Any attempt to establish a cooperative, inter-generational morality will have to contend with the vexing puzzle known as the "Problem of Future Generations." Although this is vexing for all moral perspectives, it is especially vexing for social contract theories. Let's take a quick look at social contract theory. There are several competing formulations of social contract theory; all of which are all descended from the original eighteenth-century contractarian philosophers: Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Locke, and Immanuel Kant. The eighteenth century social contract theorists were mostly concerned with the formation of national governments, however, social contract theory, if valid, ought to be equally applicable to the formation of non-governmental groups, especially businesses, military organizations, gangs, families, and sports teams. The two basic questions that face all social contract theories are: "Why join a community?" and "Why stay?" The answers to these questions are usually based on two competing theories (narratives) of human nature: communitarianism and individualism.
Communitarians since Aristotle have argued that human beings live in cooperative groups by nature. The underlying idea behind all social contract theories is that "society" is the product of deliberate cooperation. The rub here is what do we mean my "deliberate?" Back in the eighteenth century Rousseau, a communitarian, argued that human beings living "naturally" in groups develop a "general will" or, what we'd call a "mental mechanism" that predisposes us to act based on the interests of the group, even in opposition to their own self-interest. For now, let's call it altruism. In other words, human beings living in a "state of nature" deliberately sacrifice their own self-interest for the group. Implicit in this approach is that individual contractors actually "know" specifically what those group interests entail. Here it is important to note that the social contract theorists are are profound philosophers and that their theories are enormously complex. One such complication is how to integrate social organization based on leadership and followership into their theory. In a short blog, I can't get into that right now. But I'll try to cover it later. Sorry. My friend Peter Corning, an excellent contemporary social contract theorist has written a book called The Fair Society that addresses many of the puzzles that confront communitarian social contract theory. I'll examine some of his arguments in a forthcoming entry for the APLS Blog.
Locke, an individualist, argued that the "state of nature" for humans is individual, and that human beings forge groups based on self-interest. Thus, communities that violate the interests of individual members tend to lose members. Why? Because there is no "general will" apart from the wills of the individuals that comprise those groups. Hence, all "wills" are individual and all rights are individual rights. In other words, human beings "cooperate" with others and form "groups" because they deliberately and rationally conclude that at least sometimes, we are "better off" cooperating with some groups rather than others. Therefore, in the absence of a "general will" many communities simply employ coercive force to hold their community together.
Evolutionary ethicists observe that we are most likely to form groups based on "kin-altruism;" that is to say, we are genetically predisposed to cooperate with other human beings that are genetically related to us. Knowledge of genetic relatedness is less certain for males than females, therefore, males must often rely on other sensory cues, most obviously: "Does this other person(s) look enough like me to be my son, daughter, brother, sister, aunt, uncle etc? During the Pleistocene era hunters and gathers lived in small, genetically related kin groups that formed cooperative in-groups. The "general will" for kin-altruism is genetic. So how can the social contract extend beyond kin groups? Cooperative groups comprised of strangers require trust. When Pleistocene in-groups encountered neighboring out-groups that looked very different (call them strangers) they were more inclined to compete (kill them) than cooperate. Thus evolutionarily, one of the main problems for social contract theory is how to explain how strangers can ever become included within any contracting group. There are many possible explanations. One way is to follow Rousseau and postulate a complex "mental mechanism" or brain function that corresponds to a "general will."
Individualists argue that if there is a such thing as a "general will,' it would be revealed in democratic political processes. However, consensus in large groups of strangers is rarely achieved. If there is such a thing as a general will, it is more likely to emerge out of small homogenous groups than heterogenous groups comprised of multiple racial, religious, ethnic groups, or even age groups. Thus modern democratic nation states like the United States have a problem reconciling conflicting "general wills." Therefore, any large-group communitarian social contract theory will have to explain how to develop a national (or global) "general will" that trumps conflicting wills of constitutive small groups, or individuals. Peter covers this as well as any social contract theorist.
Now, back to the problem of future generations...Here's the basic problem. If there is a such thing as a "general will," how can it extend beyond the present generation? After all, future generations are, what I'd call, the ultimate strangers. They don't even exist yet! Does the present generation of contractors have duties toward future generations of humans? Or, in other words, do future generations have rights? If so, what are those rights? We'll cover that in Part II.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Democrats, Republicans and their Narratives: The Tucson Shootings
The political landscape in the United States is dominated by two political parties, Republicans and Democrats, that embrace competing macro-narratives. Sometimes individuals and coalitions group members within the parties do not always embrace the "official" group narrative, sometimes party leaders change the macro-narrative in order to placate more powerful internal groups avoid extinction via the ballot. Both Republican and Democratic narratives have evolved over time based on internal and external pressures. Those narratives follow four dimensions: liberal-conservative, social-economic. Since the late 20th century, Democrats have been social liberals and economic liberals. Hence, Democrats generally did not try to employ the coercive power of government to regulate social morality on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, drugs etc, but did seek to regulate corporations. Republicans have been social conservatives and economic conservatives. Hence, they try to legislate morality on core issues like abortion, marriage, and drugs; but otherwise did not seek to regulate corporations.
Today the core beliefs of the Democratic Party reflect the interests of a coalition of interest groups that shape their narrative(s). Those groups include: the least advantaged and their advocates, African Americans, public and private labor unions, most college and university professors, and trial lawyers. Traditionally, many of us libertarians vote Democratic because the party has not sought to overtly control our personal lives. However, in recent years the social side of the Democratic narrative has become less liberal.
