The moral ambiguity of Vietnam

Today I would like to discuss a topic related to the Vietnam War. Specifically, I would like to focus on the Viet Cong, the unorganized bands of North Vietnamese civilians who were the American troops’ fiercest enemy for the majority of the war. The VC gained a reputation for their cunning guerilla tactics and for the brutal atrocities they committed against South Vietnamese civilians. Ever since, most Americans consider the VC an object of contempt and hatred. The North Vietnamese, on the other hand, are grateful for the VC’s actions, which they believe to be valiant and just.

I would like to pose the following question: Speaking from a purely neutral perspective, how can we assess the VC? Are they heroes and martyrs, or are they brutal murderers who deserve only contempt?

Unfortunately, I believe that it is almost impossible to answer this question because of the problem of perspective. To Americans, the VC should be considered evil because they committed heinous war crimes against civilians and brutally murdered American soldiers with barbaric booby traps. To the North Vietnamese and communist Chinese, the VC are heroes because they did everything in their power to defend their homeland from foreign invaders. They justify the brutality by stating that it was necessary, which is certainly true—the VC recognized that the Americans were far superior militarily, so they saw the need to wear down the American resolve.

This issue of perspective is more permeating than one might think. For more examples, look at American history. During the American Revolution, American soldiers broke the previously established rules of war and did what was necessary to repel the British, who are clearly depicted as the villain of the whole affair. The image of the “minuteman” became glorified in American culture ever since. But how is this any different from the VC doing what is necessary to repel the foreign invader that was the United States? How is the image of a Viet Cong soldier—a rice farmer who, when necessary, will defend his homeland, different from the glorified minuteman? Next, look at the American Civil War. One of the events that helped to solidify the North’s victory was “Sherman’s March to the Sea,” in which Union troops burned Georgia to the ground to destroy the South’s economy. This, surely, is just as much of an atrocity as those the VC committed—but in America Sherman’s March is glorified, not mourned.

I suspect that Vietnamese history—and the history of every other country or ethnic group—embellishes details in similar ways. Vietnamese culture is based around their geography, which lends itself to frequent invasion. The Vietnamese have a spirit of endurance, which has managed to triumph over all of the other nations that have attempted to conquer it. Thus, the Viet Cong are undoubtedly seen as heroes, as they simply carried on the tradition of resisting foreign invaders.

This issue of perspective makes it extremely difficult if not impossible to truly assess the Viet Cong. As the Greek poet Aeschylus put it: “In war, truth is the first casualty.” This moral ambiguity is probably part of the reason why most Americans are averse to looking back at this period in history. Americans do not like to see themselves as the villains in history, but the Vietnam War puts us in exactly that position. Sadly, it is this war on truth that perpetuates war—if we are ever going to outgrow armed conflict, we must first outgrow our obsession with embellishing it.   

Philosophy in "Watchmen" (part 1)

Today I am going to discuss some of the subtle philosophical and political commentary in Zach Snyder’s film adaptation of the Alan Moore graphic novel Watchmen. If you haven’t seen the film, today’s discussion probably isn’t going to make much sense.

First, I’d like to look at some of the characters. Not surprisingly, each has his/her own extreme philosophical viewpoint, and it is these contrasting beliefs that make the film so interesting. (I say not surprisingly because Alan Moore often includes philosophy in his works, such as in V for Vendetta.) Let’s look at the characters and their views one by one.

Ozymandias: utilitarianism. Ozymandias is a classic example of utilitarian ethics. He is obsessed with the “greater good,” and had devoted himself to creating peace on earth. At the end of the film, Ozymandias destroys most of the world’s major cities to prevent the Cold War from resulting in a nuclear annihilation. In other words, he is “killing millions to save billions”—a textbook example of utilitarian morality. Likewise, Ozymandias has no moral qualms about killing off his fellow Watchmen because he is working for the greater good. Specifically, Ozymandias is an act utilitarian—he does not believe in any specific code that brings about the greater good; he believes that any action that maximizes utility is moral.

The Comedian: nihilism. Edward Blake (alias “The Comedian”) is a nihilist, at least in part. He sees the universe as random and chaotic, and states repeatedly that human nature is animalistic and chaotic. He laughs at the fact that humans are smart enough to build nuclear weapons, since they will probably lead to man’s destruction. Blake’s actions certainly reflect his nihilistic attitudes: in a sequence of flashbacks, he is shown gleefully gunning down Viet Cong in the Vietnam War, killing a pregnant woman, and shooting a crowd of protesters. However, Blake is not completely nihilistic in that he still cares for his own life and the lives of many others. Though he laughs at the inevitability of nuclear war, Blake still worries that Ozymandias’s scheme—which involves mass killing—will come to fruition.

