter term.
Also we need sustainable sources of energy -- sources that can be regularly replaced. The doom sayers about the world running out of oil and natural gas are, it would seem, seriously wrong, which I think is a pity as it would have forced what is necessary from the world in spite of itself.
OK that leaves solar, wind, hydrothermal (with its own set of problems) and in a few places geothermal, tidal, etc., etc. Only the first two are competitive and should be given sensible subsidies (often are but more is needed) to help overcome the inertia generated by high initial investment expense. There is also growing biomass crops and burning them, a lot more sensible than the ethanol boondoggle, and of course constantly making the economy do more with less energy input (aka conservation). The world has been shown to have plenty of land that could be used this way.
All these things can produce growth in the economy, lower costs, and hence improve living standards. The one thing we should not do is try to protect polluting industries, as one fool on this thread is doing.
The denial phenomenon seems partly religious and entirely foolish but selfish politics, and is as removed from real science as it can be -- just observe the Jesuitic and obfuscating and lawyerly arguments its proponent presents here. Unfortunately this junk has had the effect of giving politicians cover to represent selfish interests and thereby prevent, especially in the States, and thereby prevent the serious things that must be done.
The problem as I see it is to drastically reduce emissions of greenhouse gases while not stopping world economic growth. Technologies that capture greenhouse gases are being developed, but I again am pessimistic about them for the shorter term.
Also we need sustainable sources of energy -- sources that can be regularly replaced. The doom sayers about the world running out of oil and natural gas are, it would seem, seriously wrong, which I think is a pity as it would have forced what is necessary from the world in spite of itself.
OK that leaves solar, wind, hydrothermal (with its own set of problems) and in a few places geothermal, tidal, etc., etc. Only the first two are competitive and should be given sensible subsidies (often are but more is needed) to help overcome the inertia generated by high initial investment expense. There is also growing biomass crops and burning them, a lot more sensible than the ethanol boondoggle, and of course constantly making the economy do more with less energy input (aka conservation). The world has been shown to have plenty of land that could be used this way.
All these things can produce growth in the economy, lower costs, and hence improve living standards. The one thing we should not do is try to protect polluting industries, as one fool on this thread is doing.
The denial phenomenon seems partly religious and entirely foolish but selfish politics, and is as removed from real science as it can be -- just observe the Jesuitic and obfuscating and lawyerly arguments its proponent presents here. Unfortunately this junk has had the effect of giving politicians cover to represent selfish interests and thereby prevent, especially in the States, and thereby prevent the serious things that must be done.
Communism in China and Vietnam
Personally I think the best form of government is like that of modern China and Vietnam -- where government officials have five year terms and then must retire and who are selected by a limited "elite" of party members. Popular democracy never produces anything but politicians, who by definition must be dishonorable and mediocre in order to succeed.
Right now the Communist party ranks in China and Vietnam are dominated by party hacks -- people left over from unfortunate pasts. The future looks better, as it is now the case that one needs a college degree and actual achievements (kind of like getting tenure at a university) to be invited to be a member. Unfortunately, at least in Vietnam (I can't speak to China) there is a tendency to turn party membership into an inherited aristocracy. The party though seems aware of this and has been taking measures, both in its rules and in its party purges, to fix this.
This is of course Leninism -- perverted by Stalin and by others who made themselves dictators -- and now is institutionally not going to happen in China or Vietnam.
As for economics, both countries have pretty much abandoned, with a variety of excuses, strict socialism and are now pragmatic and willing to allow people to become rich, so long as they do it honestly. Of course there is massive opposition to this within the ranks of state-run administrators, and I think more energy is needed to push this, in spite of the internal political problems it causes.
Right now the Communist party ranks in China and Vietnam are dominated by party hacks -- people left over from unfortunate pasts. The future looks better, as it is now the case that one needs a college degree and actual achievements (kind of like getting tenure at a university) to be invited to be a member. Unfortunately, at least in Vietnam (I can't speak to China) there is a tendency to turn party membership into an inherited aristocracy. The party though seems aware of this and has been taking measures, both in its rules and in its party purges, to fix this.
This is of course Leninism -- perverted by Stalin and by others who made themselves dictators -- and now is institutionally not going to happen in China or Vietnam.
