Sunday, May 15, 2022

Part I. Introduction to the Culture of Human Warfare

                                   By: Ronald F. White, Ph.D.

                                   Professor Emeritus of Philosophy

                                   Mount St. Joseph University

 

In this blog I will develop a preliminary framework for exploring the surprisingly complex meanings of the term "human culture," and the cultural basis for Human Warfare.                                                                                                                                                                          

For Homo Sapiens it is important to acknowledge that "culture" is a collective concept that is shared within groups of humans, especially: families, religions, nations, businesses, and various ethnic groups. Of course, some human feelings, thoughts, and behaviors are entirely programmed by biological evolution and therefore, primarily, genetic in origin; others are shaped by teaching and learning via cultural evolution.  And of course, evolutionarily speaking, both beliefs and behavior evolve, devolve, or remain stable over time. And culture is often reshaped by legality and illegality. John Stuart Mill, the founding father of libertarianism argued that laws that dictate illegality must be employed only to the extent that they prevent involuntary "harm to others." Here's a few examples.                                                                                                                         

When I was growing up, we often ate fish on Fridays, call it a family tradition that was inspired by pre-Vatican 2 Roman Catholicism. My mother and father were non-attending Roman Catholic and Episcopalian, respectively. My mother was a full-time mother and housewife, and my dad worked in the air conditioning and refrigeration repair business, He had several customers that sold fried fish, which they gave him for free on Fridays. Other customers offered him free draft beer, cheese, ice cream, steaks, and lobsters. One of our neighborhood cultural traditions was for several neighborhood men to sit on our patio and drink beer and tell jokes with dad after dinner. Of course, mom hated that tradition. But dad had other cultural traditions that limited his drinking. He always went to bed at 10 PM and never drank before noon. Of course, one might argue that dad was an alcoholic, and that those other cultural traditions evolved out of his genetic predisposition toward alcohol consumption. My sisters and I became moderate consumers of alcohol. When I attended Eastern Kentucky University in the early 1970s, the sale of alcohol was prohibited within the Richmond city limits, but legal in the county, which inspired the rise of bootleggers. Eventually, the law was changed to illegal only on Sundays, and later it was changed again to allow Sunday sales, after 2 PM. Of course, back then there were no Roman Catholic Churches in Richmond, which would eventually present interesting re-interpretations of the law.  Recently, I developed a habit of drinking scotch whisky between 7 and 9 PM. Here in Cincinnati, until very recently, it was illegal for drug stores and grocery stores to sell "hard liquor." You would have to buy it in a state-licensed liquor store. Today, many grocery stores legally sell "hard liquor." Note that I surreptitiously introduced the notions of and legality and licensure into our discussion.                                                                                                                                                                         Local, state, and federal governments paternalistically legalize and/or illegalize various cultural traditions, others outlaw harmless traditions that are offensive to other groups, often dictated by some acknowledged authority. Some legal and/or moral traditions are positive; "you must do A." Some are negative; "you must not do A." And all traditions also evolve, devolve, and/or remain stable over time. Paternalistic laws are intended to promote individual well-being and prevent "harm to self." Governments often employ licensure as a mean of controlling the sale of some products and services. Recently, the FDA illegalized the sale of menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars, which will be challenged in local and state courts; and ultimately, decided by the Supreme Court. The reason for the ban is that many young children illegally obtain these products, and eventually become "addicted" to tobacco via these products. In the absence of legal sanctions, many addictive products get locked into cultural traditions. But highly desired products and services that are rendered illegal, creates black markets, which generate underground illegal behavior that becomes locked into tradition. Historically, the most prolific black markets involved buying and selling of drugs, alcohol, prostitutes, and weapons (especially guns). Black market formation is limited by geographical legal jurisdictions marked by borders.  Hence, black markets are often geographically located adjacent to "free markets" which makes it easier to illegally purchase outlawed products and services and "smuggle" them across borders. Sometimes even law enforcement officers surreptitiously participate in lucrative black-market activity.  Libertarians, embrace free market activity and restrict illegality to behaviors that involuntarily harm others. It is often argued that addictive products and services are, necessarily, subject to legal intervention. But we libertarians argue that governments must be limited to providing users with objective information about potentially harmful addictive products and or services. "Don't smoke because you'll get cancer." "Don't visit prostitutes or you will catch a disease." Once adults are duly warned about dangerous products and services, any ill-effects become their own personal responsibility. Hence, drinking is legal but driving under the influence of alcohol is illegal. So, to what degree is cultural influence shaped by legality and free choice? How does cultural influence affect harm to others and personal and/or collective responsibility? And how does the philosophy of human warfare explain the universality and long-term persistence of male violence and human warfare, and the fragility of peace?                                                                                                                                                                                                    

First of all, let's acknowledge that human warfare is a collective behavior overwhelmingly promulgated by human males. Second, warfare involves leader-follower hierarchical relationships. Old men tend to be the leaders and young men tend to be the followers. Third, the warfare instinct is evident in others forms of rule-based male behavior, especially child's play, and violent sports, including football, hockey, boxing, wrestling, and even baseball. Street gangs and various police organizations also resemble the structure of organized national armies, including territorial control, rule-based leader-follower relationships, financial gain, and the use of military-style weapons. (AK 47s). The puzzle for evolutionary philosophers is how to explain (via genes and/or culture) the longstanding, worldwide, participation of males and the rules and technologies that tend to shape warlike behavior.  