Rorschach: moral absolutism. Rorschach, the film’s central character, is a paranoid conservative moralist, as evidenced by his narration of the film and by his actions. He believes in a clearly defined good and evil and that evil should be punished and destroyed. For the most part, his morality is act-based: an action is automatically good or automatically evil, even if it is well intentioned or brings about good results. Rorschach repeatedly affirms his hatred for what he considers to be immoral behavior, and repeatedly murders criminals mercilessly. At the end of the film, he refuses to submit to Ozymandias’ benevolent regime, and condemns his actions, which Rorschach sees as mass murder. Rorschach is also politically conservative—he states several times that he hates communists and people with “liberal sentiments.”

Dr. Manhattan: anti-anthropocentrism. Dr. Manhattan is one of the more bizarre characters in the film. After an incident in a nuclear research lab, Dr. Manhattan (as he is renamed) is given godlike powers, including the ability to manipulate matter in any way he likes. However, these powers also serve to isolate him from society—as the plot progress, he begins to distance himself from people more and more, eventually resulting in his self-exile on the barren surface of Mars. Manhattan is oddly anti-anthropocentric, his knowledge of the universe bringing him a strange sense of humility. He states at one point that the desolate surface of Mars “gets along fine without life.” He feels almost no sympathy for other human beings or for human suffering, stating that “a dead human being has the same number of atoms as a live one.” I have difficult coming to terms with this mentality—it is hard to understand what Manhattan means by a barren planet “getting along fine.” But that’s a discussion for another day. 

Later today I will examine some the film’s political commentary. 

Amendment 1 vs. the FCC

In the past I have mentioned my libertarian views on government in the social sphere and my firm belief in a complete separation of church and state. However, what many people do not realize is that even the most secular administrations in the US haven’t even come close to a true separation of church and state. I am disgusted that cultural and religious minorities are ostracized and prevented from practicing what they believe in. But that’s old news—if you are interested in hearing the long litany of government violations of the First Amendment, see one or two of my previous posts.

But today something new occurred to me: do the FCC and the MPAA rating system violate this principle as well?

As far as I can tell, the answer is yes. Remember that both the FCC and the MPAA rating system are chiefly based on violent content, sexual content, and language. I have no problem with censoring the first, since it has been proven that too much exposure to violence can be harmful to children. However, the other two criteria are another matter. I have found no research suggesting that exposing children to sexual content or foul language is harmful to them. Why, then, is it censored in the first place? This is where the first Amendment comes in. Sexual content is censored not because viewing it is harmful to our health, but because the government believes it morally wrong and bad for us on a moral level. The situation is similar for language: certain words or phrases are considered obscene by certain groups because of cultural or religious connotations, and for this reason the government bans them. This is the violation of the First Amendment: the government is not supposed to tell us what we are allowed to view based on any kind of moral rating system.

Of course, if you support the FCC and MPAA rating system censoring sexual content, you are probably thinking, “What about all the innocent, ingenuous children? Don’t they deserve protection?” Yes, of course. But think about what exactly you are trying to protect them from when banning sexual content. You are preventing them from viewing sexual content because you believe it is morally wrong for them to view it, not because it is physically unhealthy for them to see it. Again, this is what violates the First Amendment: the government is not allowed to tell people what is moral and what is not.

Overall, I suspect that a society that brings sexuality into the open is probably far happier than one that declares it a taboo and shoves it into the closet. But that’s beside the point; the main idea is that people should have the ability to view content that others view as immoral if they so desire. Though I doubt such measures will even come into effect in the US—too much Judeo-Christian moral influence—I hope that we at least recognize that what we are doing is religious and cultural tyranny. Though democracy is what makes America so special, allowing the majority to vote to oppress the minority violates the US’s most important principle: our pledge to protect civil liberties and allow citizens to believe whatever they want. 

Law and order (part 5)

The series on justice systems continues with a discussion of the relationship between justice systems and utilitarianism. Last time, I briefly delved into the subject of which is more desirable in a justice system, utilitarianism or fairness. I now realize that I was somewhat biased towards utilitarianism, and I assumed that it is true in order to use it to refute the justification of revenge-based justice systems. Today, I would like to delve into this topic in more detail.

Utilitarianism can be defined as “the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all persons.”

So, the first question we must ask is: Is utilitarianism in the best interests of the general public, and if yes, should it be the goal of the justice system to achieve this?