As for economics, both countries have pretty much abandoned, with a variety of excuses, strict socialism and are now pragmatic and willing to allow people to become rich, so long as they do it honestly. Of course there is massive opposition to this within the ranks of state-run administrators, and I think more energy is needed to push this, in spite of the internal political problems it causes.
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
Compassion for the stupid
I think society should do the best it can even for the stupid who bring their problems on themselves. They didn't ask to be born stupid -- more seriously, compassion is not judgmental -- oh how much better the world would be if people took the advice of great philosophers seriously -- read for example the Sermon on the Mount.
Monday, January 11, 2016
Scientific hypothesis versus speculation
I have a different definition of "speculation" from what I often see. Scientists think about known phenomena and known data that puzzles them and try to think of ways to fit theory into the observations. They then come up with ideas, and make predictions of what else we should see if these ideas are correct. They then do experiments to see if the predictions of the idea are true, and if so they incorporate the idea into existing theory. This is usually called a "hypothesis."
"Speculation," on the other hand, are ideas for which no experimentally testable predictions can be thought of -- either because we don't have the needed technology or because it is too unpredictable ("woo") to be reliably experimented on.
String theory, for example, is often labeled speculation for the reason that most of its predictions are effectively untestable -- to test them would require technology way beyond anything we can even imagine having. Hence string theorists are constantly looking for things string theory predicts that might actually be testable. An example is, if gravity waves exist, and if we can measure their polarization, this could test the reality of string theory.
The thing that impresses me about string theory, as compared to a lot of speculation you see, is it is so consistent mathematically -- the string theorists call it "beauty." I know that is what keeps them working on it in spite of the criticism. Maybe that is enough to convert it from speculation to hypothesis -- the boundary between the two is fuzzy.
"Speculation," on the other hand, are ideas for which no experimentally testable predictions can be thought of -- either because we don't have the needed technology or because it is too unpredictable ("woo") to be reliably experimented on.
String theory, for example, is often labeled speculation for the reason that most of its predictions are effectively untestable -- to test them would require technology way beyond anything we can even imagine having. Hence string theorists are constantly looking for things string theory predicts that might actually be testable. An example is, if gravity waves exist, and if we can measure their polarization, this could test the reality of string theory.
The thing that impresses me about string theory, as compared to a lot of speculation you see, is it is so consistent mathematically -- the string theorists call it "beauty." I know that is what keeps them working on it in spite of the criticism. Maybe that is enough to convert it from speculation to hypothesis -- the boundary between the two is fuzzy.
Sunday, January 10, 2016
Corruption
Well, yes, governments are corrupt, as are businesses and religions and people in general. That is one of the things one keeps in mind when designing institutions, but it can't be eliminated and there is no good just complaining and being emotional about it.
We have to accept that the universe as we experience is largely if not entirely illusion. It is not, however, delusion.
By that I mean that our experiences are not what we experience, but they are something. The illusion of hardness, for example, is not real, since there are vast spaces between and within the atoms that make up something we think is solid. But there is a reality -- electromagnetic forces -- underlying the illusion.
That counter-intuitive things exist is a given. My intuition is that people on the other side of the earth should fall off.
My intuition makes the constancy of light speed in a vacuum regardless of the motion of the observer very difficult to get my arms around, and I have worked on it for a long time, each time thinking I have it seeming to lose it again.
This brings me to ask my view of quantum mechanics, mainly the aspects of it that are commonly called quantum weirdness, such as the interpretation of it that the observer influences the outcome or that there can be the famous "spooky action at a distance." No, I have no "understanding" of all that and agree completely that it is counterintuitive. It is nevertheless both real and true, with the understanding that this is an empirical, not logical, conclusion, but we must be ruled by the outcome of experiment when repeated over and over with extremely precise agreement in the results. All that is above my pay scale and I can only see the detail from a very high altitude (don't complain about my mixing metaphors -- I like them).
The one thing I would not do is try to draw spiritual or similar conclusions -- such as that mind exists independently of matter (which I think is probably so but not for quantum reasons) or the brain gets free will from quantum uncertainty. One should take the theory only so far as it goes.
By that I mean that our experiences are not what we experience, but they are something. The illusion of hardness, for example, is not real, since there are vast spaces between and within the atoms that make up something we think is solid. But there is a reality -- electromagnetic forces -- underlying the illusion.
