Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Moral Desert and Economic Desert Part 1

Problems with Various Desert Bases
What would it mean for someone the get the wage they deserve? Our answer will depend on the desert base; i.e., in virtue of what are things deserved? Probably the most intuitive answer is that "I deserve my wage because I worked hard for it," implying that effort is the basis for desert claims. Cursory reflection leads us to this reject this answer for a couple of reasons. 

The type of market you serve, the nature of your product, aggregate demand, supply, and your customers willingness and ability to pay all affect your wage although none of these variables are in your control.  That is, they are not a product of your effort. If you work in social services and serve the poor, there is tremendous demand for and value of your services yet your "customers" have a low ability to pay.  Your wage is low and your effort is largely irrelevant. On the other hand, a Saudi Prince might pay a beautiful model $10 000.00 to hang on his arm for an evening. The model's beauty isn't a product of effort nor deliberate choice and so it's hard to say she "earned" the $10 000.00 if effort is our desert base. There are many other counter-examples to the effort desert-base but I'll leave it at that.

The next plausible candidate desert-base is achievement or outcome.  If I produce more than someone else then I deserve more.  This solution also has it's problems. First of all we have to ask about the nature of goods being compared. Do we think that the largest crack dealer is more deserving of their income than the small-time dealer? The former produced more sales, after all. And so we see that social value also enters the calculus. 

It's not enough that a product generates sales, we must also consider the social value of the product. But here's where things get tricky. Often the market value and the social value of goods come apart. The social value of drug rehabilitation workers (for non-celebrities) trumps that of a Fendi handbag yet the profit margins on the former are minimal.  The social value of an educational computer program trumps that of candy crush, yet candy crush and other games deliberately designed to be addictive are much more profitable. And so again we see there is no clear way to establish the magnitude of desert. We can't just appeal to market value. 

Prudential vs Moral Desert
The very loose fit between various desert bases and desert is one set of reasons to be skeptical of economic desert claims. The chief puzzle in understanding economic desert, however, is reconciling the role of prudential and moral action in generating desert claims. Intentionally self-benefiting action generates most economic desert claims: few people go to work motivated by the desire to serve their others, and if they do, it's incidental.  The desire to achieve a certain standard of living and buy this or that knick knack motivates most people to drag themselves out of bed day in and day out. In short, the target beneficiary of the fruits of most people's labor is themselves.

One the other hand, moral desert is generally conceived of as being produced by other-directed action in terms of benefits.  It's odd to say "I'm morally deserving of X because I was looking out for number 1". And so, it is puzzling that the claim "you can't tax me because it's my money--I earned it" is often an implicitly moral one. Denying that others have a claim to your wages imposes duties on them and by so doing enters the moral realm.  Failure to respect these duties might be considered theft by some. But, again it seems odd that a moral claim can be generated by self-serving action and intent.  So, is it simply a category mistake to say that one has a moral desert claim to their wage? Maybe economic desert isn't moral, it's something else.

I think there's a plausible solution to this apparent tension between our common sense intuitions about economic desert and the conceptual distinction between prudential and moral action: in many cases, prudential action is a component of moral action. Simply put, taking care of yourself and your needs so others aren't burdened by you is a part of moral living.  The notion of a good citizen is tied to the idea of, at best contributing positively, but a least not being a net consumer of societies resources when you don't have to be.  A good citizen, if they are able, minimally fulfills part of their moral duty by providing for themselves.

Of course, the prudential and moral don't necessarily overlap.  I can act prudentially and also act contrary to morality. For example, it might be economically prudent for me to sell heroin to minors but the social harms would wipe out any good that came from prudence. And so we see that, although prudence and morality can align, they can also pull in opposite directions.  The moral value of prudence seems to be constrained by considerations of social good.  That is, prudence only has value so long as it doesn't conflict with at least some of our notions of social good.  The mere existence of a market for the products of one's prudential labor isn't sufficient to infer the social value of your prudence--nor of your product.

Sunday, December 7, 2014

Can Ethical Vegetarians and Vegans Own Carnivorous Pets?

One thing you learn pretty quickly in philosophy is that committing to a particular principle often commits you to unexpected positions. Since becoming vegetarian I'm starting to realize this a lot in terms of the principles that ground my vegetarianism.

Here's the issue: It seems that the principles that ground vegetarianism or veganism commit us to the conclusion that it's unethical to own carnivorous pets. Lets look at the principles that support vegetarianism and veganism and see how they apply to carnivorous pet ownership.

(Note: For economy I'm going to use vegetarianism to refer also to veganism and "pet" to refer to carnivorous pet).

Argument 1
The most common reason people become vegetarian has to do with Peter Singer's argument which , in abbreviated form, goes something like this:

(P1) Factory farming causes animals to suffer tremendously.
(P2) Suffering is bad and we shouldn't cause it.
(C)   We shouldn't eat factory farmed meat (or any meat where the animal suffered).

Notice this argument isn't against killing, only against suffering. The objection to killing a separate reason to reject eating meat which I'll set aside for now.

Here's the problem for people who accept this argument or something like it: Pets eat factory farmed meat. By owning a pet you are contributing to the suffering of many other animals--the very thing you oppose.

It seems as though having a pet is contrary to a vegetarian's ethical commitments.  A vegetarian can reply (in some cases): I adopted this pet and I wasn't going to just let it die.

Even if this is true, (P2) seems to commit us to a startling conclusion: we ought to euthanize our pets. Here's why. Lets take for granted that more suffering is worse than less suffering.  Your pet has had a pretty good life. Except for the time it spent before you rescued it, live's been pretty good. Almost no suffering. Now, keeping your pet alive over its natural lifetime causes the suffering of many other creatures equal in their capacity to suffer with your pet. Their suffering is of no lesser moral worth than that of your pets. If we are truly committed to (P2), that suffering is bad, and we should cause less rather than more suffering, it seems to follow that we ought to euthanize our happy pets. It will cause less over-all suffering.

Argument 2
If your vegetarianism is founded on the idea that eating meat is wrong because killing is wrong, there's an analogous problem.  Lets apply the famous trolly problem to see why.  A trolly is barreling down a track and will kill 5 workers working in a tunnel ahead. You can pull a lever and divert the trolly to another tunnel with only one worker. Should you allow the 5 to die or pull the lever, saving the 5 but causing only one worker to die? Most people say pull the lever.  It's better to save 5 lives for the "price" of one. So, if we accept this principle and say the lives of animals are of equal value (at least with respect to each other), it seems to follow that we should euthanize our pet (or at least not feed it) to save the 5 animals that will be slaughtered to feed our pet over its lifetime.

Argument 3
You can also run all the same arguments in regards to the environmental cost of raising animals for meat. Owning a pet causes more animals to be raised for meat. More animals=higher environmental cost=more bad. If you euthanize your pet, those future animals don't need to be raised for meat and there is less of an environmental impact. Fewer animals=lower environmental cost=less bad.

Weak Counter Argument: Causal Inefficacy
One way to reply is to say that "well, euthanizing my one pet isn't going to change the meat industry/how much meat is produced." Vegetarians hear (and reject) a version of this same argument when people object to vegetarianism. It's a bad argument. To see why, imagine the pre-emancipation slave owner saying "well, even if I free my slaves, everyone else is still going to have slaves and probably just take my freed slaves anyway." Is this a good argument? Nope. Owning slaves is morally bad regardless of what other people do. You're responsible for the moral consequences of your own actions; what other people do isn't relevant.