Though the answer might seem obvious to some, I am somewhat suspicious of this concept. Utilitarianism and the conservative interpretation of fairness are at opposite ends of the philosophical spectrum; the former ignores personal responsibility and free will, while the second puts far too much emphasis on these concepts. I have already discussed my distrust of extreme focus on fairness as defined in “Law and order part 4,” and I have similar sentiments toward extreme utilitarianism. I should also add that such extreme utilitarianism is impractical. It would most likely require either a centralized, powerful government or a sudden wave of idealism to sweep the world. The latter is highly unlikely, and the former probably couldn’t stay in power long enough to implement a utilitarian system. Why are these requirements? A truly utilitarian system cannot be implemented overnight, and to be effective it must have public support.

Furthermore, utilitarianism seems to be linked to justice systems that are based on treating society deterministically and ignoring the concept of free will. The Brave New World system is essentially utilitarian, since its main goal is to create the most amount of happiness at the expense of certain moral and social constructs. It also uses brainwashing techniques to keep society stable, which clearly follows the utilitarian belief of “greatest good for the greatest number.” This raises the question which I touched on briefly in “Law and order part 2” and “Law and order part 3”: Is it acceptable to treat society as if it is deterministic (for the purpose of implementing utilitarianism) even if we do not know if we have free will? Treating society as if it is deterministic has its obvious benefits, namely, the potential for an enormous amount of happiness to be created (i.e. Brave New World).  Even so, there are still some problems with practicality, but far fewer than in other systems.

Furthermore, I would like to explore some of the negatives of a society based on utilitarianism. An infinity number of types of utilitarian societies could possibly exist, but most could be placed on a spectrum between a strong centralized system and utilitarian anarchy. There are clear flaws to both systems. The centralized side is more focused on the State conditioning people to be happy, like in BNW. Though this can be effective, in the case of a catastrophe the society would collapse because this conditioning must be highly specialized. On the other hand, a utilitarian anarchy would be focused on people finding their own kind of happiness, but there are problems here too. For example, what if a particular person’s brand of happiness was sadism? There are no institutions in place to protect the society from this, or from any of the other problems that usually befall anarchy. Instead, the most effective utilitarian society would probably be more in the middle. A government could keep the peace, but on the whole it would not intrude into people’s lives unless they harmed others. But what kind of justice system would this middle-range utilitarian society have? My bet is on the rehab system. This system is the closest to utilitarianism, since it is focused on not causing any unnecessary pain. 

For those enjoying this series on justice systems and their justifications, I am sorry to say I am going to take a break from it (at least for now). Though I have been far from laconic when it comes to this subject, I can’t think of much more to add at the moment. However, I doubt this will be the last time the issues discussed in this series are mentioned on this blog—many of them are far too important to forget entirely. 

Law and order (part 4)

At last, here is the long-awaited continuation of the series on justice systems. This time, I would like to discuss justice systems, particularly the ones I previously mentioned, in relation to the concept of fairness. Fairness can be defined as being “just or appropriate in the circumstances.”

Now, the question I would like to pose is this: Should fairness be the objective of a justice system? In other words, is it in our interest to pursue the concept of fairness, and should our justice system reinforce this? 

This question is inherently related to our current revenge-based justice system, since supporters of this system would argue that inflicting punishment on a criminal is justified because it is “fair.” But I have to ask: is it really? I think we are letting the positive connotation of the word “fair” obscure the real issue here. Even if “fair” is defined as it is above, its meaning is still somewhat ambiguous. Rather than explore the tricky semantic and linguistic issues that are causing this problem, I will simply say this: If fairness can be defined and revenge or “an eye for an eye,” then it is not necessarily something a justice system should aim to achieve.

Additionally, fairness presents another interesting problem in relation to the current justice system. I would like to raise the following question: Assuming revenge is “fair,” should the severity of a criminal’s punishment be related to the damage to the victim, or should it be based on the criminal intent of the criminal in question? There are flaws with both, as I am about to show. Consider two people, a bum and a millionaire, who each committed the same crime, which is punishable by a fine. If the severity of the fine is based on the damage to the victim, both the millionaire and the bum will be fined the same amount of money. This is obviously unfair—to the millionaire, the fine is simply pocket change, but to the bum it is necessary for survival. If the fine is based on criminal intent this problem disappears, but it violates the concept of justice as defined above: the fine is no longer fair because it is no longer based on “an eye for an eye.”

I would also like to talk about the rehab system in relation to the concept of fairness. Critics of this system would argue that its utilitarian spirit is not “fair” because it fails to treat everyone equally, since it is based on the intent to commit a crime, not the severity of the crime. Again, rather than delve into semantics I will simply say this: If the definition of fairness demands physical punishment for vengeful purposes, its desirability must be called into question. 