That counter-intuitive things exist is a given. My intuition is that people on the other side of the earth should fall off.
My intuition makes the constancy of light speed in a vacuum regardless of the motion of the observer very difficult to get my arms around, and I have worked on it for a long time, each time thinking I have it seeming to lose it again.
This brings me to ask my view of quantum mechanics, mainly the aspects of it that are commonly called quantum weirdness, such as the interpretation of it that the observer influences the outcome or that there can be the famous "spooky action at a distance." No, I have no "understanding" of all that and agree completely that it is counterintuitive. It is nevertheless both real and true, with the understanding that this is an empirical, not logical, conclusion, but we must be ruled by the outcome of experiment when repeated over and over with extremely precise agreement in the results. All that is above my pay scale and I can only see the detail from a very high altitude (don't complain about my mixing metaphors -- I like them).
The one thing I would not do is try to draw spiritual or similar conclusions -- such as that mind exists independently of matter (which I think is probably so but not for quantum reasons) or the brain gets free will from quantum uncertainty. One should take the theory only so far as it goes.
Illegal immigration
I think having a large population of second-class citizens (who are not represented as they can't vote, are subject to various restrictions, and who have a constant fear of deportation) cannot possibly be healthy for any country.
The main reason though is that those people have less reason to be loyal, patriotic, and so on. As a general rule immigrants tend to be even more loving of their adopted country than their native counterparts (e.g., Irving Berlin), but not if they are denied full participation.
What to do? Have a mass deportation and crack down police-style (it would require a massive invasion of everyone's privacy and probably require a national identity card to be successful)? This would be inhumane, harm the economy in major ways, impractical, and render the country undemocratic and invasive.
The alternative is to develop a process and set of rules whereby the majority of these people can become incorporated and assimilate naturally.
There is a visceral reaction that these people broke the law and that doing what I just suggested would encourage even more illegal immigration. This is true enough, but in government one must be pragmatic and not judgmental like that -- do what is best for the country.
In the end, if the US is to remain the superpower of the earth, something personally I think would be great for the entire planet, considering its history and potential and institutions, it needs to increase its population by quite a bit, and it has the technology and resources to do this. I know there is a lot of poverty in the States, but not compared to elsewhere. Right now low birth rates (which would be much lower if one did not include immigrants in the figures) is causing the US population to age, not a good thing for long term stability of the economy as a whole and for institutions such as Social Security.
The main reason though is that those people have less reason to be loyal, patriotic, and so on. As a general rule immigrants tend to be even more loving of their adopted country than their native counterparts (e.g., Irving Berlin), but not if they are denied full participation.
What to do? Have a mass deportation and crack down police-style (it would require a massive invasion of everyone's privacy and probably require a national identity card to be successful)? This would be inhumane, harm the economy in major ways, impractical, and render the country undemocratic and invasive.
The alternative is to develop a process and set of rules whereby the majority of these people can become incorporated and assimilate naturally.
There is a visceral reaction that these people broke the law and that doing what I just suggested would encourage even more illegal immigration. This is true enough, but in government one must be pragmatic and not judgmental like that -- do what is best for the country.
In the end, if the US is to remain the superpower of the earth, something personally I think would be great for the entire planet, considering its history and potential and institutions, it needs to increase its population by quite a bit, and it has the technology and resources to do this. I know there is a lot of poverty in the States, but not compared to elsewhere. Right now low birth rates (which would be much lower if one did not include immigrants in the figures) is causing the US population to age, not a good thing for long term stability of the economy as a whole and for institutions such as Social Security.
Saturday, January 9, 2016
Ridicule of religious belief and evangelist atheism
I never heard the expression "evangelist atheist" before, although I guess you mean people out to spread the gospel of atheism. There are "hard atheists" who assert affirmatively that there is no God (generally based on philosophical reasoning rather than any empirical evidence) and there are "soft atheists" who just say there is no evidence of God and so there is no need to believe.(Agnosticism is something different -- the assertion that knowledge of something like God is not possible).