In the case of the Tucson shooter, the prevailing Democratic narrative might include include some of the following arguments. Since most Democrats today are large group communitarians, that narrative would blame our national social and political environment for the shooting. According to this narrative, Jared Lee Loughner was programmed by a national culture of violence, especially in states like Arizona where political discourse is volatile, guns are easily accessible and can be legally carried and concealed. Some Democrats might also attribute the mass shootings to the the lack of access to mental health services, Arizona's tightening of Medicaid eligibility, or poor mental health coverage offered by private health insurance companies. They may also blame individual Republican political leaders (Sarah Palin), the media (Glen Beck), and lobbying groups (National Rifle Association) for the Arizona shootings. At least some Democrats would hold Walmart International or at least the local Walmart franchise responsible for selling Loughner the ammunition. Most Democrats probably agree that, if we want to prevent terrible future shootings like this, the federal government must control inept, irresponsible state and local governments, gun manufacturers, retail stores, and the right wing media moguls, "for the good of the nation." In short, the social side of their narrative is becoming more conservative.
The Republican narrative is also evolving under both internal and external pressures. The social side of their narrative remains conservative on most core issues however, on other social issues they tend to be more liberal, especially on gun rights and free speech. For Republicans, their most salient internal pressure is how to maintain a political coalition comprised of major corporate interests, evangelical religious groups, and an amorphous (and logically incoherent) body of Tea Partiers. External pressure comes from a growing number of Latin American immigrant voters, and public dissatisfaction with both parties, corporate welfare, and government in general. Republicans have recently adopted select portions of the libertarian individualist narrative, which which attracts corporate cronies, and some (but not all) Tea Partiers, but alienates evangelical protestants. Republicans claim that they are individualists or small group communitarians committed to a small (limited) federal government, and therefore prefer to let individual states, localities, and individuals take responsibility for their own problems. But they only do so as long as it doesn't interfere with their courtship of the lobbying groups that give them the most money: conservative evangelical Protestant groups, NRA, oil companies, and banks. Hence, the Republicans tend to be the main drug warriors. In other words, the Republican narrative is currently incoherent, waffling between social liberalism and social conservatism, and therefore will not have much of an interpretation of the shooting, other than defending gun rights and Walmart. Republicans might argue that the community college officials that expelled him should have notified the police of the shooter's bizarre behavior. His parents, and the school officials might deflect responsibility by saying that the mental health laws in Arizona (and federal guidelines), which were designed by socially liberal Democrats from the 1970s, make involuntary committment almost impossible.
Traditionally, the individualist libertarian narrative is based on social liberalism (toleration) and economic conservatism (free market). The libertarian narrative would avoid all forms of "collective responsibility" and hold Loughner responsible for the Arizona shooting, unless it can be shown that a "brain lesion" caused his aberrant behavior. If there is "shared responsibility" it would be among individuals (leaders and followers), but not abstract groups.
The genious of the U.S. constitution is that it provides a roadmap for principled interaction between competing narratives. In the upcoming months we can expect a barrage of competing narratives on the Arizona shootings. Small groups, large groups, and individuals will rally behind their respective narratives. These narratives will be replicated on media outlets, including radio, television, printed media, and the Internet. The problem for the United States is that we have a cacophony of small group narratives, but only two political parties. Neither of those official narratives resonate with most us. Both parties are currently more interested in defending the rights of internal lobbying groups (cronies) than the rights of individuals. Libertarians continue to embrace social liberalism and economic conservatism, but neither party really tells our story. Many, if not most, libertarians will not vote in the next election.
Today the core beliefs of the Democratic Party reflect the interests of a coalition of interest groups that shape their narrative(s). Those groups include: the least advantaged and their advocates, African Americans, public and private labor unions, most college and university professors, and trial lawyers. Traditionally, many of us libertarians vote Democratic because the party has not sought to overtly control our personal lives. However, in recent years the social side of the Democratic narrative has become less liberal.
In the case of the Tucson shooter, the prevailing Democratic narrative might include include some of the following arguments. Since most Democrats today are large group communitarians, that narrative would blame our national social and political environment for the shooting. According to this narrative, Jared Lee Loughner was programmed by a national culture of violence, especially in states like Arizona where political discourse is volatile, guns are easily accessible and can be legally carried and concealed. Some Democrats might also attribute the mass shootings to the the lack of access to mental health services, Arizona's tightening of Medicaid eligibility, or poor mental health coverage offered by private health insurance companies. They may also blame individual Republican political leaders (Sarah Palin), the media (Glen Beck), and lobbying groups (National Rifle Association) for the Arizona shootings. At least some Democrats would hold Walmart International or at least the local Walmart franchise responsible for selling Loughner the ammunition. Most Democrats probably agree that, if we want to prevent terrible future shootings like this, the federal government must control inept, irresponsible state and local governments, gun manufacturers, retail stores, and the right wing media moguls, "for the good of the nation." In short, the social side of their narrative is becoming more conservative.
The Republican narrative is also evolving under both internal and external pressures. The social side of their narrative remains conservative on most core issues however, on other social issues they tend to be more liberal, especially on gun rights and free speech. For Republicans, their most salient internal pressure is how to maintain a political coalition comprised of major corporate interests, evangelical religious groups, and an amorphous (and logically incoherent) body of Tea Partiers. External pressure comes from a growing number of Latin American immigrant voters, and public dissatisfaction with both parties, corporate welfare, and government in general. Republicans have recently adopted select portions of the libertarian individualist narrative, which which attracts corporate cronies, and some (but not all) Tea Partiers, but alienates evangelical protestants. Republicans claim that they are individualists or small group communitarians committed to a small (limited) federal government, and therefore prefer to let individual states, localities, and individuals take responsibility for their own problems. But they only do so as long as it doesn't interfere with their courtship of the lobbying groups that give them the most money: conservative evangelical Protestant groups, NRA, oil companies, and banks. Hence, the Republicans tend to be the main drug warriors. In other words, the Republican narrative is currently incoherent, waffling between social liberalism and social conservatism, and therefore will not have much of an interpretation of the shooting, other than defending gun rights and Walmart. Republicans might argue that the community college officials that expelled him should have notified the police of the shooter's bizarre behavior. His parents, and the school officials might deflect responsibility by saying that the mental health laws in Arizona (and federal guidelines), which were designed by socially liberal Democrats from the 1970s, make involuntary committment almost impossible.