As a vegetarian, I don't like any of these conclusions but they seem to follow from the principles I've accepted.  At the very least, the principles suggest that, if we don't euthanize our rescued pets we at least have an obligation to ensure that all pets should neutered/spayed to prevent future pets from coming into the world. Also, that once our existing pet dies (naturally) we shouldn't get another pet--rescue or otherwise. That sucks. I can't imagine my life without doge.

Monday, December 1, 2014

Aristotle and Plato: Hey, Dummy! You Don't Know What You Want!

Aristotle and Plato make the same puzzling claim: You can be mistaken about what you desire. Consider the following example: You're looking at a delicious piece of chocolate cake.  You say to your friend Aristotle, "I really want to eat that cake."  Aristotle be like: "No, you don't." You be like, "Dude, yes I do. Aristotle be like, "No, you only believe you want the cake. You don't really want it. You're mistaken."  You be like, "Dude, I think I know what goes on in my own head better than you. Inside my head right now is a little homunculus screaming 'I want cake! I want cake!'  I know because I'm in my head, and you're not in my head."  Aristotle be like, "Dude, like I said, you believe you want it but you're mistaken. You don't want it."  You be like, "Dude, how can you say I don't know my own internal mental states? That's...uh...mental. If you put me in an fMRI machine right now, you'd see a desire state. That's me desiring that piece of chocolate cake!"

Anyway, eventually you eat the cake and it was delicious.

Part 1: Human Nature, Rationality, and Human Good
So, how do Plato and Aristotle argue for this seemingly puzzling view that you can be wrong about your own internal states? We're going to have to lay a little groundwork first before we can make sense of the view.  Bear with me...

First of all, everybody wants "goodness".  That is, nobody really desires bad things.  We all aim our action at the good.  And the good for humans is happiness.  So, whenever we act, we are aiming at happiness (which is "the good" for humans).  This part's important so let me repeat.  No one intentionally acts in a way to make themselves unhappy.  We can be mistaken about what will make us happy but no rational person would intend to make themselves unhappy.  Otherwise stated, all actions intend to aim at happiness.

You might reply by pointing to examples of self-destructive behavior.  Aristotle (and Plato) would answer in two ways. First of all, people who engage in such behavior believe that it will relieve them from whatever is bothering them. They are aiming at happiness, they are just mistaken about how to achieve it. An alcoholic drinks because he thinks it will bring him closer to happiness than staying sober and thinking about his problems.  An emo dresses in black and listens to emo music because they believe this will bring them closer to happiness than not doing this.

The second response would be that if a person truly aimed at unhappiness, that is, they actually deliberately tried to try to make themselves unhappy, then this person would not be rational. And so, the qualifier: No rational person would deliberately aim at unhappiness.  Stated in the affirmative: All rational people aim at happiness.  In short, everything humans do (so long as they're rational) is intended to bring them happiness (or at least get us closer).

Qualification: Aristotle's Happiness vs Psychological/Emotional Happiness
Entire libraries have been written on this topic but I'll give you the super-duper condensed version: Aristotle doesn't mean emotional happiness as we often mean today. His use of the word is usually translated as eudaimonia which means "flourishing".  Eudaimonia can also be thought of as "a meaningful life".  Of course, some degree of emotional happiness will be a component of a eudaimonic life--it's hard to do a lot of the other important things if you're chronically depressed--but it is not the ultimate end of our actions. The ultimate end is a meaningful/flourishing life. For a full post on this topic...

Note: for the rest of this post I'll use 'good', 'happiness', 'meaningful life', and 'flourishing life' interchangeably. 

Ok, where were we? You might already be beginning to see that what we've covered so far can give us some tools to explain why you can be mistaken about your desires.  The answer will be something like: Everyone genuinely desires (eudaimonic) happiness. You believe that being famous, rich, pleasure, power, etc.. will get you there and so you desire and pursue those things.  However, those things won't actually get you a meaningful/flourishing life and so you are mistaken about what you desire.  You don't desire being famous and rich, you actually desire a (eudaimonic) life and are mistaken about what will achieve it.

Part 2: Why Are We Mistaken? Beliefs vs Knowledge
Aristotle and Plato differ in their account of how we come to know the good but they are united in that you can't live a (eudaimonic) happy life without knowing what the good is. To know the good takes years of study and most people don't undergo this rigorous training and so they have mistaken beliefs about what the good is. They believe it's pleasure, fame, wealth, power, honor, etc...

There's an important difference between belief and knowledge.  Beliefs can be both true or false but knowledge is always true.  You cannot attain knowledge without rigorous study and, as I said above, most people don't undertake this training and only have beliefs about what is good.  Since they only have beliefs about the good, they're likely to be mistaken.

Part 3: Putting it All Together
Ok, so how is it possible to be mistaken about what you desire? Of course everyone who reads this blog knows what the good is.  It's all those other people who don't read my blog that merely have beliefs about what's good. Now, imagine you're walking around with one of those pin-heads and they're like "Oh! I want that shiny thing! It'll make me sooooooooooooo happy!"

Now, as a true philosopher you know a few important things: (a) you know what is truly good and thus necessary for a meaningful human life; (b) you know that your pin-head friend's action is intended to bring them happiness, that is, like all rational humans all actions aim at happiness; (c) you know that shiny things don't contribute to a meaningful flourishing life (happiness); (d) it follows that your friend doesn't really desire the shiny thing because what they really desire is happiness and the shiny thing won't achieve that. Thus, they are mistaken about what they desire.

In short, in so far as they're rational, they desire happiness not "shiny thing". The fact that they skipped out on philosophy class prevented them from acquiring knowledge of the good. Thus, they only have beliefs--rather than knowledge--about the good and are consequentially mistaken about the content of the good, which in turn leads them to believe that something that doesn't bring about happiness will bring about happiness.

Moral of the story: Don't be a fool. Stay in philosophy school.

Objections and Replies Coming Next Post

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Can Vegans Make Broth from Dead Vagrants?

For the last half-year or so I've been thinking about the ethics of eating animal byproducts. Here's what I mean: Let's suppose that you believe that it's unethical to eat factory farmed meat and dairy (or any meat or dairy--nothing important to my argument hangs on this).  As someone who lives according to your considered ethical judgments, is it permissible for you to eat by-products from the meat and dairy industry that would otherwise be thrown out?

Before continuing I should make one thing clear: These arguments only work so long as the byproducts would (a) otherwise be thrown out and (b) do not contribute to the demand for the primary product. Also I'll need to assume that current conditions persist, that is, the majority of the population isn't vegetarian and there is significant demand for the primary products.

Case 1: Whey
Let me give you some examples of by-products. Whey is a waste by-product of cheese-making and greek yogurt production. Its disposal is actually a significant environmental problem since millions of tons are produced every day (in the US alone) [seecheese, greek yogurt]. In a whey (sorry, couldn't help myself)  eating the waste product is a net environmental good. If left unconsumed it would otherwise have to be treated in an industrial digester which is an energy intensive process. Also, simply dumping it into nearby water sources contaminates the water and kills all the flora and fauna and so it cannot be done. 

There are two basic arguments for why it might be morally permissible for a vegetarian or vegan to eat whey products.  First of all, there's so much excess whey from primary dairy processes that your actions don't perpetuate or generate additional demand on primary products (i.e., milk/cheese). That is, consuming whey doesn't cause milk producers to produce more milk or cheese. Second, consuming whey actually minimizes the environmental impact of the dairy industry. Instead of excess whey contaminating the environment, we eat it.