I think someone who is "evangelistic" (pushy) about their atheism is probably someone who fears religion and superstition, probably based on both personal experience and the study of the history of the behavior of religions. After that it becomes a matter of personality and maturity -- some use ridicule and sarcasm, others try to reason with the believer (good luck with either approach -- sarcasm merely reinforces the martyrdom complex and reason is generally not possible once the person reaches a certain age). The believer after a certain point has heard it all before and has his or her rationalizations all carefully in place.
I think someone who is "evangelistic" (pushy) about their atheism is probably someone who fears religion and superstition, probably based on both personal experience and the study of the history of the behavior of religions. After that it becomes a matter of personality and maturity -- some use ridicule and sarcasm, others try to reason with the believer (good luck with either approach -- sarcasm merely reinforces the martyrdom complex and reason is generally not possible once the person reaches a certain age). The believer after a certain point has heard it all before and has his or her rationalizations all carefully in place.
Monday, January 4, 2016
Abortion and Contraception
Let me start with a general statement about religion and government. I think religions have an obligation to try to influence the behavior of their adherents, and I think most of the time this works for good. Do they have the right, however, to try to influcnce, let alone control, the behavior of others through law? When the adherents of a particular relilgion are in the majority, we often see this, and it is seriously wrong in and of itself.
That doesn't mean the law doesn't step in and regulate things that relilgions teach -- the law, to use the obvious example of murder, makes it illegal, and churches endorse this. I would say that because a religion supports a law does not make the law wrong, but it does make it suspect.
Being male, and a homosexual to boot, I don't have any personal involvement in conception and abortion, so I think I can look at it objectively. Of course my belief in freedom, basically that anything that restricts individual freedom needs strong and maybe even overwhelming state interest.
There is a magical view of life -- that living things are endowed with some sort of life spirit or soul. One can understand the emotional responses people have to the idea of preventing or ending a pregnancy if they think that way. I can only say the view is unscientific, devoid of rational supporting evidence, and in some ways leads to all sorts of impractical results -- such that it is immoral to step on an ant.
What overriding public interest do laws against abortion and contraception achieve? Stopping the killing of babies, I suppose, but is the foetus a baby? At some point it becomes a baby (at birth seems to be the general view) and then slowly over the next few years, if not over the next lifetime, it becomes a person.
The criminization of abortion and contraception has some very bad consequences -- back-door abortions, deaths of teenage girls, family disruptions, unwanted children leading to later criminals, and so on. Offsetting that are the dangers of abortion and the emotional problems to the parents that can happen later. These need weighing, to be sure, and people need to try to avoid making these things happen. I would say that it all depends, and, like all moral decisions, no absolute rule should be followed but instead compassion, maximizing good, minimizing harm, and not imposing our will (another way of saying "using") on others.
That doesn't mean the law doesn't step in and regulate things that relilgions teach -- the law, to use the obvious example of murder, makes it illegal, and churches endorse this. I would say that because a religion supports a law does not make the law wrong, but it does make it suspect.
Being male, and a homosexual to boot, I don't have any personal involvement in conception and abortion, so I think I can look at it objectively. Of course my belief in freedom, basically that anything that restricts individual freedom needs strong and maybe even overwhelming state interest.
There is a magical view of life -- that living things are endowed with some sort of life spirit or soul. One can understand the emotional responses people have to the idea of preventing or ending a pregnancy if they think that way. I can only say the view is unscientific, devoid of rational supporting evidence, and in some ways leads to all sorts of impractical results -- such that it is immoral to step on an ant.
What overriding public interest do laws against abortion and contraception achieve? Stopping the killing of babies, I suppose, but is the foetus a baby? At some point it becomes a baby (at birth seems to be the general view) and then slowly over the next few years, if not over the next lifetime, it becomes a person.
The criminization of abortion and contraception has some very bad consequences -- back-door abortions, deaths of teenage girls, family disruptions, unwanted children leading to later criminals, and so on. Offsetting that are the dangers of abortion and the emotional problems to the parents that can happen later. These need weighing, to be sure, and people need to try to avoid making these things happen. I would say that it all depends, and, like all moral decisions, no absolute rule should be followed but instead compassion, maximizing good, minimizing harm, and not imposing our will (another way of saying "using") on others.