          Part II

                                                     

                                           

Saturday, August 8, 2020

Just Hierarchy: Why Social Hierarchies Matter in China and the Rest of the World By: Daniel A. Bell and Wang Pei

 The title of this excellent, well-organized, and well-written book clearly describes its content. It raises important questions concerning the nature of social hierarchies worldwide, but especially in China and Eastern philosophical traditions including Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism; with occasional reference to Western philosophers and contexts.  Taken together, the five chapters cover the most important contexts where social hierarchies shape human feelings, thoughts, and behavior. Chapters are as follows: Ch. 1. Just Hierarchy Between Intimates (e.g. friends, lovers, family); Ch. 2. Just Hierarchy Between Citizens (democracy v. meritocracy), Ch. 3. Just Hierarchy Between States (global order); Ch. 4.) Just Hierarchy Between Humans and Animals (food); and, Ch. 5. Just Hierarchy Between Humans and Machines (artificial intelligence).  Despite this obvious breadth of analysis, some philosophers will question its depth within the five contexts. Others will its rather cursory discussion of the philosophical underpinnings of the concept of “justice” (merit, need, equality, and utility). Other critics will point out that it neglects recent research on evolutionary psychology and evolutionary leadership. Others will bemoan the relatively sparse reference to Western religious hierarchies especially the Roman Catholic Church, and divisive, unjust Western political leaders like Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. In short, there is plenty of room for future research. Moreover, this is highly recommended as a college textbook in both disciplinary and interdisciplinary courses and an important acquisition for most academic libraries. Public libraries with well-developed collections in the social sciences, philosophy, and/or religious studies will also find this to be a worthy acquisition.                                                                                

                                         Forthcoming Review for Choice Magazine by:

                                          Ronald F. White, Professor Emeritus                                                                    Mount St. Joseph University                                                                                                                                                                                                               

Wednesday, February 26, 2020

Richard Robb, Willful: How We Choose What We Do (Yale University Press: 2019) Reviewed for Choice Magazine


Richard Robb, Willful: How We Choose What We Do (Yale University Press: 2019)
Reviewed for Choice Magazine
By:
Ronald F. White, PhD

The history of philosophy is rife with works that address the old distinction between freedom and determinism of human thought and/or human action. Classical/Neoclassical economists embrace “rational choice theory” in order to explain, predict, and/or control consumer behavior. While this new book does not seek to disprove rational choice theory, it does seek to add another dimension, which we might call, irrational (or non-rational) choice theory. Thus, Robb reduces human action to two categories: rational “purposeful acts” that are performed in anticipation of pleasurable consequence in the near/distant future;” and irrational and/or non-rational acts that are performed because they are (or appear to be) “good for themselves.” If that sounds familiar, it does harken back to the old philosophical distinction between “extrinsic” and “intrinsic” value.  Although this book is well-written and rife with interesting examples, and perspectives, it does reflect state-of-the-art research. The most egregious research omissions include reference recent books by:  Cass R. Sunstein on social and political “influence;” and.  Mark van Vugt on “biological and cultural evolution.” Despite, it’s obvious scholarly deficiencies, it is rife with interesting examples and puzzles that might inspire other economists to take into account more rigorous, interdisciplinary approaches to understanding consumer behavior.          

Sunday, January 26, 2020

Book Review

Exposing the 20 Medical Myths: 
Why Everything You Know About Health Care is Wrong 
and How to Make It Right  

By: Arthur Garson Jr., MD and Ryan Holeywell  
(Rowman & Littlefield)


This is a concise, up-to-date, rigorously referenced analysis of twenty of the most troublesome “myths” that continue to misguide the American public’s views about health care. Most of the myths discussed are well-known by scholars, and have been “busted” by other previous works. Like other works within this “myth-busting” genre, this book often relies on a rigorous comparison between the health care systems in the US, Canada, and Europe. Of those 20 myths, the first and last are highly representative: Chapter 1. “US Health Care is the Best in the World.” And, Chapter 20. “There is No Health-Care System That Will Work for the United States.” Other US issues include: preventative care, doctor shortage, malpractice, and emergency room treatment. The authors argue that public acknowledgement these twenty myths is necessary for sustained long-term planning and reform. Critics might observe that the book omits many other important myths, especially a variety of “myths” related to the education of US health care professionals. Nevertheless, this is a highly recommended textbook for undergraduate and graduate students, health care policy scholars, the general public, and anyone who still believes that health care in the US is the best in the world.


Reviewed for Choice Magazine by: 
Ronald F. White, PhD
Mount St. Joseph University


Saturday, October 12, 2019

Proposal Accepted by the 2020 Conference on the Value of Play: Clemson University, March 29-April 1,2020


Religion and the Biological and Cultural and Evolution Child’s Play

Ronald F. White, Ph.D.
Professor of Philosophy
Mount St. Joseph University

Abstract

All human behavior can be explained in terms the interaction between biological and cultural evolution.   Biological evolution is marked by timeless-universality; or patterns of behavior that have “evolved” very little since the Pleistocene Era (3.4 million years ago). Cultural evolution explains patterns of behavior that are relative to specific times and places. Thus, child’s play can be explained in terms of both biology and culture. Religious behavior is similarly shaped by both biology and culture. The formation of what we call “organized religions” begin in the years following the Agricultural Revolution. Since then, a host of religions have exerted profound influences upon human behavior, especially the behavior of young children. Although the empirical study of child’s play reveals a broad under-current of timeless universality, it also indicates many contextual elements that are culturally relative to both time and place. Thus, worldwide, a variety of religions continue to determine how children can play, with whom they can play, and where they can play.  This presentation will explore the ever-widening mismatch between childhood behaviors shaped by biology and behaviors that are re-shaped by religious cultures. This talk will emphasize, the role that adult religious leaders and followers play in perpetuating that bio-cultural mismatch.