There is a possible counter-argument. By consuming whey we create a market for it which makes it cheaper for the dairy industry to get rid of it. Currently they have to pay people to take it (e.g., farmers who use it fields or to feed animals, and whey product producers).  If the cost of disposal is reduced, the price of primary products also comes down (because total production cost is lower since disposal cost went down). If the cost of primary products comes down then standard economic theory predicts demand for primary products increases.

I'm not quite sure if this argument works. I'd need to consult with an economist to know for sure but here's one possible way to reply. Suppose we agree with the counter argument that the cost of production for cheese and milk will come down thereby increasing demand. Baaaaat! If demand for milk/cheese increases so will the quantity of byproduct (whey) produced and since the vegetarians are already eating as much as they can, the cost of disposing of this extra waste (from producing even more milk and cheese) will also rise perhaps causing the price of primary products to settle back around where they started. I'm no economist but anywhey, lets look at another case...

Another thing to consider is that we might already be at peak whey consumption. Also, the amount of whey that vegetarians and vegans might consume (that don't already consume it) could be negligible in terms of how much excess there is. Recall that there are several million tons produced err' day.

Case 2: Animal Carcasses 
I came up with this next case as a result of motivated reasoning. It's freakin' cold in Ohio and I've been making a lot of legume soups and stews. What I'd really like is to use a chicken broth but being a committed (albeit imperfect) vegetarian, I don't buy chicken or chicken bouillon. 

But I was thinking... Suppose an omnivore friend had roast chicken for dinner and was about to throw away the carcass. Would it violate vegetarian or vegan ethics to use the carcass for a broth? I guess what I'm really asking is if there is something intrinsically bad about consuming animal products or is it only bad because of how they got on our plate? 

I think the reasonable answer is that eating meat isn't intrinsically bad, it's only bad if certain ethical conditions were violated in raising and/or killing the animal. I doubt there's anything morally wrong with eating roadkill or eating an animal that died of natural causes. It might not be a very appetizing thought, but it's hard to see why a vegetarian or vegan would say it's wrong.

The only possible argument I could think of is if (a) you think it's just as wrong to eat an animal as it is to eat a human and (b) you think it's intrinsically morally wrong to eat humans. Suppose we agree with (a). Is (b) likely?  I don't think so. We can all probably agree that it's wrong to kill someone to eat them but if someone died of natural causes and you were starving, would it be wrong to use them for soup? Probably not. You might have an aversion to it but it's hard to see why it would be morally wrong. 

Of course, the case of my friend's chicken carcass is a bit more complicated than eating roadkill.  The vegetarian/vegan will be ethically opposed to how the chicken got to the plate (especially) if the chicken was conventionally raised and killed. That said, the vegetarian/vegan's actions don't generate demand for the primary product (i.e., don't support or perpetuate the meat industry) and the byproduct is going to be thrown away anywhey.  In such a case, is there any harm or is there a wrong?

I'm curious what my vegetarian/vegan friends think.  By the way, I'm headed down to the morgue to get some bones to make both. Let me know if you'd like me to get some for you while I'm there.

Sunday, November 23, 2014

Do Fetuses Have Rights?: A Review of "Choices, Interests, and Potentiality"

This post is a summary and evaluation of some of the arguments in "Choices, Interests, and Potentiality: What Distinguishes Bearers of Rights?" by Anna-Karin Margareta Andersson.

This paper presents itself as an investigation of the topic of rights and argues that (human) fetuses have rights yet never mentions abortion. And so this paper, under the guise of a philosophical discussion of what creatures have rights, is a thinly-veiled ideological attempt to discuss the abortion issue. This kind of ground my gears cuz if you want to write about the abortion issue just be open about it. There's no need to cloak it in something else.

More things that grind my gears: First, it is as clear a case of motivated reasoning as you'll find in academic literature. Second, the tone is one of thinly veiled smugness. Now, anyone who knows me knows that I can be smug as bug in a rug next to a pug but I try not to bring that into my professional writing. I try not to. Ok, enough with the ad hominems, lets check aus the actual arguments.

There's only one semi-technical term you need to know: A rights bearer is a creature that has rights. Some people say that only humans have rights, some people say animals have rights, some people say both. Some people say that you have rights in relation to your capacities others say it's in relation to your interests.  There are lots of views. Andersson suggests you have rights in virtue of an empirically verifiable property--although she defines this quite broadly. The main issue in this article is what types of creatures have rights and why.

This article really has two main parts. The first part is an argoomint for why we should restrict the scope of rights bearers. In short, we should be careful about extending rights too widely to all or most sentient beings because it will cause conflicts between rights bearers. Part two of the paper is an argoomint for why fetuses should have rights. We all agree that adult humans are paradigmatic cases of rights bearers. If adult humans in a temporary coma have rights then similar rights should be extended to fetuses because both are temporary not-fully-functioning adult humans.

Part 1: Allowing Too Many (Types of) Rights Bearers Will Cause Problematic Conflicts Between Different Groups of Rights Bearers
Andersson argues that if rights are granted to too many kinds of creatures then problematic conflicts between rights and rights bearers will occur and the end result will dilute the value of having rights and the rights themselves.

Argument 1
Part A: Some sets of rights will inevitably conflict. The more rights people have, the more likely the rights are to conflict. More importantly, the more creatures there are that have rights, the greater the chances of right conflicting. Anytime rights conflict, in order for the situation to be resolved someone or something's rights will have to be over-ridden.  If rights are constantly being over-ridden then the "practical relevance" of being a rights bearer is diminished (p. 177).  It's like, what's the point of being accorded rights if they're going to be frequently over-ridden anyway--even if you are compensated? The wider the scope of creatures that get rights, the greater the likelihood that rights will get over-ridden, and therefore the value of having rights declines. And that's baaaaaaaaaaaaad!

Part A: For those of you keeping track of the critical thinking concepts, this argument commits the fallacy of argument from final consequences.  That is, you argue that something is false because you don't like the consequences of it being true.  Because it's an informal fallacy it only means that the argument is invalid and therefore inductive.  Inductive arguments can be strong or weak but their conclusions don't necessarily follow and so they must be evaluated on a case by case basis.  Let's not commit the fallacy fallacy.  We need to evaluate the argument...

The argument says that moral rights are limited only to a narrow class of creatures because extending rights to too many creatures causes excessive rights conflicts.  The problem here is that it very well might be true that many creatures do have rights and there will be many rights conflicts. Too bad, so sad. The conclusion would have some plausibility if the claim were normative, that is, that we ought to restrict rights to only a few types of creatures. But this isn't the conclusion she argues for. Her thesis concerns "what subjects actually do have moral rights" (p. 175; my italics).  You can't argue for what is the case from what you don't like about the consequences of alternative possibilities. That's like saying, "I don't owe rent this month because if I pay rent I won't be able to pop bottles in VIP". Conclusion, I don't own rent. QED.

Argoomint 1
Part B: We should also limit the scope of rights bearers because highly diverse creatures will have highly diverse rights. When the diverse rights come into conflict it will be difficult to figure out how to weigh one against the other. We'll have to come up with some rules to adjudicate between disparate conflicting rights meaning some types of creatures will have systematically weaker rights than others.
Why should we label a large group of subjects "rights bearers" and systematically prioritize some types of rights bearers over others in case of rights conflicts, instead of reserving the term "rights bearers" for the prioritized subjects and entitle the other subjects to certain treatment when doing so does not compromise any rights? (p. 178)

In other words, what's the point of using rights language if the rights of one group will always be trumped by those of another? Why not use a clearer terminology that actually reflects that one group's rights will systematically trump another's?