Next, I would like to bring up something I have not talked about at all during this series: The concept of justice in relation to religion. This is by no means a concept alien to us; our own system is derived from religions principles, and we see religious influences in justice systems besides our own as well. I would first like to bring up the point of religious tyranny. If the religion the justice system is based on is untrue, then many people have been unnecessarily punished for no reason at all. This is an obvious flaw in this kind of a system, and it is the reason I detest religious tyranny in every form. Also, I would like to bring up an interesting paradox called the Euthyphro Dilemma: Is what is moral moral because God loves it, or does God love it because it is moral? Supporters of a religion-based justice system would disagree, saying that God is inherently good, so anything God supports is also good. However, I am inclined to disagree. This is clearly a paradox, and it is a striking blow to religion-based justice systems.

Additionally, I would like to bring up a point made by Plato in The Republic. One of the characters in the book, Thrasymachus, argues that justice is simply a tool that the rich or powerful use to take advantage of the weak. In some cases this is true—when corruption dominates a government, the rich and powerful can use the courts to achieve their own ends. However, this is not what Thrasymachus is really saying—he means that the concept of justice can be used in this way. This is only true in the case of religious tyranny or elite manipulation of government; only in these cases is the entire justice system intended to subjugate the general public. This can also be refuted by the concept of justice as a social contract, which all people submit to for the greater good. Though this is not always a conscious decision, it is often true of many societies.

Next time, I will talk about the relationship between justice systems and utilitarianism. 

Law and order (part 3)

In this post, I would like to delve deeper into the moral and practical arguments behind some of the systems I have described in the previous two posts on this subject.

The first point I would like to bring up is one that I touched on briefly in “Law and order (part 2)”: the death penalty. In a pragmatic justice system (one that works towards reforming criminals), the death penalty would only be carried out on an individual who could not be rehabilitated. However, in today’s justice system the death penalty does more than just punish those who have committed heinous crimes; it also serves to deter people from committing crimes in the first place. In a system such as the rehab system, there is no fear generated by the system to keep people in line. I am not sure if I really have an answer to this problem—the situation very much like give-and-take. The current revenge-based system causes unnecessary pain, but the rehab system does less to prevent crime. As far as I know, there is no way to prevent these inconveniences in either system.

There is another point I think I have left out of my previous posts: Is there an psychological illness associated with every crime, and if yes, does this mean that all criminals can be treated and rehabilitated by the “rehab” option? This question has some serious implications to philosophy and sociology. It essentially means that if the science of psychology improves, we will eventually be able to gauge a person’s metal ability or desire to commit a crime (before they have committed one) and send them to prison or rehabilitation simply on the basis of this intent. This raises enormous moral and practical questions. First, it means that the universe is essentially deterministic (at least to the point that it affects us). This would mean that the BNW system is morally justifiable, and the Heinlein and rational anarchist systems are unjustified because responsibility does not exist in a pre-determined universe.

On a similar vein, I would like to bring up one of the main themes of the book and movie Minority Report: Is it justifiable to send people to jail or rehab before they commit a crime as long is there is probable cause that they would commit it anyway? If the universe is deterministic, the obvious answer is yes. However, if human beings do possess free will, the situation is very different. This also raises another question: is it better to treat society as if it is deterministic even if it is not (particularly in terms of a justice system)? Today, we treat society as though it has free will, and our justice system is clearly a reflection of that. In terms of the systems I have discussed, this is something like the BNW system compared to the rational anarchist system: the first completely tramples over free will, but the second trips over itself and creates numerous practical flaws because it’s main goal is to protect free will and personal responsibility. Which is more practical, and which is more moral? Neither is very practical, but the BNW system is probably more practical than the rational anarchist system because it does not have to protect personal responsibility. In terms of morals, either decision creates a huge problem if we guess wrong: if we choose BNW but people do actually have free will, we have committed a huge moral mistake. On the other hand, if we choose the Heinlein system or rational anarchy and the universe is deterministic, we will have created a lot of unnecessary unhappiness. However, I would like to throw the question out to my readers: Is protecting free will worth the problems it causes, or is it better to treat society as if it is deterministic?

This brings me to the next point I would like to make, which has to do with the rational anarchy system. Since the government is not getting involved in the justice system in this kind of configuration, the exact purpose of the system is not clearly defined. In fact, what could happen is that different individuals with different ideas of justice could go about punishing people in any way they see fit (in fact, this did happen in the Old West). The result: chaos. This is a huge blow to the rational anarchy system; keep this huge flaw in mind when thinking about the points in the paragraph above.