Traditionally, the individualist libertarian narrative is based on social liberalism (toleration) and economic conservatism (free market). The libertarian narrative would avoid all forms of "collective responsibility" and hold Loughner responsible for the Arizona shooting, unless it can be shown that a "brain lesion" caused his aberrant behavior. If there is "shared responsibility" it would be among individuals (leaders and followers), but not abstract groups.
The genious of the U.S. constitution is that it provides a roadmap for principled interaction between competing narratives. In the upcoming months we can expect a barrage of competing narratives on the Arizona shootings. Small groups, large groups, and individuals will rally behind their respective narratives. These narratives will be replicated on media outlets, including radio, television, printed media, and the Internet. The problem for the United States is that we have a cacophony of small group narratives, but only two political parties. Neither of those official narratives resonate with most us. Both parties are currently more interested in defending the rights of internal lobbying groups (cronies) than the rights of individuals. Libertarians continue to embrace social liberalism and economic conservatism, but neither party really tells our story. Many, if not most, libertarians will not vote in the next election.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Narratives: The Story-Telling Instinct
Not only do human beings live in groups, but they tell stories, or "narratives" within and between those groups. World views, or what I call macro-narratives are grounded in a few "core beliefs," which undergo alternate periods of relative stability followed by gradual and/or revolutionary change. In short, macro narratives evolve over time based on variation and selection. Macro-narratives generate explanations for perplexing past events and serve as the basis for strategies to predict and control future events. Macro-narratives compete with other macro-narratives and micro-narratives. Some competing narratives come from individuals and coalitions of individuals within the group, some come from outside individuals and groups. We all believe that our own individual and group narrative is True and everyone else's is False. In the history of social and political philosophy there are three competing macro-narratives: large group communitarianism (LGC), small group communitarianism (SGC) and individualism. Let's explore these three narratives.
The central core of both LGC and SMC narratives is that individual human actions are described as the product of "social causation." Communitarians embrace the core belief that "groups of individuals" are the basic unit of social analysis and that individuals are, at best, passive participants in group behavior. There is little (or no) accommodation for individual responsibility, only collective responsibility. The puzzle for LGC is that "large-groups" (with many members) are often comprised of "small groups" (with fewer members) that often tell micro-narratives that compete with the official macro-narratives embraced by large groups. The LGC narrative argues that the interests of large groups trump the interests of smaller sub-groups and individuals. How large is large? Some LGC are globalists and argue that morality is universal and therefore the narratives told by nation states, religions, and multi-national corporations are (or ought to be) trumped by narratives of the "global community" as represented by global groups.
Within the political sphere, some LGC are nationalists and argue that the national interests trump the global interests, and therefore they seek to "liberate" their nation from encroachment by the global community. In the United States, many small group communitarians seek to "liberate" individual states from encroachment by the federal government; and many local governments seek to be "liberated" from ever-expanding state and federal governments. Similarly, some private-groups such as corporations, religious groups, even families seek to limit encroachment by local, state, and federal government, and from other competing larger groups. Hence, even for communitarians the concept of "liberty" is central.
So far we've covered some of the various aspects of the communitarian macro-narratives. What about individualism? Individualism macro-narratives argue that individuals are real. Groups, they argue, have no objective "collective identity" apart from the "individual identities" of their particular leaders and followers. Hence, groups are manufactured by individuals. Thus individualism explains collective group behavior in terms of the actions of individual leaders and followers within groups.Individuals, they argue "ought" to be free from coercive power exercised by both large and small groups, unless those individuals harm others (or threaten to harm others). This narrative places the onus of moral responsibility on particular individuals and not on an amorphous concatenation of interacting groups.
In the United States today, our national macro-narrative is in a state of flux. For better or worse, it is dominated by two competing political narratives (as opposed to scientific or religious narratives) in a media driven environment. In my next blog I will argue that our national narrative has been hyjacked by overly simplistic Republican and Democratic narratives.
The central core of both LGC and SMC narratives is that individual human actions are described as the product of "social causation." Communitarians embrace the core belief that "groups of individuals" are the basic unit of social analysis and that individuals are, at best, passive participants in group behavior. There is little (or no) accommodation for individual responsibility, only collective responsibility. The puzzle for LGC is that "large-groups" (with many members) are often comprised of "small groups" (with fewer members) that often tell micro-narratives that compete with the official macro-narratives embraced by large groups. The LGC narrative argues that the interests of large groups trump the interests of smaller sub-groups and individuals. How large is large? Some LGC are globalists and argue that morality is universal and therefore the narratives told by nation states, religions, and multi-national corporations are (or ought to be) trumped by narratives of the "global community" as represented by global groups.
Within the political sphere, some LGC are nationalists and argue that the national interests trump the global interests, and therefore they seek to "liberate" their nation from encroachment by the global community. In the United States, many small group communitarians seek to "liberate" individual states from encroachment by the federal government; and many local governments seek to be "liberated" from ever-expanding state and federal governments. Similarly, some private-groups such as corporations, religious groups, even families seek to limit encroachment by local, state, and federal government, and from other competing larger groups. Hence, even for communitarians the concept of "liberty" is central.
So far we've covered some of the various aspects of the communitarian macro-narratives. What about individualism? Individualism macro-narratives argue that individuals are real. Groups, they argue, have no objective "collective identity" apart from the "individual identities" of their particular leaders and followers. Hence, groups are manufactured by individuals. Thus individualism explains collective group behavior in terms of the actions of individual leaders and followers within groups.Individuals, they argue "ought" to be free from coercive power exercised by both large and small groups, unless those individuals harm others (or threaten to harm others). This narrative places the onus of moral responsibility on particular individuals and not on an amorphous concatenation of interacting groups.