Part B: Man, I really really want to use some post-modernist critical theory goobly gook to make this next point. Something about institutional patriarchal power structures and penises betray Andersson's post-colonial speciesism.  Setting that aside, Andersson makes an unwarranted assumptions causing her to beg the question.  Aside: When philosophers use the phrase "to beg the question" (which is the right way) it means that someone is assuming the very thing they are trying to prove. I.e., it's a form of circular reasoning. Anyway, Andersson's argument for restricting what creatures have rights only works if she assumes that the rights humans have systematically trump any and all rights that non-humans have--which is the exact conclusion she's trying to argue for. As she says, there's no point in extending rights to animals because every right that they have will be systematically trumped by any rights humans have. This is clearly false.

Suppose someone derives pleasure from torturing fluffy white kittens with really cute meows. His right to live according to his own conception of the good life doesn't trump a fluffy white kitten's right to live a life free from unnecessary cruelty.  The rights humans have don't systematically trump the rights of all creatures. Sometimes the rights of other creatures trump ours. To show that they don't would require an argoomint...

Part 2: Who Gotz Rights? 
What do hungry twins say when they're still in the womb? Feed us! Feed us! (Thank you, I'll be here all week).  Lets get down to bidniz.

In the first part of the paper we saw that Anderson wants to constrain what types of creatures are rights bearers. So who's going to get rights? Dogs? Kittens? Bears? Apes? Give up? You'll never guess: Adult humans and fetuses are rights bearers and non-human animals aren't.  Lets see how she gets to this conclusion:

Argoomint 1
The plan is to identify a paradigmatic case of a rights bearer, figure out what it is about them that makes them a rights bearer, then see what other things have that special rights-bearer sauce.

VocaboolaryAgency is fancy-talk for being able to make reflective choices between alternative courses of action and to reflect on one's preferences.

Let me put the argument into standard form then I'll explain it in English:

(P1) Adults (humans) capable of exercising agency are paradigmatic examples of rights bearers.
(P2) Adults must be rights bearers because of some property that non-paradigmatic rights bearers don't have.
(P3) All adults capable of exercising agency possess the physical constitution that is necessary for exercising agency. Call this physical property X.
(P4) Agents who are prevented by certain obstacles from exercising agency are still carriers of property X.  Call these obstacles to exercising agency Y.
(P5) If we can show that facing obstacle Y does not affect the adult's status as a rights bearer because Y is a certain type of obstacle, we should accept that adults who face Y remain rights bearers in virtue of being carriers of X.
(C) By (P4) and (P5), adults who face Y remain rights bearers in virtue of being carriers of X.

Property X
Here are the important things to keep in mind: An adult is a rights bearer because an adult can exercise agency.  In order to have agency one must have a particular physical constitution (property X). That is, to have agency you need a brain that is organized such that you can make deliberative decisions.  So far so good.

Notice that being a rights bearer isn't tied to actual behaviors but a capacity for behaviors (deliberative action).  Why? Because if we said that you're only a rights bearer when you are making deliberative decisions then all the moments in between, like when you're sleeping or staring at your phone, you are no longer a rights bearer. Losing your rights anytime you sleep or look at your phone isn't a good result for a theory of rights.

With Andersson's argument, agency is grounded in having a physical structure (property X) and so, when you're sleeping you don't lose your agency (since your brain structure doesn't change in respect to being able to you being able act as an agent).  Obstacles to agency (condition Y) are times where the brain structures responsible for agency remain intact yet you temporarily can't or don't exhibit agency. For example sleeping, being in a temporary coma, or watching reality TV.  Under these and other similar conditions, you don't lose your status as a rights bearer since you have property X (the brain structure required for agency) at all times.

So far we've said that rights bearers are creatures that have the physical structures necessary for agency. Creatures without these structures and who don't have agency--even with nourishment, protection from disease and trauma won't develop these structures. Did you notice the sneaky move yet? If not, I'll explain it in a moment.

Condition Y:
Lets look at (P4) and (P5) because they're (obviously) important.  (P5) is pretty uncontroversial so we'll grant it. (P4)  says that when you temporarily cease to exercise agency you are still an agent so long as you actually possess the physical brain structure required for agency (I'm italicizing here for a reason).  To quote
The defining aspects are the physical properties that are necessary in order to be able to exercise agency.  There is no essential change in her defining aspects in the sense that the entire physical constitution of the subject that is necessary in order to exercise agency remains unaltered while she is in such a condition: [. . .] she remains a rights bearer while in such a condition [. . .]. (p. 180)
Has the quote caused condition Y in you yet? (Has it put you to sleep?). A few more things about condition Y: it must be a temporary condition that the subject will spontaneously relapse from.  In other words, if you suffer major brain trauma that permanently alters the structure of your brain such that you will no longer be able to exercise agency, you can lose your rights bearer status.

Here comes the tricky part! Who needs the Quickee Mart! So far we've said that condition Y (e.g., sleeping) is a temporary obscuring of your agency and you don't lose your rights-bearer card under condition Y (e.g., sleeping). That's because you still have the underlying physical structures for agency (property X).  Here's the big move:
By saying that the subject is in a temporary state, I merely mean that the subject at some point will get out of the state: I do not require that she has been capable of agency at some previous occasion. (p. 181; my italics)
Now the sneaky move is more explicit.  Essentially, Andersson is going to draw an analogy between an adult who temporarily loses their agency and a fetus that temporarily doesn't have agency. She's going to say that both of these temporary states are condition Y because they're both temporary.

Analysis: Disanalogy
There's an important disanalogy: The adult actually has property X (the physical structure required for agency) but is temporarily impeded (by condition Y) from using it. Once the adult wakes up (i..e, once condition Y ends) he can exercise the agency that is undergirded by the relevant brain structure (property X) that he had all along. In the case of the fetus, the fetus doesn't have the brain structure for agency. That is, the fetus doesn't have property X--the property which Andersson claims is necessary for agency.

Notice that in the adult case we say that adults under condition Y maintain their right bearer status because they actually have property X. The fetus, however, doesn't actually have property X. But Andersson's whole argument for what makes a rights bearer a rights bearer relies on the assertion that one must actually have property X. The case of the adult under condition Y and the fetus under condition Y differ in this important respect. What confers rights-bearer status? Is it having property X or not? Whatever you think about the rights status of fetuses, this particular argument doesn't support the conclusion it's intended to support because it's inconsistent in respect to what physical property confers rights-bearer status.

The problem for Andersson is that there's an asymmetry between continuing to be an agent when one's agency is temporarily blocked via condition Y and being treated as a full agent even though one has never in fact been one. The issue is: Should you be accorded some particular moral status (a) because of some property you will have at some point in the future or (b) because of properties you actually have. In previous sections Andersson argued for the latter and if it's the latter then fetuses aren't rights bearers but animals could be depending on what the magic right-bearing property is. If it's the former, then fetuses are rights bearers. But Anderson didn't argue for this "potential" claim-- she argued for the latter. You are a right bearer in virtue of actual properties.

Andersson's solution to this asymmetry is to argue that “there is no morally relevant difference between possessing the physical constitution necessary in order to exercise agency, and developing such constitution” (p. 182). That is, we ought to give equal moral consideration to (a) actually having a morally salient property and (b) being able to develop that property under normal conditions. Call this the equivalency principle. The burden of proof lies with Andersson to give us an argument for why what is merely potential ought to be given the same moral consideration as what is actual. Putting the two on par could lead to counter-intuitive results—especially if we generalize this principle to other areas of moral reasoning.