In the next post, I will talk about justice systems in relation to the concept of fairness.

Law and order (part 2)

This is my second post on the topic of how the justice system could be better organized. Last time, I discussed three alternatives to the current justice system.

I now realize that every system I mentioned last time criticizes the revenge-based justice system currently in use almost everywhere around the world. However, it should not be taken for granted that this concept is inherently flawed, Because of this, the first thing I would like to bring up today is the conservative response defending the revenge-based justice system.

Defenders of the prison system/revenge based justice would argue that corporal punishment can put criminals “back on course” just as well as medicine or the “rehab” option. This is because, the argument goes, all human beings have moral sense, which can be cultivated through punishment, like the way puppies are trained not to “use the bathroom” in the house. The second part of the argument is mostly based on a theistic belief, so I will ignore it for now.

However, this claim can be mostly refuted. Criminals can be rehabilitated with medicine or help from the psychiatric community, which is one of the arguments from the “rehab” option. Though this science has not been perfected, it is at least as good as plain old punishment. Thus, the pain of punishment is not necessary. Also, though I will not refute the claim that human beings have moral sense, but not all forms of insanity are simply confusion—in many cases, people are actually psychologically damaged. In those cases, mere punishment is not enough to help them, since their moral sense is damaged. Thus, punishment for the purpose of cultivating moral sense is not all it is cracked up to be.

There is also another element I would like to add into this equation, the death penalty. This is an aspect of the three options I talked about last time that I did not delve into, but I feel it deserves mention. In terms of the BNW option, the death penalty would only be used if an individual refused to conform to society, such as if their conditioning failed. In the rehab option, it is much the same—it would only be used if a person were deemed incurable of their metal illness. However, this goes against the spirit of the rehab system, since it is geared toward saving lives and protecting people from pain. In terms of the Heinlein option, the death penalty would never be invoked, since Heinlein did not believe the government should be trusted with such power.

Also, I promised to discuss more alternatives to the current justice system, so here they are:

Jeremy Bentham’s “panopticon”: according to Bentham, an English philosopher, all convicts should be placed in a prison that is designed so that all of the prisoners believe there is someone watching them. Because of this, says Bentham, the prisoners will always behave correctly because they think they are constantly under surveillance. There are few practical problems—Bentham even included architectural drawings of how to build such a prison. However, there is one overriding issue: Will it actually work? I doubt it. We have this sort of a concept even now, and it is very ineffective.

Next, the “rational anarchist” option: abolish any form of justice in terms of the State, but give people the right to administer justice themselves in any way they see fit. As alien as this idea sounds, it has occurred many times in almost all pioneer-type societies. For example, in the Wild West, vigilantes would take action against criminals themselves. Like the Heinlein system, this one is personal responsibility to the extreme, and government has basically no role here. In pioneer societies and small societies, this probably works very well. There are enormous practical problems with this system on a large, scale, though. In counties with a weaker police force, such as Mexico, we can clearly see what happens when government does nothing—no one stands up to stop crime.

There is something else to discuss here, that relates to the “rational anarchist” system and the Heinlein system: Personal responsibility. Ignoring the flaws in both these systems for a moment, look at the purpose they are trying to achieve: to administer justice while not impinging on personal responsibility in any way. The Heinlein system does this by not forcing a person into treatment, and the rational anarchist system does this by abolishing the role of government in creating justice. In my mind, this begs the question “is it worth it?” Is personal responsibility such an important goal in a society, and should we sacrifice practicality for it? Your answer will depend on your political view.

Finally, I have a question for my readers, which will probably relate to which system they agree with (at least morally). The question is this: What is the definition of the word “justice” on a moral level? In part 3 I will explore this question, along with some of my other thoughts on this topic in general. 

Law and order (part 1)

Though we often forget it, our current justice system dates back to the Bronze Age, with Hammurabi’s Code “An eye for an eye.” Since then, revenge-based justice systems have dominated the world. This is also reinforced by our non-deterministic view of the universe in general—we treat society/people as though they have free will, even if they really do not. Today, our justice system in the US suffers moral problems because of this along with practical problems because of some of the system’s other aspects. In this post, and possibly a few following it, I would like to discuss alternative systems that would better suit our needs.