In the United States today, our national macro-narrative is in a state of flux. For better or worse, it is dominated by two competing political narratives (as opposed to scientific or religious narratives) in a media driven environment. In my next blog I will argue that our national narrative has been hyjacked by overly simplistic Republican and Democratic narratives.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Trial and Error: the Quest for Cosmic Rationality
One of the wonders of life on planet Earth is the fact that it continues to thrive. Survival takes place at many different levels: genes, organisms, species, local ecosystems, and our global ecosystem. As scientists continue their quest for that elusive "Theory of Everything," (or TOE) let me offer my own TOE. I'll call it by its most familiar name: "Trial and Error," or TAE. There are two natural correlaries that follow from TAE: P1. "If it's broke, fix it." and P2."If it's not broke don't fix it." In a nutshell, this is how Mother Nature keeps the "ball of life rolling." Biologists call it "natural selection." It's also the basis for what I call cosmic rationality. Unfortunately, humans, both individually and collectively, routinely violate P1 and P2 and therefore undermine cosmic rationality. Here are a few examples.
We violate P1 when we know that "x is broken," we know how to fix it, it's not prohibitively expensive, and we just don't fix it. For example, I "know" that if I eat a lot of sweets, I gain weight fast, especially ice cream. I gained 3 pounds over the Christmas holiday, so how do I fix it? Well, if I'm rational I'll avoid eating sweets. That's the fix! But there are many hidden variables at work here. Suppose I keep eating a lot of sweets every day and don't look in the mirror, or step on the scales, and gain weight without realizing it? Then, another micro-fix is in order. Step on the scales once a week. But as Aristotle observed, we humans often "know the fix" but we unwilling or unable to actually "do the fix." Just because we know that "x is broken," and we know how to fix it, doesn't mean "we'll fix it." Nowadays, almost everything is broken and nothing is being fixed.
Now I know what you're thinking: "Well, Ron...what happens if we don't know how to fix it? My answer is simple: innovate. Try F1. If x "works perfectly" after trying F1, you've fixed it. Do not try F2, F3, F4, or F5 unless you have extra time, energy, and resources. If F1 works, but not very efficiently try F2, F3, F4, or F5. How many cookies a day can I eat before I start to gain weight? Or, how long will I have to walk to burn off those calories? If I discover, via trial and error, that I can eat 312 chocolate chip cookies every day, if and only if, I walk for 12 hours every day on a treadmill, then I'll have to decide whether those cookies are worth it? Or I may decide that I could eat 312 cookies one day a month if I exercise every day for 2 hours. Fortunately, I don't like to eat that many cookies in one sitting so that's not a problem.
So much for cosmic rationality at the individual level. How might it work at the collective, or communal level? We know, for example, that the city of Cincinnati is way over budget on it's public employee pension system. We also know why. Too many city employees (mostly policemen and firemen) pay too little into the system for too long and retired too early, pension administrators have done a poor job of investing funds, and politicians have been reluctant to raise taxes to pay for those cushy, early retirements. We also know the "micro-fixes." Make city employees pay more into their pensions, make them wait until they are 65 before they retire, hire competent pension administrators, and/or elect politicians that are willing to raise taxes on the rest of us, and/or execute a combination of these other micro-fixes. That a classic violation of P1 cosmic rationality.
The Cincinnati Bengals, obviously, need to be fixed again. Why because the "fix" that we tried a few years ago (building them a new stadium) didn't work. We'll be paying for that "non-fix" for a long time. In fact, the Bengals may be "unfixable." In a world ruled by cosmic rationality they would have been weeded out a long time ago by "creative destruction": the natural consequence of not fixing things! Five turnovers in yesterday's game! Of course you may ask, why did I watch to the game? I never said that I'm ALWAYS rational.
Now, back to the beginning. What about P2? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I like my teaching job. I get paid well enough, I like to teach, I like what I teach, I like my colleagues, I'm pretty good at it, I hate faculty meetings (but I don't go). Being an astute observor of cosmic rationality, I am not looking for another job. I don't even read the job listings in the Chronicle. Now that I'm back on my normal diet, my weight is going back down. It should level off at 173 by the end of next week. Henceforth, I won't eat a lot of sweets. Two cookies a day in the morning with two cups of coffee. That's about it. No ice cream. "If it ain't broke, I won't fix it." What about those city pensions? City counsel did not "fix" the system, therefore they continue to violate P1.
As for P2. I tried to find one thing that the city of Cincinnati does well enough that it ought not try to fix it. (I need help on that one!) Cincinnati does have several "fixes" in the works that address non-problems. Do we really need another transportation system downtown besides buses, taxis, automobiles, and foot. Do we really "need" an electric trolly car? Transportation is not broke, so don't fix it.
If the city of Cincinnati is a prolific source of P1 violations, the federal government is off the charts. Where do we begin: TSA, FDA, EPA, SEC, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the criminal justice system, infrastructure, schools? When everything is broke, and nothing is getting fixed, cosmic rationality goes on vacation, along with our diets.
We violate P1 when we know that "x is broken," we know how to fix it, it's not prohibitively expensive, and we just don't fix it. For example, I "know" that if I eat a lot of sweets, I gain weight fast, especially ice cream. I gained 3 pounds over the Christmas holiday, so how do I fix it? Well, if I'm rational I'll avoid eating sweets. That's the fix! But there are many hidden variables at work here. Suppose I keep eating a lot of sweets every day and don't look in the mirror, or step on the scales, and gain weight without realizing it? Then, another micro-fix is in order. Step on the scales once a week. But as Aristotle observed, we humans often "know the fix" but we unwilling or unable to actually "do the fix." Just because we know that "x is broken," and we know how to fix it, doesn't mean "we'll fix it." Nowadays, almost everything is broken and nothing is being fixed.