Suppose in the not too distant future biological markers are identified for paedophilic behavior. The marker is a necessary condition for paedophilic behavior. At 4 years old Bob is diagnosed with the known precursor to the biological marker for paedophilic behavior. Adult pathological murderers possess the physical constitution necessary in order to be a paedophile. Baby Bob will develop the physical constitution in order to become a paedophile. It follows from the equivalency principle that there is no morally relevant difference between adult paedophiles possessing the physical constitution necessary to act as a paedophile and Baby Bob developing such a constitution. We should treat both the same.

Doin' The Two Step
There's a way for Anderson to respond. She can say that to determine whether a creature is a rights bearer and how many rights it has is a two-step process. Step one is to determine whether something is or isn't a rights bearer. If something has the potential to develop agency then it's a rights bearer. If it doesn't have the potential for agency (via having the potential to have property X) then it isn't an agent. Once you've decided whether it's a rights bearer you decide which rights that creature has relative to how close it is to developing full agency (i.e., having property X). For example, as a child comes closer to developing full agency, it gets more and more rights. This line of reasoning seems to conform with Andersson's thoughts: “The content of the rights [fetuses] are owed vary depending on their developmental level” (p. 184).

Suppose we accept this account. There are still problems. If fetuses gain rights depending on their developmental level then it appears that the content of particular rights is grounded in particular capacities (which are themselves grounded in physical structures). We might say that a child has a right to be free from unnecessary suffering because it has the capacity to suffer (because it has a central nervous system). But if a child gets this particular right in virtue of a particular capacity and structure, it seems inconsistent not to extend this particular right to every other creature that has this capacity/structure. To avoid this problem Andersson can argue that fetuses come into the world with all their rights but not only is this implausible but she denies it herself.

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

From Experience to Metaphysics: A Summary

This post is a summary of "From Experience to Metaphysics" by Jiri Benovsky.

Check it. We'z about to go to da deps of filosofy: metaphysics. Metaphysics be about da fundamental nature of reality. It's not that new-age crap about pyramids with eyes you see in book stores. It's even deeper!!!!1!!!!11!1!!(I know, what could possibly be more profound than "everything happens for a reason"?)

The Argument in a Nutshell
(A) Our metaphysical theories about the world are grounded in intuitions that we get from the particular way we happen to perceive the world.  But the way we perceive the world is contingent on our brains' perceptual architecture. The architecture could have been otherwise and thus could have caused us to perceive the world differently and in ways that favor different metaphysical theories. 
(B) Also, the way we perceive the world is compatible with mutually exclusive metaphysical theories. 
(C) Given (A) and (B), we should avoid appealing to intuitions based in perception to support metaphysical theories.

I'll illustrate the main argument instead of explaining it. It'll make it easier to understand.

Case 1
You perceive an apple on a table.  You say "look, there's an apple and a table over there." Bob looks where you are looking and says "Oh, I see them, and I also see a tapple." "What's a tapple?" you ask. Bob be like, "a tapple is an object made up of the top of an apple and the left-side of a table." Then you be like, "dafuk you talking 'bout? There ain't no tapples, just apples and tables." Bob be like "no, dude! It's right there! You're looking right at it!"  

You walk over and touch the table and apple and you be like, "dawg, this is a table and this is an apple. I can touch them, see them, taste them, and smell them. Ain't no tapples up in herr." Bob walks over and touches to top of the apple and the left side of the table and he be like "dawg, this is a tapple. I can touch it, see it, smell it, taste it. It's real, dawg."

Why do we say tables and chairs exist but tapples don't? The problem is that our perceptions support both claims about what exists. Our perceptions are consistent with both the existence of only apples and tables and with the existence of tapples too. You could argue against Bob that, "no, we perceive tables and chairs in a way that's different from the way we perceive tapples.  But Bob could--to quote Missy Elliot--flip it and reverse it and give you the exact argument for the existence of tapples. That is, he could say "yes, you're right. We do perceive tapples differently from tables and chairs, that's why tapples exist and tables and chairs don't." Ah, snap! 

To summarize, if only tapples existed our perceptual experience would be the same as if only apples and tables existed. It would also be the same if all three objects existed. Our visual experience of the world can't tell us the "right way" to chop it up into objects.  Our perception of the world will always be consistent with an infinite number of ways of dividing phenomenal experience into entities and parts.  Because of this fact, Benovsky argues that when we do metaphysics we shouldn't appeal to intuitions grounded in how we perceive the world.

Case 2
Lets look at one more example. Perceiving a table and an apple, you be like "check out that table and apple." Bob be like, "I don't see no table or apple, alz I see is fundamental particles arranged tablewise and applewise."  You be like "Dawg, I can freaking sit on the table and eat the apple. Tables and chairs exist. There's a freakin' table and an apple over there." Bob be like "Dude, you ain't sittin' on no 'table'. You be sittin' on a collection of fundamental particles arranged in a table shape. Tables don't exist, only fundamental particles do. They can vary their arrangements into table shapes or apple shapes." (Bob started talking fancy-talk) 

Again, we see that two competing metaphysical theories about the fundamental units of existence (macro objects vs fundamental particles) are compatible with the same perception. Both theories will yield exactly the same observations. If only fundamental particles exist and can be arranged tablewise and applewise, our experience of the world will be exactly the same as though tables and apples are real objects too. For this reason, Benovsky argues that metaphysical arguments shouldn't rest on intuitions derived from how we perceive the world.

Case 3
Let's do one last example because this is the most interesting case.

As you and Bob argue, over the course of the next few months, the apple slowly changes from a crunchy, red, shiny object to a brown rotten object. On day 67 you be like "Dawg, that rotten apple tho." Bob be like "oh, you mean the apple that used to be crunchy, red, and shiny?" You be like, "No, that ain't the same apple. The apple from 67 days ago was crunchy, red, and shiny. This one be brown and rotten. It ain't the same apple."  Bob be like, "Dawg, that's what happens when apples get old. They turn brown and rot. It's the same apple." You be like "Dude, no it ain't the same apple. How can two things be the same if they don't have the same properties? Same means no differences. There are differences between the apple from 67 days ago and this one. In fact, there's nothing the same about them. They ain't the same apple."  Bob be like, "Dawg, why you tripping? You saw it change gradually er' day. It's the same apple." You be like, "Dude, no. I saw lots of different apples, each one very similar to the one I saw before it. They were all different apples."

Again, we notice that both metaphysical theories equally conform with our observations. There could be some entity whose properties change over time or sequences of similar objects that disappear and are replaced at a rate too fast for us to notice. It's true that the common sense view is that objects persist over time but if a string of object replacements happened at a fast enough rate, we'd perceive exactly the same thing as the latter.  After all, that's how movies work: strings of new images passing before us at a rate of 24 frames per second create the illusion of a single object's continuity over time. That single apple you see "rotting" on the screen is in fact a series of distinct images of apples, all of which are slightly different from the previous one.  

Our bias towards endurantism (the theory that objects persist over time) results from how we (contingently) experience the world. Just because we favor one way of interpreting our perceptions doesn't mean this is actually how the world is. Our perceptual system could have worked differently giving us different experiences of the world...