The first alternative I can think of is the “Brave New World” option: treat society as if it is deterministic, and pay no attention to personal liberties, privacy, individualism, or civil liberties (because such things are meaningless in a deterministic universe). In BNW, everyone is brainwashed, conditioned, and on hallucinogenic drugs to keep them happy 100% of the time, and there is no crime whatsoever because of this. There are actually a few positive things I can say about the system. You might think that this kind of setup is practical but not moral, but the truth is exactly the opposite, at least in terms of non-theist moralities. The BNW system does prevent crime, and it ensured the most amount of happiness for the people living in it. This makes it superior to other moral systems if judged on the basis of creating happiness (which may be the only way of comparing two moral systems without challenging the religious beliefs of either one). However, despite the BNW system’s moral superiority, it has many practical problems. It creates a populace that is unable to live in conditions beyond those they have been prepared for. Thus, should anything happen to the centralized government, the society would collapse and almost everyone would die. The author of BNW, Aldous Huxley, highlights this enormous flaw by showing how brainwashed people cannot perform basic survival necessities such as finding potable water or comestibles. Also, the BNW option is wildly impractical, as it takes a long time to carry out, and it represents the kind of thinking that the Western world has always opposed.

The next alternative is the “rehab” option. Supporters of this idea believe that the prison system should be abolished and replaced with clinical rehabilitation centers. The moral justification for this is that the current definition of “justice” is very similar to revenge, which is undesirable in the modern world. Instead, according to the theory, our justice system should work to make criminals better people ad help them return to society, not punish them, since punishing people serves no moral purpose. (Like the BNW option, the rehab system also has a deterministic slant to it.) On a practical level, supporters of the rehab idea will highlight every flaw in the prison system and explain how this will be fixed by the rehab system. This idea also has some genuinely good reasoning behind it, but there are some practical flaws in it as well. First, the science of psychology has not yet risen to the point where this can be entirely effective. Psychologists can be fooled—and therein lies one of the largest problems with the system. (Judges—who would be psychologists—could be tricked into exonerating a person who is actually guilty and psychologically unbalanced. Indeed, many convicts are probably able to answer questions with sang-froid  and poise when conditions require it.) Next, this system would not fix problems such as prison overcrowding, as supporters of the theory claim. In spite of all this, I agree with the original thesis: a justice system based on revenge, as ours is, serves little moral purpose (punishing a person to make them a better person does not count—this is a pragmatic and practical reason, not a moral one).

The next option I can think of is the “Heinlein” option, which is a system invented by (surprise) the science fiction author and philosopher Robert A. Heinlein (pictured). This system also denounces the idea of having a justice system based on revenge, but the solution here is a very different from either of the two above. Rather than treating society in a deterministic way, the Heinlein system protects privacy, free will, and personal responsibility to the nth degree while still working to reform criminals rather than punish them. This is achieved as follows: Upon being convicted of a crime, a criminal is given two options: to submit to psychological treatment (like in the “rehab” option) or to leave the society. They may allow themselves to be exported to other countries if possible, or they may enter Coventry, which is a large land area set aside for the purpose of housing those who refuse treatment. Inside of Coventry the government does not intervene in anyway, and no official government exists there. If a person wishes to leave, they must go through the “rehab” program before they are re-admitted into society. The main point is that even if the state finds the convict insane, he or she is still given the two options—thus, person responsibility is assumed at all times. However, there are practical flaws here too. Firstly—who is going to provide the land for Coventry? This sounds like a silly question, but I doubt any American would be willing to cede their land to the government, and it is highly unlikely that a large amount of people concentrated in one area would. Next, any problem associated with the “rehab” option can also apply to this one. Finally, there is the issue of what happens inside Coventry itself—governments, factions, and even terrorist groups may form, which may threaten the people outside of Coventry as well. Also, excessive force may be required to ensure that people stay there.

That’s all I have time for today. Next time, I will explore this topic a little more. 

The problem with Christmas decorations

As anyone in America knows, as soon as Thanksgiving rolls around a Christmas tree will appear in front of every town hall. I am not the first to bring up this controversial issue—atheists, Muslims, Jews, and many other have hectored mayors and town officials about this public display of religion. For the most part these people have simply been viewed as liberal malcontents who need something to complain about. Unfortunately, this is true of some of them, but others are civilly demanding equal representation, and rightfully so.

However, I have a problem with the fact that religious symbols are in front of a public building at all. The Bill of Rights dictates that the State will not discriminate against any religion; we have interpreted this to mean a separation of church and state. However, “state” is a slippery word—remember that it means all things related to government in the US, including local governments. This is because the US is a federal nation, and state and local governments are still technically a part of the whole. Having a religious symbol in front of a building obviously denotes the fact that the “state” is recognizing it—violating the implied separation of church and state.