Now I know what you're thinking: "Well, Ron...what happens if we don't know how to fix it? My answer is simple: innovate. Try F1. If x "works perfectly" after trying F1, you've fixed it. Do not try F2, F3, F4, or F5 unless you have extra time, energy, and resources. If F1 works, but not very efficiently try F2, F3, F4, or F5. How many cookies a day can I eat before I start to gain weight? Or, how long will I have to walk to burn off those calories? If I discover, via trial and error, that I can eat 312 chocolate chip cookies every day, if and only if, I walk for 12 hours every day on a treadmill, then I'll have to decide whether those cookies are worth it? Or I may decide that I could eat 312 cookies one day a month if I exercise every day for 2 hours. Fortunately, I don't like to eat that many cookies in one sitting so that's not a problem.
So much for cosmic rationality at the individual level. How might it work at the collective, or communal level? We know, for example, that the city of Cincinnati is way over budget on it's public employee pension system. We also know why. Too many city employees (mostly policemen and firemen) pay too little into the system for too long and retired too early, pension administrators have done a poor job of investing funds, and politicians have been reluctant to raise taxes to pay for those cushy, early retirements. We also know the "micro-fixes." Make city employees pay more into their pensions, make them wait until they are 65 before they retire, hire competent pension administrators, and/or elect politicians that are willing to raise taxes on the rest of us, and/or execute a combination of these other micro-fixes. That a classic violation of P1 cosmic rationality.
The Cincinnati Bengals, obviously, need to be fixed again. Why because the "fix" that we tried a few years ago (building them a new stadium) didn't work. We'll be paying for that "non-fix" for a long time. In fact, the Bengals may be "unfixable." In a world ruled by cosmic rationality they would have been weeded out a long time ago by "creative destruction": the natural consequence of not fixing things! Five turnovers in yesterday's game! Of course you may ask, why did I watch to the game? I never said that I'm ALWAYS rational.
Now, back to the beginning. What about P2? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I like my teaching job. I get paid well enough, I like to teach, I like what I teach, I like my colleagues, I'm pretty good at it, I hate faculty meetings (but I don't go). Being an astute observor of cosmic rationality, I am not looking for another job. I don't even read the job listings in the Chronicle. Now that I'm back on my normal diet, my weight is going back down. It should level off at 173 by the end of next week. Henceforth, I won't eat a lot of sweets. Two cookies a day in the morning with two cups of coffee. That's about it. No ice cream. "If it ain't broke, I won't fix it." What about those city pensions? City counsel did not "fix" the system, therefore they continue to violate P1.
As for P2. I tried to find one thing that the city of Cincinnati does well enough that it ought not try to fix it. (I need help on that one!) Cincinnati does have several "fixes" in the works that address non-problems. Do we really need another transportation system downtown besides buses, taxis, automobiles, and foot. Do we really "need" an electric trolly car? Transportation is not broke, so don't fix it.
If the city of Cincinnati is a prolific source of P1 violations, the federal government is off the charts. Where do we begin: TSA, FDA, EPA, SEC, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the criminal justice system, infrastructure, schools? When everything is broke, and nothing is getting fixed, cosmic rationality goes on vacation, along with our diets.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Is Morality "Natural," or was it "Invented?"
Here's another question for you: Why do most humans avoid killing, stealing, telling lies, and breaking promises? In other words: why are most of us moral agents? There are basically three competing hypotheses. All three assume that morality is ultimately a brain activity.
The "Good-Natured Hypothesis" (GNH) argues that beginning in the Pleistocene era, (3 million years ago) biological evolution (natural selection and sexual selection) endowed us with a "natural" set of mental mechanisms that facilitate living in small, cooperative groups. Some of these mechanisms are "rational" (located in the outer layers of the brain) some are "emotional" (located in the outer layers of the brain). Despite these mechanisms, it's also obviously true that, today, some of us modern humans still act like Chimpanzees, that is: kill, steal, lie, and break promises? (The question of whether Chimpanzees are good-natured or bad-natured is open to debate.) In fact, some human groups are literally "infected" with immoral behavior: organized crime syndicates, some inner-city neighborhoods, and the Afghan military and police forces. How do these infestations of immorality take root and how can we "cure" them? Based on the GNH, there is a "mismatch" between slow-paced biological evolution (genes) and fast-paced cultural evolution (ideas). If we want to "restore" natural communal cooperation, we need to cure those cultural viruses (bad ideas) so our good nature can shine through again.
On the other hand, the "Bad-Natured Hypothesis," argues that biological evolution has endowed us with a set of mental mechanisms that promote self-interest, predation, and "dog-eat-dog" competition. Cooperation, they argue requires a degree of altruism, which is naturally limited to within families and kin groups. These "selfish genes" tend to impede the formation of cooperative groups, so if we want to improve communal cooperation, we must overcome our bad nature via cultural evolution (good ideas). Our "bad nature" is most clearly evident in the universal persistence of human warfare, murder, theft, lying etc. Despite our best cultural efforts, major parts of the world remain locked in intractable warfare (think: Israelis v. Palestinians, drug lords v. drug lords, democrats v. republicans). Based on the BNH, morality is unnatural, in the sense that it is the product of cultural evolution, or ideas. In other words, at some point in human history, human beings "discovered" that we can overcome these selfish genes via teaching and learning. Imagine the revelation: "Hey you all, listen up...if we really work at it, we can resist our natural impulse to kill, steal, lie, and break promises. Then we can reap the benefits of living in large cooperative communities. Just think: We can free ourselves from incessant hunting and gathering and buy our food at Kroger. No more warfare either! In short, despite our bad nature, we really can 'get along!' "According to the BNH, when we revert back to our "bad nature" all we have to do is develop cultural institutions that can keep them in check, things like: educational institutions, criminal justice systems, political parties etc.
So the "Good-Natured Hypothesis" says that morality is primarily the product of biological evolution, and the "Bad-Natured Hypothesis says that morality is fundamentally the product of cultural evolution. The third hypothesis, which I call the "Good and Bad Natured Hypothesis," GBNH is a hybrid of both, with many variations. Here are two variations.