Sunday, January 3, 2016
The Moral Obligation to tell the Truth
Honesty, which includes not just avoiding falshoods but also avoiding misrepresentation and failure to do what one promises to do, is certainly a virtue. It is also the course of wisdom as it makes life simpler and does the most good -- usually. However, there is no logical or biological argument that shows honesty is always good -- it is just a rule of thumb that has unfortunately been taken too far too often.
Interestingly, it seems that almost, if not all, virtues, when taken too far, end up being vices, and honesty is not an exception. Society has exceptions to the rule calling for honesty, the most common being the (quite proper) tolerance of "white lies"-- lies told to avoid the harm the truth will cause. Sometimes it is just to avoid hurting someone's feelings, sometimes it is to avoid conflict (telling your wife -- if you are a married man -- that her new hairdo looks great, even though it doesn't, as otherwise you know you will get the silent treatment for then next few months).
I remember a time when I was in high school where the teacher insisted the definition of a white lie was one where one has no personal gain, but only wishes to avoid harming someone. I argued otherwise, and, as this teacher was stubborn, didn't do so well in his class. I argued that personal gain, or at least avoiding personal harm, is sometimes a perfectly acceptable reason to lie, such as when one knows the truth may create an enemy, and also when the person asking the question has no right to the answer.
"Are you gay?" Well, I usually have no problem with such a question, but there are times when I lie and assert my heterosexuality. The person is invading my privacy, but if I tell them that, they will conclude I must be gay, since otherwise I would not be reluctant to answer. When a poll taker calls me on the phone with one of those surveys, and it soon becomes apparent that the "poll" is not a poll at all but a sales attempt or a politically partisan effort to push a particular position or candidate, then I begin to lie through my teeth, partly to waste their time and partly to confuse the data. Such things are dishonest going in and therefore have no right to the truth.
It is possible to imagine scenarios where truth is in fact a grave moral and ethical wrong, such as, say, having Ann Frank hiding in your attic and the Gestapo at the door asking if you have seen her.
Breaking of promises is another type of dishonest behavior, and can be classed as a species of lie. The story is, Thomas Jefferson promised his wife, as she was dying, that he would never remarry. So he didn't, but instead ended up committing the much worse offense of having children by a slave woman. Now he treated her well and gave her and her children their freedom in his will, but I have to say that having sex with a slave is a form of rape and far worse than breaking a promise made to ease the passing of someone who really has no right to extract such a promise.
Carrying honesty too far, when the truth is harmful, then, is a vice, and using the dictum to always tell the truth as an excuse for imposing such harm is a double-vice.
This illustrates the problem with codes of ethical conduct -- there can be no solid rules beyond avoiding harm, maximizing good, and not using others, and these objectives themselves are not absolutes but must be weighed against each other in each particular situation.
Interestingly, it seems that almost, if not all, virtues, when taken too far, end up being vices, and honesty is not an exception. Society has exceptions to the rule calling for honesty, the most common being the (quite proper) tolerance of "white lies"-- lies told to avoid the harm the truth will cause. Sometimes it is just to avoid hurting someone's feelings, sometimes it is to avoid conflict (telling your wife -- if you are a married man -- that her new hairdo looks great, even though it doesn't, as otherwise you know you will get the silent treatment for then next few months).
I remember a time when I was in high school where the teacher insisted the definition of a white lie was one where one has no personal gain, but only wishes to avoid harming someone. I argued otherwise, and, as this teacher was stubborn, didn't do so well in his class. I argued that personal gain, or at least avoiding personal harm, is sometimes a perfectly acceptable reason to lie, such as when one knows the truth may create an enemy, and also when the person asking the question has no right to the answer.
"Are you gay?" Well, I usually have no problem with such a question, but there are times when I lie and assert my heterosexuality. The person is invading my privacy, but if I tell them that, they will conclude I must be gay, since otherwise I would not be reluctant to answer. When a poll taker calls me on the phone with one of those surveys, and it soon becomes apparent that the "poll" is not a poll at all but a sales attempt or a politically partisan effort to push a particular position or candidate, then I begin to lie through my teeth, partly to waste their time and partly to confuse the data. Such things are dishonest going in and therefore have no right to the truth.
It is possible to imagine scenarios where truth is in fact a grave moral and ethical wrong, such as, say, having Ann Frank hiding in your attic and the Gestapo at the door asking if you have seen her.