Let's look at the cognitive science to see why we shouldn't put too much stock in metaphysical intuitions grounded in our perception of the world. Benovsky says we should be skeptical of perception-based reasons for endurantism because the way we experience the world is (i) contingent (our brain could have been configured differently resulting in different types of perceptions) (ii) fully compatible with the world being perdurantist (movement/change results from the successive emergence and disappearance of similar objects). If this sounds loco, welcome to philosophy.

Cog. Sci Data: Humans Attribute Spacio-Temporal Continuity Even When It Isn't There
Click on the link:
When the experiment starts 4 dots will blink. You have to track them for the duration of the (short) experiment. Do not read further until you do the experiment.
Notice that when the dots go behind the bars you track them as though the object coming out is the same one that went in. But the dot that goes behind the occlusion isn't the same as the one coming out. Each moving dot is not one dot but a series of dots appearing and disappearing in succession across the screen which give the illusion of a single dot moving across your screen that persists over time. Our brain attributes spacio-temporal continuity to the series of distinct dots. 

Again, this is how movies work. Imagine watching a movie of a ball crossing the screen. There ain't no one ball that persists over time. There are a series of distinct ball images being projected at 24 frames/second which gives the illusion of a single ball traveling across the screen. Ain't no ball.  Nope.  Your mind created it.  

And here's the crazy part. You can even know that your brain is creating the illusion of a single persisting ball going across the screen but you still won't be able to shake the illusion. You aren't able to see the 24 distinct ball images/second.  Our brain constructs an image then we perceive what our brain constructs. We don't perceive "raw" reality.  Our brain has a bias towards attributing spacio-temporal unity to series of like objects coming in and out of existence.  We can't make the distinction even if we wanted to.

But wait! There's more! If a series of objects are coming in and out of existence across a screen at the right speeds, when they temporarily go behind a bar and come out in the same trajectory, we'll attribute spacio-temporal unity even if their shape and color get changed on the exit.  For example, a series of squares rapidly come in and out of existence across the screen giving the illusion of a single square moving across the screen. When that square goes behind a bar and comes out with a different shape and color, we still think of it as the same object so long as it follows the trajectory of the previous sequence of squares. Our brain causes spacio-temporal continuity to trump property change! But how is the new object the same object as the square if it isn't a square anymore? Saying the red crunchy apple and the brown rotten apple are two different objects isn't sounding so crazy after all...

The Bottom Line
Our perceptions are consistent with competing metaphysical theories. We can be biased toward one theory based on the contingent way human brains happen to work.  Our brains force one interpretation on the raw data that is sometimes inconsistent with the way we know it to actually be.  However, even when we know that something isn't as we perceive it, we still can't help but perceive it a certain way. Even if you wanted to perceive a movie as a series of still frames, you couldn't do it because of your brain architecture. Your brain processes the data and constructs an image that you perceive. What you perceive isn't "raw" reality but an interpretation that your brain constructs. 

Some cool TED talks on how our brain constructs reality:

Sunday, October 19, 2014

Applied Philosophy: How to Spend Your Free Time Meaningfully

A big trend in the management/self-help guru industrial complex concerns maximizing productivity.  While I think this can be a worthy goal in some respects, I think it misses the big picture.  What I think we ought to be doing is looking for ways to maximize the value or meaningfulness of what we do with our time.  For, what does it matter if you've maximized productivity of activities devoid of value or meaning?

When I was teaching English in Argentina there was a video series I'd use to teach my business students. I'm not sure if these videos were intended for teaching English but the content was at a level that most intermediate students could understand.  Anyhow, the guy who created the series was one of these management guru guys.  There was a surprising amount of good advice in those videos.  One line that always stood out to me was "everything you do in life either brings you closer to what you want or takes you farther from it; nothing is neutral."  There may be exceptions to this but I think by and large it holds up as a good guiding principle for how to prioritize what to do with the limited time in your day and your life. 

If we suppose that this idea is a good heuristic, what happens when we apply it to both our daily decisions and life plans regarding what we do with our free time?  I think this is worth considering since free time is perhaps our most precious resource. One thing I notice immediately is that I waste far too much of my time on social media and doing nothing in particular online.  Even though it's supposed to be relaxing down time, I always come away feeling less relaxed and that now I need to do something to relax from the supposed relaxing activity! Truly, it does not get me the things I want to get out of my free time and it takes me away from them.  I find the contrast particularly strong whenever I read a book instead.  I can never remember a time after having spent 30 minutes to an hour or two reading thinking to myself "well, that was a waste of time!" 

Compare that with time spent going through your social media news feed, debating people online, or just clicking on random articles and videos (not including this article, of course!).  I rarely ever think to myself "well, that was time well spent!".  No, usually I feel as though that is lost time that I'll never get back.  And I rarely feel rejuvenated ready to get back to my regular work. Of course, there are occasions where spending unstructured time online can be fruitful, but I think they are the exception rather than the rule.  There have been instances where I've found valuable articles in my newsfeed that I wouldn't have found otherwise and where an online debate yielded worthwhile results.

Here's what I consider to be a big problem.  The type activities that are rewarding require deep immersion and engagement.  The environment of the internet doesn't easily provide this.  To be sure, the internet provides great content, but the way we access it gets in the way of deep meaningful engagement. We may be reading an insightful article, listening to an engaging podcast, watching a great video online but facebook, twitter, email, etc... are open in the background (both on our screen and in our minds) and prevent most of us from the deep immersion that makes an activity feel worthwhile.  In short, the media gets in the way of the value of the content.

So, what can be done to solve the problem? I haven't completely solved the problem but I've found a few things that work and I'm working on other solutions as I try to squeeze out as much value from my precious free moments.  Here are a few that have worked so far.

1. I print the articles I want to read then put my computer (and phone) in the other room while I read.

2. When listening to podcasts or watching (educational) videos, I put my computer on a table half-way across the room so I can't touch it.  Or I'll download the podcast onto my ipod then put my computer and phone in the other room while I listen.

3. (New one) When I go on walks with Otis, I leave my phone at home so I'm not messing with it. This way I get to actually enjoy the walk.

4. When I read books, I put my phone and computer in another room.

These are just a few ideas that have worked for me and have helped me more fully enjoy my free time.  If you have any suggestions that have worked for you, please share! The more meaningful I can make each moment, the better!

Friday, October 17, 2014

A Problem for Libertarianism

The Jargon
Lets get it out the way, shall we?

Negative rights place obligations on others to abstain from doing something.  The most common example of a negative right is freedom of speech. My (negative) right to freedom of speech places an obligation on others (in most cases, the guvamint) to abstain from restricting my speech.

Positive rights place obligations on others to do something.  For example, if I have a positive right to health care and shelter, that places obligations on others to provide it.

Self-Ownership (and Ownership) Thesis:  Our rights are grounded in ownership.  For example, my right to avoid harm without consent is grounded in the fact that I own my body and you're not the boss of me! My right to do with my property as I see fit is grounded in the fact that I own my property.   My (negative) right to not have my property taken away or used without my consent in grounded in the fact that I freakin' own it, man! It's mine! mine! mine!

Overview of Libertarianism
Just like many broad categories it's tough to pick out exactly what defines libertarianism.  Here are a couple of things that would describe most (but not all) libertarian positions:

(a) Individual rights are more important than community rights (some say there aren't any community rights) or social good. In short, appeals to social good cannot override individual rights.

(b) Strong emphasis on negative rights rather than positive rights.

(c) Strong commitment to (individual) property rights.

(d) Self-ownership as the genesis of rights; that is, your property rights (including over what happens to your own body) arise out of the fact that you own your property (including your own body).