GBNH Variation #1 argues that human beings have two sets of genetically programmed brain mechanisms. One set constitutes our good nature (genes for: intelligence, reciprocity, feelings of sympathy, etc.); the other our bad nature (genes for: stupidity, predation, lying, cheating, stealing, etc.). Although the good nature mechanisms for cooperation within families tend to be more powerful than the mechanisms cooperation between strangers, both are at least possible. But there's really not much we can do about it, other than discover how those brain mechanisms work and perhaps re-program them via genetic therapy, drug therapy, or maybe brain surgery. Hence, "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" can only be enhanced by increasing serotonin and reducing testosterone levels within specific populations either via eugenic programs, drug therapy, or by brain surgery (most likely targeting the limbic system).
GBNH Variation#2 argues that although we have both "good" and "bad" brain mechanisms, we can increase the manifestation of good mechanisms by deliberately altering the environment in which we live. For example, we could move out of those large cities into smaller kin groups of about 150, make sure there enough healthy food to go around (but not too much!), and keep cooperative human males engaged in good groups (such as: schools, churches, sports teams, police and fire departments) and away from bad groups (such as: gangs, organized crime, the military, and the banking industry).
Now here's that initial question again! Are human beings "good natured" or "bad-natured?" Are those "natures" the product of biological evolution, cultural evolution, or both? What, if anything, can we do individually or collectively to maximize our "good nature" (if there is one) and minimize our "bad nature" (if there is one)? As soon as I figure it all out, I'll post in on this blog. It could take a while...
The "Good-Natured Hypothesis" (GNH) argues that beginning in the Pleistocene era, (3 million years ago) biological evolution (natural selection and sexual selection) endowed us with a "natural" set of mental mechanisms that facilitate living in small, cooperative groups. Some of these mechanisms are "rational" (located in the outer layers of the brain) some are "emotional" (located in the outer layers of the brain). Despite these mechanisms, it's also obviously true that, today, some of us modern humans still act like Chimpanzees, that is: kill, steal, lie, and break promises? (The question of whether Chimpanzees are good-natured or bad-natured is open to debate.) In fact, some human groups are literally "infected" with immoral behavior: organized crime syndicates, some inner-city neighborhoods, and the Afghan military and police forces. How do these infestations of immorality take root and how can we "cure" them? Based on the GNH, there is a "mismatch" between slow-paced biological evolution (genes) and fast-paced cultural evolution (ideas). If we want to "restore" natural communal cooperation, we need to cure those cultural viruses (bad ideas) so our good nature can shine through again.
On the other hand, the "Bad-Natured Hypothesis," argues that biological evolution has endowed us with a set of mental mechanisms that promote self-interest, predation, and "dog-eat-dog" competition. Cooperation, they argue requires a degree of altruism, which is naturally limited to within families and kin groups. These "selfish genes" tend to impede the formation of cooperative groups, so if we want to improve communal cooperation, we must overcome our bad nature via cultural evolution (good ideas). Our "bad nature" is most clearly evident in the universal persistence of human warfare, murder, theft, lying etc. Despite our best cultural efforts, major parts of the world remain locked in intractable warfare (think: Israelis v. Palestinians, drug lords v. drug lords, democrats v. republicans). Based on the BNH, morality is unnatural, in the sense that it is the product of cultural evolution, or ideas. In other words, at some point in human history, human beings "discovered" that we can overcome these selfish genes via teaching and learning. Imagine the revelation: "Hey you all, listen up...if we really work at it, we can resist our natural impulse to kill, steal, lie, and break promises. Then we can reap the benefits of living in large cooperative communities. Just think: We can free ourselves from incessant hunting and gathering and buy our food at Kroger. No more warfare either! In short, despite our bad nature, we really can 'get along!' "According to the BNH, when we revert back to our "bad nature" all we have to do is develop cultural institutions that can keep them in check, things like: educational institutions, criminal justice systems, political parties etc.
So the "Good-Natured Hypothesis" says that morality is primarily the product of biological evolution, and the "Bad-Natured Hypothesis says that morality is fundamentally the product of cultural evolution. The third hypothesis, which I call the "Good and Bad Natured Hypothesis," GBNH is a hybrid of both, with many variations. Here are two variations.
GBNH Variation #1 argues that human beings have two sets of genetically programmed brain mechanisms. One set constitutes our good nature (genes for: intelligence, reciprocity, feelings of sympathy, etc.); the other our bad nature (genes for: stupidity, predation, lying, cheating, stealing, etc.). Although the good nature mechanisms for cooperation within families tend to be more powerful than the mechanisms cooperation between strangers, both are at least possible. But there's really not much we can do about it, other than discover how those brain mechanisms work and perhaps re-program them via genetic therapy, drug therapy, or maybe brain surgery. Hence, "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" can only be enhanced by increasing serotonin and reducing testosterone levels within specific populations either via eugenic programs, drug therapy, or by brain surgery (most likely targeting the limbic system).
GBNH Variation#2 argues that although we have both "good" and "bad" brain mechanisms, we can increase the manifestation of good mechanisms by deliberately altering the environment in which we live. For example, we could move out of those large cities into smaller kin groups of about 150, make sure there enough healthy food to go around (but not too much!), and keep cooperative human males engaged in good groups (such as: schools, churches, sports teams, police and fire departments) and away from bad groups (such as: gangs, organized crime, the military, and the banking industry).
Now here's that initial question again! Are human beings "good natured" or "bad-natured?" Are those "natures" the product of biological evolution, cultural evolution, or both? What, if anything, can we do individually or collectively to maximize our "good nature" (if there is one) and minimize our "bad nature" (if there is one)? As soon as I figure it all out, I'll post in on this blog. It could take a while...
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Merit v. Need: The Libertarian Response
Well what do libertarians say about distributive justice and the conflict between the material principles of fairness, especially merit and need. First, let me reinterate my usual disclaimer. There are many different forms of libertarianism that range from the far-right to the middle-left on the political spectrum. I can't cover that whole spectrum in a blog. But I can sketch in one basic line of argument.