Breaking of promises is another type of dishonest behavior, and can be classed as a species of lie. The story is, Thomas Jefferson promised his wife, as she was dying, that he would never remarry. So he didn't, but instead ended up committing the much worse offense of having children by a slave woman. Now he treated her well and gave her and her children their freedom in his will, but I have to say that having sex with a slave is a form of rape and far worse than breaking a promise made to ease the passing of someone who really has no right to extract such a promise.
Carrying honesty too far, when the truth is harmful, then, is a vice, and using the dictum to always tell the truth as an excuse for imposing such harm is a double-vice.
This illustrates the problem with codes of ethical conduct -- there can be no solid rules beyond avoiding harm, maximizing good, and not using others, and these objectives themselves are not absolutes but must be weighed against each other in each particular situation.
Saturday, January 2, 2016
Vegetarianism
Since I seem to be on an ethics kick the last few posts, I guess I will talk a little about a few more difficult problems (I say difficult since it should be plain there is no simple answer and each person must do what they think best given the details of the situation at hand).
Whether or not to kill animals for food? Ah, I would say killing a sentient animal for some other reason, such as for its pelt, is very problematic and can readily be discouraged, but food is more complicated.
In an ideal world it might be possible to raise animals for the purpose of slaughter, but to treat them otherwise much better than they would have in nature. They would live longer than they do in nature and not incur the constant threat of predation, disease, and hunger. I suppose -- but we don't treat animals that way. Their comfort enters the picture only if it effects cost and quality. We also often slaughter them young. About the only time the humanitarians have any influence, it seems, is at the time of slaughter, where at least in many countries laws exist to make sure it is done painlessly and without terrorizing the beast (which is only observed casually, I have to say). Islam is particularly horrid about this, and one of the reasons the religion repells me.
If one has a farm and can control the care of the animal, and then does the killing oneself, quickly, I guess this would be okay, if marginal, but how many of us can do that?
There are, of course, other reasons for avoiding meat, the most important probably being our own health -- and there is a moral question here as we have a moral obligation to take care of our own health and that of those dependent on us. I think the case against meat is overstated by extremists here, as the meat available on the market is not healthy grass fed and finished meat, without hormones and so on. However, with some attention to what one is buying these problems can be greatly mitigated (and in that case becomes a matter of only being moderate in our meat eating). Besides, much the same problems exist with vegetarian fare as well, and there are nutrients a strict vegetarian is lilkely to end up defecient in.
It can be argued that some animals are better than others if one is going to break the rule of no killing animals. It has to do with degree of sentience, and this is a hard one as we don't really know what "sentience" is or where it comes from, but it is pretty obvious that some animals operate entirely by reflex instincts while others experience the world and have emotions. There seems to be no particular problem with killing an eating non-sentient life. "Life" is not a magical property, it is just what we observe as organisms meeting whatever criterion one has for life, and it is not necessary to say one never kills bacteria or even insects.
In fact, I am persuaded by the evidence of the neurologists that sentience appeared with the pre-mammalian reptiles (way back before the dinosaurs) and was present in varying degrees in the dinosaurs, and hence is nowadays limited to mammals and birds. There is of course no certainty in this, but one is safe to say any sentience found in other organisms (except maybe squid and octpuses) is so limited as to be disregardable.
We have an important ethical command to not harm other people emotionally, even when we are "in the right." For this reason let me close with the observation that if one is offered meat as a guest, one should consume it without comment. Not hurting another or questioning their standards or judging them prevails over our responsibility to less sentient beings.
Whether or not to kill animals for food? Ah, I would say killing a sentient animal for some other reason, such as for its pelt, is very problematic and can readily be discouraged, but food is more complicated.
In an ideal world it might be possible to raise animals for the purpose of slaughter, but to treat them otherwise much better than they would have in nature. They would live longer than they do in nature and not incur the constant threat of predation, disease, and hunger. I suppose -- but we don't treat animals that way. Their comfort enters the picture only if it effects cost and quality. We also often slaughter them young. About the only time the humanitarians have any influence, it seems, is at the time of slaughter, where at least in many countries laws exist to make sure it is done painlessly and without terrorizing the beast (which is only observed casually, I have to say). Islam is particularly horrid about this, and one of the reasons the religion repells me.