(e) Commitment to state neutrality on conceptions of the good.  That is, the state should be neutral on what sort of life people should pursue.  People should be free to pursue whatever kind of life they want.

(f)  People should be able to do with their property whatever they please so long as they don't harm others (without consent).  Harming others is impermissible because it's a violation of their negative rights that arise from self-ownership.  That is, since you don't own other people, you can't cause them any harm without their consent.  It's important to add that harm is subjectively defined.  Other people don't get to tell me what counts as harm to me.  Only I decide if and how much something is harming me.

(g) Since rights are grounded in self-ownership they are not contingent upon considerations of social utility.  In short, even though it might bring about some overall social good to harm an individual or a small group of individual, you can't do this.  You can't because rights don't come and go based on utility.  They are grounded in ownership and so long as you own youself or your property, you have those rights. (More on this later).

(h) There is a conspicuous absence of positive rights and positive moral duties toward others.

The Problem for Libertarianism
The problem I'm going to discuss comes from "Backing Away from Libertarian Self-Ownership" by Sobel.  I've added some of my own thoughts near the end.

Often libertarian reasoning is invoked by the wealthy to provide arguments against redistributive taxation policies.  "This is my money, I earned it with my body and/or mind so it's a violation of my (negative) rights for the guvamint to take it and give it to other people.  Mine! Mine! Mine!"

The core principle grounding who gets to decide how property is used, recall, is the self-ownership thesis.  You cannot take, use, or harm the person (i.e., body) or property of another. Ownership confers negative rights.  Libertarians always be like "you can't violate harm me cuz you don't own me! I own me! Even if you cause me a mild amount of discomfort, you've violated my rights.  Don't violate my rights!"

This is all fine and dandy until we look at the other side of what libertarians want to claim: unrestricted power to do with one's property as one wishes.  "It's mine! mine! mine! so you can't tell me what to do with it!"  This sounds fairly reasonable in many contexts.  Many of us would agree that in many cases it's undesirable for the guvamint or others to legislate how we can use our property and how we can live.

The problem is when you try to combine both desires.  To illustrate the problem consider the following situation.  You own a widget factory.  It's yours.  Ain't no guvamint gonna tell you what to do with it.  Being the kind-hearted libertarian that you are, you decide to produce widgets. Unfortunately, your factory emits a pollutant that will cause 1/1 000 000 000 people to get a minor skin rash.

By libertarianism's own logic, you may not produce your widgets because you are violating someone's negative rights.  You don't own their body so you can't impose the harm from the rash on the 1/1 000 000.  You don't have their consent to give them a rash, and so, you can't make widgets.

This is the libertarian problem:  They want near absolute freedom to do whatever they want to do with their own property and life but they also want absolute prohibitions on unconsented harm. In a highly interconnected world it's pretty much impossible to do anything that isn't going to minimally harm someone in some way.  So it looks like either the libertarian has to propose some sort of minimum allowable rights infractions or they're going to have to accept that their freedom to do wudever dafuk dey want is a lot more constrained than they might have thought.

There's an obvious solution.  Suppose it turns out that the widgets make a significant number of people better off.  Lets say, 10 000 people have their lives improved because of the new widgets.  Well, there's our solution: If enough people end up better off, then surely we can allow trivial unconsented harms.

Unfortunately, the libertarian can't take this route for a few reasons.  First, he is an absolutist.  You cannot cause harm without consent--no matter how small. Amongst other things, that would imply that you are deciding for someone else what constitutes a trivial harm. And even if you could cause unconsented harm it couldn't be justified by an appeal to social utility.  Attaching rights to social utility is exactly what libertarianism seeks to avoid.  You cannot "purchase" rights violations with social utility.  Rights don't depend on contingent social circumstances.  Rights are grounded in ownership.  So long as your ownership claim is secure, so are your rights.

It looks like the libertarian has to make one of three concessions if she wants to avoid pollution-type case like the one above: She can (a) bite the bullet and accept that trivial harms are strong constraints on freedom to do whatever one wants with one's property, (b) accept some minimum allowable threshold for rights violations, or (c) deny that rights are entirely grounded in self-ownership. Perhaps the approach most aligned with common sense is (b): the libertarian should stipulate a minimum level of harm below which property rights may be violated. This could be done one of two ways. The first way would be to appeal to a ratio between social utility and harm. Once the ratio reaches a certain amplitude, rights violations are permissible. The second way would be to stipulate a minimum level of harm below which rights violations are permissible—regardless of circumstances.

Justifying a Minimum Threshold
Sobel offers a version of the first solution. For the reasons I've mentioned above, this strategy fails right out of the gate (for libertarians) because rights become contingent upon considerations of social utility, exactly what the libertarian seeks to avoid. The degree of harm that's permitted is proportionate to the amount of social good created.

Prima facia, the second method seems less problematic until we consider that wherever the minimum threshold is set, it will have to be justified on some grounds. An arbitrary threshold will lack a principled justification. Unfortunately for the libertarian, it seems like any reasonable attempt to justify a minimum will probably refer to social utility1. But, as we have seen, this is exactly what the libertarian seeks to avoid. Rights, argues the libertarian, are not contingent upon social utility. Doh! 

1A libertarian could argue that it's not considerations of social utility that justify the minimum but of a preference for positive freedom over negative rights. This fails for similar reasons: (1) a preference for positive freedom (i.e., if positive freedom can trump negative rights in some cases) will be self-defeating. If you can violate someone else's property rights to exercise your own, then they (and others) can do the same to you thereby minimizing the control you have over your own property which in turn diminishes your ability to use it. (2) It seems as though most arguments for why positive freedom should supersede a negative right will make an appeal to social utility. E.g., I polluted because I just feel like it vs I polluted because the product of my factory will save/improve thousands of lives. We are unlikely to be compelled by the former.   

A Proposal Libertarians Will Hate
I've been thinking about  a way out for the libertarian that is consistent with their commitments, except they probably won't like it.  Too bad.  I'm the boss of me!  I'm working on developing a view that allows shared ownership rights.  If the community is a partial owner in all things, including the individuals who make it up then libertarian reasoning allows appeals to community interests (because rights are grounded in ownership).  If community interests can be involved then we can return to something like the ratio view above but this time it will be consistent with libertarian logic.  

Very briefly, here's how I think it might be accomplished: the libertarian obsession with focus on individuals as the fundamental unit of analysis is empirically dubious.  We are not just individuals.  Our identity is also as a part of a group.  Biologically, psychologically, historically, and socially we are a part of a larger whole.  

There's an obvious objection here.  Yes, we are parts of groups and groups might even be "real" things but ownership requires agency and only individuals have agency.  Perhaps, but most of us already accept that groups can own things.  This idea isn't crazy.  For example, families, couples, and shareholders can all have shared ownership in property.   The proponent of the agency view would have to show why families can't own things.  Maybe they're right.  I'm not sure.

Anyhow, for my theory to work, I need to develop a concept of identity that is dualistic: we are individuals but we are also parts of a whole.  Both individuals and groups have ownership claims to the bodies that make them up. If the community ownership claim can be established via a dual identity theory, then libertarians can appeal to social good to resolve pollution-type cases because communities have rights in what happens to individuals (and their property) via their shared ownership claims.

I think this dual identity/ownership theory can also explain many of our intuitive judgments.  For example, the reason you can just simply use me for your own purposes or steal my things is because they are mine.  But we also think it's OK to use the property of others to produce a certain degree of social good.  It's OK to use your stuff because you are also a part of a whole.  You are part of that whole that benefits.