In general most libertarians view "Fairness" in the context of the rules that govern competition; call it procedural justice. Competition is fair if and only if everyone plays by the same rules. For example, the game of baseball is "fair" to the extent that the rules apply equally to everyone that plays the game: "Three strikes, you're out!." Now, suppose the number of strikes afforded each player varied based on need. "Ron White is coming up to bat for the Cincinnati Reds. He's 60 years old, near-sighted, cross-eyed, has a stigmatism, and poor hand-eye coordination. So out of fairness, the umpire decided that Ron "needs" 11 strikes." Now would that be fair? Well, Joey Votto might argue that it's unfair to him because he was only afforded 3 strikes. On the other hand, Ron might argue that Joey comes to bat armed with a set of "natural advantages" that he doesn't deserve; natural attributes like: youth, uncanny vision, extraordinary hand-eye coordination, and the ability to concentrate on hitting the ball with runners on base. He also comes to the plate with years of practice and experience. Call it merit. While Joey was practicing hitting, Ron was reading and teaching philosophy. So if Ron and Joey were afforded three strikes each, regardless of their natural and acquired abilities, Joey would win the batting title and Ron would win the strikeout title. However, if Ron were given 11 strikes and Joey 3, Ron would argue that it's only fair based on need.
Now here's the problem. Why would Ron choose to compete in a game where the existing rules are stacked against him? If he chose to give up his teaching job to tryout for the Cincinnati Reds, and didn't make the team whose fault is it? Ron might argue that the rules of baseball discriminate against the elderly and/or the visually impaired. Joey might argue that giving Ron 11 strikes discriminates against Joey. After all, it's not Joey's fault that he's younger than Ron, has better eyesight, and better hand-eye coordination. So how do we go about resolving this apparent conflict over fairness between merit (allowing Joey to benefit from unearned attributes) and need (allowing Ron to benefit from the lack of those attributes)?
There are many different ways to look at this. I would argue that the Cincinnati Reds are the property of the owners of the team. If they want to bench Joey and let Ron play first base and hit third, it's their team. But who would choose to watch a baseball game where incompetent hitters are given 11 strikes? (The game is already slow enough!) Even though Ron agreed to a salary of a mere $100,000 a year, the nature of the game would shift from exhibiting merit to exhibiting need. No one would come to the games and MLB would go bankrupt. So barring any court ordered affirmative action, Ron's dream of becoming a Cincinnati Red has been thwarted by the rules of the game, and Joey Votto is likely to earn millions of dollars. But now we have Ron, who gave up his teaching job to pursue a career in Major League Baseball, and is now unemployed. Should he be able to draw unemployment? He bought new glasses and still spends all day in the batting cages practicing his swing and contacting other teams for an opportunity to tryout. But they refuse to even let him tryout! Should Ron get himself a lawyer and sue MLB for discrimination based on merit? What do you think? Is baseball a micrcosm of life or is it something else? Are natural attributes distributed more or less equally, even though they are highly variable? Is it up to us to choose occuptions that match our natural attributes? If Ron gets his teaching job back, would it be fair to pay Ron less than Joey? After all, the only basis for his merit is his ability to hit a ball, but he can only do it 33% of the time?
In general most libertarians view "Fairness" in the context of the rules that govern competition; call it procedural justice. Competition is fair if and only if everyone plays by the same rules. For example, the game of baseball is "fair" to the extent that the rules apply equally to everyone that plays the game: "Three strikes, you're out!." Now, suppose the number of strikes afforded each player varied based on need. "Ron White is coming up to bat for the Cincinnati Reds. He's 60 years old, near-sighted, cross-eyed, has a stigmatism, and poor hand-eye coordination. So out of fairness, the umpire decided that Ron "needs" 11 strikes." Now would that be fair? Well, Joey Votto might argue that it's unfair to him because he was only afforded 3 strikes. On the other hand, Ron might argue that Joey comes to bat armed with a set of "natural advantages" that he doesn't deserve; natural attributes like: youth, uncanny vision, extraordinary hand-eye coordination, and the ability to concentrate on hitting the ball with runners on base. He also comes to the plate with years of practice and experience. Call it merit. While Joey was practicing hitting, Ron was reading and teaching philosophy. So if Ron and Joey were afforded three strikes each, regardless of their natural and acquired abilities, Joey would win the batting title and Ron would win the strikeout title. However, if Ron were given 11 strikes and Joey 3, Ron would argue that it's only fair based on need.
Now here's the problem. Why would Ron choose to compete in a game where the existing rules are stacked against him? If he chose to give up his teaching job to tryout for the Cincinnati Reds, and didn't make the team whose fault is it? Ron might argue that the rules of baseball discriminate against the elderly and/or the visually impaired. Joey might argue that giving Ron 11 strikes discriminates against Joey. After all, it's not Joey's fault that he's younger than Ron, has better eyesight, and better hand-eye coordination. So how do we go about resolving this apparent conflict over fairness between merit (allowing Joey to benefit from unearned attributes) and need (allowing Ron to benefit from the lack of those attributes)?
There are many different ways to look at this. I would argue that the Cincinnati Reds are the property of the owners of the team. If they want to bench Joey and let Ron play first base and hit third, it's their team. But who would choose to watch a baseball game where incompetent hitters are given 11 strikes? (The game is already slow enough!) Even though Ron agreed to a salary of a mere $100,000 a year, the nature of the game would shift from exhibiting merit to exhibiting need. No one would come to the games and MLB would go bankrupt. So barring any court ordered affirmative action, Ron's dream of becoming a Cincinnati Red has been thwarted by the rules of the game, and Joey Votto is likely to earn millions of dollars. But now we have Ron, who gave up his teaching job to pursue a career in Major League Baseball, and is now unemployed. Should he be able to draw unemployment? He bought new glasses and still spends all day in the batting cages practicing his swing and contacting other teams for an opportunity to tryout. But they refuse to even let him tryout! Should Ron get himself a lawyer and sue MLB for discrimination based on merit? What do you think? Is baseball a micrcosm of life or is it something else? Are natural attributes distributed more or less equally, even though they are highly variable? Is it up to us to choose occuptions that match our natural attributes? If Ron gets his teaching job back, would it be fair to pay Ron less than Joey? After all, the only basis for his merit is his ability to hit a ball, but he can only do it 33% of the time?