If one has a farm and can control the care of the animal, and then does the killing oneself, quickly, I guess this would be okay, if marginal, but how many of us can do that?
There are, of course, other reasons for avoiding meat, the most important probably being our own health -- and there is a moral question here as we have a moral obligation to take care of our own health and that of those dependent on us. I think the case against meat is overstated by extremists here, as the meat available on the market is not healthy grass fed and finished meat, without hormones and so on. However, with some attention to what one is buying these problems can be greatly mitigated (and in that case becomes a matter of only being moderate in our meat eating). Besides, much the same problems exist with vegetarian fare as well, and there are nutrients a strict vegetarian is lilkely to end up defecient in.
It can be argued that some animals are better than others if one is going to break the rule of no killing animals. It has to do with degree of sentience, and this is a hard one as we don't really know what "sentience" is or where it comes from, but it is pretty obvious that some animals operate entirely by reflex instincts while others experience the world and have emotions. There seems to be no particular problem with killing an eating non-sentient life. "Life" is not a magical property, it is just what we observe as organisms meeting whatever criterion one has for life, and it is not necessary to say one never kills bacteria or even insects.
In fact, I am persuaded by the evidence of the neurologists that sentience appeared with the pre-mammalian reptiles (way back before the dinosaurs) and was present in varying degrees in the dinosaurs, and hence is nowadays limited to mammals and birds. There is of course no certainty in this, but one is safe to say any sentience found in other organisms (except maybe squid and octpuses) is so limited as to be disregardable.
We have an important ethical command to not harm other people emotionally, even when we are "in the right." For this reason let me close with the observation that if one is offered meat as a guest, one should consume it without comment. Not hurting another or questioning their standards or judging them prevails over our responsibility to less sentient beings.
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
War is Hell
I understand this expression ("War is Hell") originated with Sherman. No doubt he used it as an excuse for his atrocities, not descriptively, but as a rationalization. Nevertheless, it expresses a reality that people don't appreciate, until they think about the more traditional understandings of perdition.
Irving Berlin, in his song "This is the Army" got it I think right on (for those who listen to the words carefully) with this verse:
Since the last few days I've been on an ethics kick, it seems I should address the most serious ethical question of all that the ordinary person is likely to encounter -- war.
There is the concept of a just war and all the others, and in history there have been few just wars, but they do exist. The Romans built their empire on "just wars," and even had silly rituals they went through to persuade themselves (or somebody) that their going out and conquering someone and pillaging their property and enslaving the population was "just."
One of the Ten Commandments is against stealing, and I have to wonder how it is that this never occurred to the Israelis as they conquered and displaced the Canaanites. I could insert a snide comment here but I will let the readers insert their own.
I think it is pretty clear that wars conducted to occupy territory and take slaves and property can be ruled unjust. What about a war to resist someone else doing this? The right of self defense is questionable as a right, certainly not without boundaries and conditions (such as one has no right to engage in unnecessary brutality in such cases). Still, the rule of minimizing harm seems to say one cannot allow bullies and aggressors to do their thing with impunity. The have to be resisted if at all possible and with war if necessary. Otherwise such types would rule the world and the harm from that would be immeasurable.
Now, what if you have reason to conclude that another country is preparing an invasion -- are you allowed to act preemptively? Well it seems reasonable that if this will prevent an even worse war later on, then again by the rule of minimizing harm, it would be ethical.
Now we get into some deep politics -- what if the preemptive action is worse than the war, or results in conquest (not all conquests involve outright annexation -- just changing the regime in power to one more to one's taste is a form of stealing). The outcome of war is highly unpredictable and may (usually does) far more harm than anticipated by the study institutes.
The personal ethical question, of whether or not to be a soldier, and whether or not to support one's nations' military actions, is complicated. For the most part the attitude obviously should be pacifistic -- oppose war and support measures to reduce its likelihood (ironically that almost always includes supporting defensive military preparation).
Patriotism, when not taken too far (as is the case with all virtues) is a virtue. One loves one's country, one wants it to persist, one wants it to prosper. Being at war is counterproductive to these desires, but may be unavoidable.