Why do I have such a problem with this? I detest religious tyranny in every form, and I do not believe that religious organizations should have any political power whatsoever. In our Constitution and Declaration, we vowed to protect civil liberties, and promised that the majority cannot oppress the minority. However, this has happened in terms of religion. The majority of people in the US can be considered Christian, and this enormous Christian influence has corrupted our government, society, and social conditioning. The state openly flaunts religious symbols, recognizes religious holidays, and even bans certain acts or objects for moral reasons (examples: public nudity, polygamy, pornography, “cussing,” etc.) I feel we should correct this error, by abrogating public displays of religion by the state, and by ensuring that our government follows through with its promise to be separate from religion. 

Jerry was a man—then again, maybe not

The “Jerry” that I’m talking about is a character from Robert A. Heinlein’s short story “Jerry Was a Man.” Jerry is a “Joe,” or a genetically altered chimpanzee/human mix used to perform manual labor. In the story, a not-too-bright rich woman feels empathy for the Joes, and she files suit against the genetic engineering company Workers, Inc. that creates them. In court her lawyer argues that it is illegal for Workers, Inc. to create and kill these Joes because they are men, not creatures or property (hence the title).

In the story, the lawyer “proves” that Jerry is a man. First, he defines the term man:

“What is a man? A collection of living cells and tissue? A legal fiction, like this corporate ‘person’ that would take poor Jerry’s life? No, a man is none of these things. A man is a collection of hopes and fears, of human longings, of aspirations greater than himself—more than the clay from which he came; less the Creator which lifted him up from the clay…[manhood] is not a matter of shape, nor race, nor planet of birth, nor acuteness of mind. Truly, it cannot be defined, yet it may be experienced. It can reach from heart to heart, from spirit to spirit.”

He then calls up a Martian witness, who has “superior intelligence.” The Martians states cynically that there is little difference between an anthropoid such a Jerry and human beings. Finally, Jerry sings a song for the court, which is the conclusive piece of evidence that he is “a man." So, I have to ask—is this just Heinlein sounding off on personal responsibility like he usually does, or is there a legitimate idea here?

First, I think we have to look at the definition of mankind Heinlein uses. He says that being a man has nothing to do with physical form—instead, it is a more spiritual kind of definition. But which is correct? Unfortunately for the reader I’m going to have to drop a big old “don’t know” on this one. This is far too cosmic a question for me to even guess at. However, I will lay out what my analysis would be if the definition were a certain way:

If the definition of man is dependent on a physical characteristic, then it is safe to say Jerry is not a man.  If it is dependent on some spiritual aspect of humankind, we have many options. Some might argue that since Jerry is an artificial creation, he has no soul and is therefore not a man. Others, though, might say that the fact he was created in a test tube is not relevant—he still has a soul and is still a man. As far I am concerned, the argument over whether or not people have souls is not over, so I cannot commit to either option.

In any case, I think Heinlein is on to something here. We may very well face this dilemma in the future, as the science of genetic manipulation continues to advance. I hope that by the time we reach this point we will have solved this moral problem. 

The ever-changing purpose of culture (part 2)

In my previous post on this topic, I explained the justification for manipulating and changing culture with the purpose of creating the happiness. I also said that this culture would be flexible so that it can adapt to the flow of history. Additionally, I explain that it would be based around empirical evidence and case studies rather than on some baseless theory.

But, as I asked yesterday, what specifically would this culture include? My official answer would have to be “I don’t know.”  (This should come as no surprise—I am a pyrrhonist, after all.) I am neither an anthropologist nor a sociologist—I do not know enough to look at what we know about how people interact and devise a culture based on this.

However, I will make some educated guesses, as I do with everything.

First, I believe this culture will possess various types of group marriage and polygamy. Group marriage is not very common in human history, but has a very high success rate nonetheless. This is mostly because it offers a more secure environment for raising children for economic and social reasons and increases diversity. Group marriage can be arranged in the form of a “line” marriage, in which people continuously join the marriage as older members die or others divorce out of it. This creates a stable environment for raising children, which will, in theory, last forever.

Second, I believe nudity and sexual taboos have no place in this type of society. Though most of the benefits of nudism are false, there are still some benefits to it that have been scientifically verified. Additionally, sexual liberation would create a large amount of happiness in this new culture. Contraception can be made cheaper (or even free), decreasing the risks of increased sexuality in a society. By removing the moral and social stigma from sexuality, it can become a widespread source of happiness that is morally meaningless.

Next, I believe this new type of culture will be very diverse. Mixed-race individuals have greater protection from disease and often have longer life spans. Furthermore, diversity eliminates racism, which is an obvious source of unhappiness in our current culture.