Sunday, December 19, 2010
The Struggle for Fairness: Merit v. Need
The question of how to effectively employ the powers of the state to bring about a Fair Society is the "bread and butter" issue of all social and political philosophers. There are two underlying distinctions that cloud our understanding of the distribution of benefits and costs among humans: natural distribution and social distribution.
First of all, Nature provides all of us with a set of natural advantages and natural disadvantages that affect how we we fare in a Darwinian world. As John Rawls noted, these advantages and disadvantages are distributed based on a "natural lottery," which is partly genetic (lucky draw of genes) and partly social (lucky draw of parents and society). Given that nature "distributes" these advantages and disadvantages randomly, it's hard to argue that any of us "deserve" our current economic status. In other words, Mother Nature is not fair, because she blindly stacks the cards either in our favor, against us, or both. Therefore, social and political philosophers on the left, like Karl Marx and John Rawls, argue that the purpose of government is to use the coercive power of government to redistribute benefits and costs. Since merit (adaptive attributes such as high IQ and good looks) and need (maladaptive attributes such as low IQ and ugliness) are distributed unfairly, leftists argue that the purpose of government is to redistribute the fruits of the natural lottery. Call it: economic security.
So how do we go about this social redistribution process? Well, Aristotle identified four material principles of fairness: merit (the best get the most), need (the neediest get the most), equality (everyone gets the same), and utility (the distribution that affords the "greatest happiness for the greatest number"). Aristotle, a natural law theorist defended meritocracy, where all social structures are designed to make sure that the advantaged get the most and the least advantaged get the least: "the best get the most and the worst get the least." Any society that varies from this standard is unfair. He argued that the needs of the least advantaged are to be met by the virtuous acts (beneficence) of the meritocrats. But if neither merit nor need is deserved, neither is virtue." Not only did my parents pass on bad genes, they also failed to teach me virtue!" Therefore, how can I be held morally responsible for robbing that Quicky Mart last week? After all, I needed the money and the owner of the that store that I robbed inherited that successful business, along with a high IQ and good looks. So he didn't "deserve" that money, either.
Rawlians and Marxists solve this merit v. need struggle by using the coercive power of government to take a certain percentage of the store owners income and giving it to me, so I won't have to steal it in order to meet my needs. Marx (and B.F. Skinner) dismissed private property all together and argued that all goods are social goods, and therefore ought to be redistributed equally by a panel of government experts. Rawls argued that the most advantaged ought to be forced to contribute to a "basic safety net" or provide a social minimum to protect the least advantaged. Rawls, therefore, allows the most advantaged to prosper, but only as long as the social distance between the rich and the poor either diminishes or does not increase. The rich cannot get richer, if the poor get poorer as a result of a natural distribution.
So the common strategy employed by left-wing Marxists and Rawlsians is to use the power of government to eliminate or lessen the consequences of natural inequality. Now what do right-wing libertarians say about all this? Well, they present a long list of counter-arguments. Next time, I'll sketch in a few of them. Stay tuned.
First of all, Nature provides all of us with a set of natural advantages and natural disadvantages that affect how we we fare in a Darwinian world. As John Rawls noted, these advantages and disadvantages are distributed based on a "natural lottery," which is partly genetic (lucky draw of genes) and partly social (lucky draw of parents and society). Given that nature "distributes" these advantages and disadvantages randomly, it's hard to argue that any of us "deserve" our current economic status. In other words, Mother Nature is not fair, because she blindly stacks the cards either in our favor, against us, or both. Therefore, social and political philosophers on the left, like Karl Marx and John Rawls, argue that the purpose of government is to use the coercive power of government to redistribute benefits and costs. Since merit (adaptive attributes such as high IQ and good looks) and need (maladaptive attributes such as low IQ and ugliness) are distributed unfairly, leftists argue that the purpose of government is to redistribute the fruits of the natural lottery. Call it: economic security.
So how do we go about this social redistribution process? Well, Aristotle identified four material principles of fairness: merit (the best get the most), need (the neediest get the most), equality (everyone gets the same), and utility (the distribution that affords the "greatest happiness for the greatest number"). Aristotle, a natural law theorist defended meritocracy, where all social structures are designed to make sure that the advantaged get the most and the least advantaged get the least: "the best get the most and the worst get the least." Any society that varies from this standard is unfair. He argued that the needs of the least advantaged are to be met by the virtuous acts (beneficence) of the meritocrats. But if neither merit nor need is deserved, neither is virtue." Not only did my parents pass on bad genes, they also failed to teach me virtue!" Therefore, how can I be held morally responsible for robbing that Quicky Mart last week? After all, I needed the money and the owner of the that store that I robbed inherited that successful business, along with a high IQ and good looks. So he didn't "deserve" that money, either.
Rawlians and Marxists solve this merit v. need struggle by using the coercive power of government to take a certain percentage of the store owners income and giving it to me, so I won't have to steal it in order to meet my needs. Marx (and B.F. Skinner) dismissed private property all together and argued that all goods are social goods, and therefore ought to be redistributed equally by a panel of government experts. Rawls argued that the most advantaged ought to be forced to contribute to a "basic safety net" or provide a social minimum to protect the least advantaged. Rawls, therefore, allows the most advantaged to prosper, but only as long as the social distance between the rich and the poor either diminishes or does not increase. The rich cannot get richer, if the poor get poorer as a result of a natural distribution.
So the common strategy employed by left-wing Marxists and Rawlsians is to use the power of government to eliminate or lessen the consequences of natural inequality. Now what do right-wing libertarians say about all this? Well, they present a long list of counter-arguments. Next time, I'll sketch in a few of them. Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