Anyway, like I said, it's a work in progress.  It may go nowhere and I've already thought of a couple obstacles.  Meh, we'll see. 

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

My Challenge to Alt-Med

Alt-med practitioners and proponents luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuve to talk about how no one would ever get sick if they just did x, y, z to boost their immune system.  Here's the thing guys. When push comes to shove, I don't think that you really believe your own hype.  But I could be wrong.  Fortunately I'm going to give you a chance to put your money where your mouth is.  So, here's your big chance to finally show all those naysayers and close-minded skeptics. 

All you have to do is accept (and complete) my challenge:

Step 1: Boost Your Immune System!!!!1!! (Naturally, of course)
Do whatever you have to do to "boost" your immune system.  Crack your back, align your chakras, breathe in a bunch essential oils, get needles stuck in you, eat only organic food, recharge your crystals, drink water (i.e., homeopathy), get a foot massage, buy a bunch of stuff on, Natural News, or Infowars, etc... Do all those things which "boost" your immune system that "they" don't want us to know about.

Step 2:  Fly to West Africa and Find an Ebola Outbreak

Step 3:  Cure People with Your Modality of Choice.
Of course, since your immune system has been boosted, you don't have to worry about catching Obama's ebola. Here's the fun part.  You also don't need to wear any protection when you help ebola patients because, as you say, the only way to get sick is if your immune system isn't "boosted." And yours is fully boosted! Yay!

If by some improbable chance you do catch ebola, just treat yourself with whatever natural cure you advocate or you can just buy something that "they" don't want us to know about from, Natual News, or Infowars.  Don't use big pharma's poisons!!!1!!11!!!

Normally, I would reject any medical evidence based on a single data point.  But if you can complete all three steps and come home alive, I will pay for your flight, recant everything bad I've ever said about your magic remedy, and I will become its biggest proponent.

I'm waiting...

Sunday, October 12, 2014

Applied Philosophy and Psychology: How to Stop Texting and Driving

One thing that blows my mind is the frequency with which I see people texting and driving.  It's absolutely mind-bottling.  In fact, because of it, my mind has been put in a bottle several times.  It could be confirmation bias, but I swear 1 in 4 drivers I see are either texting or talking while driving. The other 3/4 are probably between texts or phone calls.

Anywho, I'm not trying to put myself on a moral high horse because I did do my share of texting and driving.  And here's the crazy thing:  Like most people now, I knew it was dangerous!  So why did I persist for so long and why do others continue? And more importantly, how did I get myself to stop?

In this post I want to engage in a little moral persuasion using applied philosophy and psychology to try to help people stop texting and driving.  Basically, I'm going to recount how reframing facts about texting and driving got me to stop doing it.  Therefore, since I am a very large sample size, it will work for you too.  That's science! 

Aside: In psychology there is something called the "framing effect".  Basically, the idea is that the way information is presented to us can have strong effects on how we respond to it--regardless of the fact that the outcome is the same in both cases. Here's one of the most common examples cited in the literature (which I've modified):

Suppose 600 people have ebola (thanks, Obama!).  Treatment A is predicted to save 200 hundred lives.  With Treatment B, 400 people are predicted to die.  Which do you choose?  

72% of people choose Treatment A.  Notice, however, that both treatments yield the same outcome.  Framing them as either negative or positive influences our choices (we avoid negative-sounding outcomes).

Another common (real world) example is the difference in fines vs discounts. For example, In situation A you have a bill for $100.00 and the company offers you a 10% discount for early payment.  In situation B you have a bill for $90.00 but there is a $10.00 fine for late payment.  In most studies where consumers or subjects are divided into two groups along the lines of the above scenario, people overwhelmingly respond to fines, but not to discounts.  That is, a greater proportion of those in the fine group paid their bills early than those in the discount group. Notice, of course, that the outcome is the same.  Only the way the information was presented changed.

So why am I talking about framing effect?  Because, as you'll see below, one of the ways I got myself to stop texting and driving wasn't through acquiring new information (most people already know it's dangerous) rather it was through reframing the information.

Step 1:  Fact are so fun!
Lets get some facts on the table:  It's 6 times more dangerous to text and drive than it is to drink and drive.  Think about it.  Not "6 times more dangerous than driving under normal conditions" but 6 times more dangerous than driving while drunk.

Fact 2: You are 3x more likely to get into an accident while texting and driving than baseline.

Meditate on those risks for a moment.

Step 2: What Think You? (The Reframing)
Think about how you morally appraise someone who drinks and drives.  What do you think of their character or at least the nature of their action?  They are deliberately putting the lives of others and their own life at risk.  Most people I know think people who drive drunk are doing something morally reprehensible. 

Now, think about someone who deliberately does something that is six times more dangerous to the lives of others (and their own life) than driving drunk.  If we were morally disapproving in the first case, what is our attitude in this case?  

A side consideration is that, although it's a crappy excuse, people who drive drunk can at least claim their judgment was impaired when they decided to get in the car.  When someone texts while driving, the same claim cannot be made. The decision to text and drive is made with fully-functioning rational capacities. 

The upshot here is that, if we find drunk driving morally reprehensible then consistency requires that our moral judgment should be several times more severe toward those who consciously engage in even riskier behavior (even if we are the ones doing it). 

Step 3: Fix It for Me!
I really wish I could find the article I'm going to mention because I cite it often.  Anyway, there's a philosopher of technology that makes an interesting argument about the peculiar nature of cellphone technology.  To illustrate this unique nature, think about our interactions with conventional tools.  Suppose, for example, you are sitting at your desk with a hammer or a stapler next to you. Would you feel compelled to use or glance at either every couple of minutes?  Probably not.  But cellphone (and ipad and laptop) technology is different.  It demands our attention.  You can't just have a laptop or cellphone in front of you without constantly at least shifting your gaze to it and probably also having to check it for messages or surf the web.  We don't do this with hammers (at least I don't).

 I tell my students about this argument on the first day of each semester when I'm going over the syllabus.  They all nod their heads in agreement.  Then, after I've led them down the garden path, I spring upon them the real purpose of my referencing the article. I say: "And that's why in my class you must put your phone in your bag.  You may not have it on your desk or in your pocket because you will look at it. We all agreed that it demands that you do! The policy is for your own good!"  (Gotcha!)

Pro tip: Always get your audience to explicitly agree to the position you will be using against them before you use it against them.

All this to say that if you want to stop texting while driving, when you get in your car you will have to turn your ringer off and put your phone somewhere you can't see it.  I put my phone either in my backpack pocket or under my car seat.  Out of sight, out of mind.  

Step 4: Be a Judgmental Prick
This is the fun part.  In order to avoid relapse, I find it helpful to judge harshly anyone I see texting and driving.  When I see them, in my head I'm like, "what an idiot! they're going to kill someone!  I can't believe anyone could be so stupid as to text and drive!". After being a judgmental pick about something I used to do, I'm much less likely to do it myself!  See! Sometimes being a judgmental asshole can be good! It saves lives, especially children's lives.  Yes, that's right--I said children's lives.  

Pro tip: Whenever making a moral argument, always appeal to the lives and wellbeing of children.  It's a time-tested tactic, without which no politician could ever make an argument.

And with that, I end.  If you are like I was and find yourself texting and driving even though you know better, I hope this article sends on the path to righteousness and saving children's lives while being a judgmental asshole.

Let me know if it works for you! (So we can science).