There is also the horrible set of questions as to one's personal behavior when on the battlefront? I know myself I could never kill another person, no matter what, so I guess I am lucky I was never in that position. Still, it is not for me to judge what others may decide to do. I would just ask that they mindfully review the options in advance.
Irving Berlin, in his song "This is the Army" got it I think right on (for those who listen to the words carefully) with this verse:
On the battlefront one forgets other worries.Do what the buglers command. They're in the army and not in a band. This is the army, Mister Brown. You and your baby went to town. She had you worried But this is war and she won't worry you anymore.
Since the last few days I've been on an ethics kick, it seems I should address the most serious ethical question of all that the ordinary person is likely to encounter -- war.
There is the concept of a just war and all the others, and in history there have been few just wars, but they do exist. The Romans built their empire on "just wars," and even had silly rituals they went through to persuade themselves (or somebody) that their going out and conquering someone and pillaging their property and enslaving the population was "just."
One of the Ten Commandments is against stealing, and I have to wonder how it is that this never occurred to the Israelis as they conquered and displaced the Canaanites. I could insert a snide comment here but I will let the readers insert their own.
I think it is pretty clear that wars conducted to occupy territory and take slaves and property can be ruled unjust. What about a war to resist someone else doing this? The right of self defense is questionable as a right, certainly not without boundaries and conditions (such as one has no right to engage in unnecessary brutality in such cases). Still, the rule of minimizing harm seems to say one cannot allow bullies and aggressors to do their thing with impunity. The have to be resisted if at all possible and with war if necessary. Otherwise such types would rule the world and the harm from that would be immeasurable.
Now, what if you have reason to conclude that another country is preparing an invasion -- are you allowed to act preemptively? Well it seems reasonable that if this will prevent an even worse war later on, then again by the rule of minimizing harm, it would be ethical.
Now we get into some deep politics -- what if the preemptive action is worse than the war, or results in conquest (not all conquests involve outright annexation -- just changing the regime in power to one more to one's taste is a form of stealing). The outcome of war is highly unpredictable and may (usually does) far more harm than anticipated by the study institutes.
The personal ethical question, of whether or not to be a soldier, and whether or not to support one's nations' military actions, is complicated. For the most part the attitude obviously should be pacifistic -- oppose war and support measures to reduce its likelihood (ironically that almost always includes supporting defensive military preparation).
Patriotism, when not taken too far (as is the case with all virtues) is a virtue. One loves one's country, one wants it to persist, one wants it to prosper. Being at war is counterproductive to these desires, but may be unavoidable.
There is also the horrible set of questions as to one's personal behavior when on the battlefront? I know myself I could never kill another person, no matter what, so I guess I am lucky I was never in that position. Still, it is not for me to judge what others may decide to do. I would just ask that they mindfully review the options in advance.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Here in Cambodia one learns to bargain and one learns to grease the wheels. They are two skills that take time to absorb. Non-negotiated prices is what everyone claims but as you are about the leave the store suddenly the attitude changes. The magic to getting a good price for things is to leave the shopkeeper with his or her face intact.
Minor government officials would die if they didn't get bribes, but one has to be able to see when and where to do it, and face is again the important thing -- the extra money is a "reward", not a bribe. Much the same applies to people coming out to repair things or do work -- there of course it is a "tip," and this practice is found everywhere, and people don't even see it as bribery.
Whenever the government tries to impose price controls, such as in Vietnam where the prices of precious metals and currencies are controlled and it is illegal to exchange VND (their currency) into something else, you have a sort of black market, except because of a steady flow of bribes that work their way to the top, is rarely enforced (but don't try to do it yourself unless you are in the network).
This sort of black market is essential in such a legal frame because otherwise of course one would not be able to get foreign currency needed to pay for the imports you need to keep your factory going.
When a government leader sees a black market, in Vietnam they try to profit from it, in Cambodia nowadays they tend more to crack down on it. Both approaches are harmful. It is better to look at what has caused the black market to develop and change the laws so that it dies on its own. Laws against gambling and hooch and prostitution, as well as price controls or government monopolies on something all produce black markets and a wise government will understand this and see that it is best to step out of the way as much as possible.
Of course some black markets can't be handled that way -- such as medical quacks or fencing operations. Here the police need to be paid enough to keep them honest.