Additionally, I think gender roles and sexual jealousy will almost disappear. Even today there is little use for them; they are simply leftovers from our early history and evolution, as Margaret Mead (right) proved. This would also end sexism, which, like racism, is a major problem in today’s society. The removal of sexual jealousy would aid in the introduction of group marriage, and it would also remove a current source of social tension.

You may be asking in horror: What about all the innocent children? Do they get no protection? Well, yes, of course they do! I did not propose anything that would physically or psychologically harm children (or anyone) in any way. However, I did not protect them morally in any way (by our current Judeo-Christian standards). The reason for this harps back to a previous post I wrote, which had to do with comparing moral systems. To sum it up, protecting children from the “horrors” above is a concept that only applies to our current moral system; in the one I described, they are not “horrors” at all, but the very pillars of society. 

Will we ever see such a culture? Probably not in a large society, but I would not be surprised if some smug philosopher, anthropologist or scientist tries to create such a system and some small utopianist group tries to implement it.

Will it work? I sure hope so. No promises, though. 

The ever-changing purpose of culture (part 1)

Before I begin—well done, Barack Obama! Congratulations on becoming President-elect! And congrats to all Democrats, who have won a majority in both the House and the Senate. Now, to business:

We often talk of human nature, using it as an example of something immutable and fixed. We speak of human beings as though they are incapable of changing—but this is far from the case. As George Orwell stated eloquently in his dystopian novel 1984,

“Men are infinitely malleable.”

I won’t take his word for it, though—I have many examples to back up this hypothesis. First, consider the oldest and most basic aspect of “human nature”—our reaction to food. For almost all of our history (more than 99%), the human response to seeing a morsel of food was to devour it instantly. This served us well when we were caveman and when agriculture was in its infancy. Today, though (at least in developed areas), things have changed. In the Western world, it is no longer desirable to do so—in fact, it is very undesirable to have that sort of reaction to food. The result? Our environment changed our nature; I am sure most Westerners can look at a plate of food without trying to eat it instantly.

 Next, look at the second-oldest piece of human nature: the sex urge. Over time, our attitudes and reactions to sexuality have changed—almost every religion and culture has a different view on it. It would be absurd to think that there is a set “human nature” when it comes to sex—think about the differences between a Puritan community, a polygamy cult, and a pagan clan.

Also, note that human nature does not just change over long periods of time—a perfectly civilized person “trained” not to gobble up food instantly will revert back to the caveman reaction if he has not eaten in a few days. Additionally, think about people live for long periods of time in different countries—often their philosophy, religion, and viewpoint changes entirely.

Similarly, culture is mutable and constantly changing. However, all cultures have some sort of purpose. The primary purpose of all cultures is to survive, even if the creators of a culture did not intend this (if a culture did not try to sustain itself, it would not be around for long). In modern history (circa 5000 years) cultures have been based around some kind of religion or moral system. The purpose of these cultures is to carry out the demands of a religion or belief.

I believe that culture and human nature can be mutated to improve quality of life. How, you may ask, can this be accomplished? The answer, I believe, has to do with the way we create cultures and moral codes, and how this can be improved.

Though all cultures undergo a kind of natural selection that weeds out the “weak” ones, human history is so short we have not really had time to see cultures evolve. Furthermore, all cultures, moral codes, or societies that have been designed with a specific purpose in mind have been designed according to someone’s theory of morals. None have been developed by empirical evidence.

You may not see the problem with this, so I’ll use an example to explain:

Consider a cannon. Cannons have been around since medieval times, when gunpowder was invented, and since then they have been aimed with gunsights. In the past few centuries, the theory of how gravity works (which affects cannonballs) has been changed repeatedly. However, all gunsights were not junked every time the theory of gravity was changed. Why? Because gunsights are based on observable empirical evidence, and changing the theory does not change the fact that cannonballs fly a certain way. This is how we must design a moral system—by basing it around evidence and changing the theory to fit. Thus, such a culture would be flexible, so that it could change if necessary. 

How would this be implemented in, say, the United States? Firstly, by finishing the job our Founding Fathers started—creating a total separation of church and state. (It would be naïve to say we have that now—laws prohibiting prostitution, polygamy, pornography, public nudity, and public “swearing” are just a few of the many counterexamples.) The reason for this is simple—morals based on religion do not necessarily create the most happiness possible. As Arthur C. Clarke puts it,

"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion."

Once we have achieved a totally secular society, we can create a new moral system with the aim of creating the most empirical happiness.

Exactly what will this new moral system will include? I will discuss that in part 2.