One-legged Goal

This is simply amazing!

Why I left the GOP

This article is worth reading , not so much because the author criticizes the worldview of the GOP, but because he describes, with great clarity, how our worldviews are constructed and preserved - and how inaccurate they can be when they are the product of confined experience.

I once hoped that the internet would prove an antidote to this process of epistemic closure, but I'm no longer as optimistic about this.

Joe Huster

P.S. I've got to change my profile.  I'm 52!

Vote For Cancer!

I just saw the following quote from Chris Rock.

“Saying that you won’t vote for Obama because he didn’t fix everything is like saying “Obama can’t cure cancer, so I’m voting for cancer.””

Okay.  Calm down!  I’m neither alleging nor implying that Republicans are cancer.  It was a joke.  Lighten up! 

That said, the underlying logic has a ring to it.  The Republicans created a huge economic mess.  Obama has not been able to completely repair the damage.  So I should vote Republican?

Interesting argument.

Joe H.

"He's Gone!"

In last night’s episode of “Breaking Bad,” Walter White (“WW”)  and Jesse Pinkman (“JP”) discuss the whereabouts of “Mike”- the muscle for the late Gus Fring’s meth distribution operation, and recent partner of WW’s and JP’s reconstituted operation.  Mike is about to be arrested by the DEA and is fleeing.  WW agrees to retrieve Mike’s drop bag - a bag containing a pistol and a large amount of cash - and bring it to Mike so that he can escape.

Their meeting did not go well.  It ended with WW killing Mike for nothing more than showing flagrant disrespect.  This, by the way, is new.  All prior killing by WW and JP was genuinely necessary for their own survival.  Here, WW kills because Mike refuses to respect him as the great man that he has become.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra, anyone?

But I digress.  When WW returns to their meth lab headquarters, JP asks him what happened?  He asks, “did you get the money to Mike?  WW responded “Yes.”  JP then asks “did he get away?”  To this WW responded “he’s gone.” 

“He’s gone?”  Well, that’s certainly correct.  Mike’s corpse may have been in the trunk of the car that WW and JP were standing next to, but he was definitely “gone.”  Still, everyone can see that WW was lying to JP.  He combined JP’s knowledge of what Mike intended to do, with a technically true but intentionally misleading response, to lead JP to believe something that WW knew was false.  It was a great moment of irony - made so by the obviousness of the lie.

What interests me is how partisans can sincerely deny equally obvious instances of this type of lie in Politics?  Take, for example, the Republican’s (now campaign foundational) claim that Obama said “you didn’t build that.”  Its certainly correct to note that Obama said that - he uttered those exact words.  But the context in which Obama uttered those words makes it unmistakably clear that he said that successful business people did not build the infrastructure and “amazing American system” that allowed their business to succeed.

Yet Republicans keep claiming, with a straight face, that Obama said successful people did not build their businesses - the government did.  Hence the constant refrain “we built it!”

This is an obvious lie - so obvious that it is hard to believe it would get any traction at all.  But it has. What’s obviously a lie between WW and JP is undeniably and irrefutably true when it comes from the mouth of Mitt Romney.

That’s psychologically remarkable!

Any thoughts?

Joe H.

Debt Debacle

This new article about Mitt Romney's business career at Bain Capital   by Matt Taibibi in the Rolling Stone is really disturbing, but worth reading nonetheless!

Joe Huster

The Implications of "Personhood"

Apparently, a lot of people have criticized this candidate for sheriff’s insistence that he will use “deadly force” to stop an abortion in his county.   I can certainly see why you would criticize him if you reject the “personhood” thesis – the claim that a fetus is a full human person from the moment of conception.  However, if you accept that thesis, the candidate seems to be on solid moral ground.

Granted, he’s not on solid legal ground.  We have not (yet) decided, as a matter of law, that a fetus is a person entitled to all legal protections extended to persons – including prohibitions against being killed.  The fact that a candidate for sheriff is proposing to act contrary to current law is surely troubling.

But millions of people, including the Republican presidential and vice presidential candidates, are on record supporting the “personhood” thesis.  They want that thesis enshrined into U.S. law.  You would think that their criticism would be limited to his plan to use his office to impose his own moral views on others, as if his views were the law.  You would expect their criticism to focus on the importance of enforcing actual law, not one’s own convictions about what the law should be.

However, you should not expect any criticism of the sheriff candidate's stated willingness to use “deadly force” to protect “innocent persons” from slaughter – particularly when you, yourself, believe that this is what abortion constitutes.  If you accept the “personhood” thesis, as millions of Americans insist that they do, then using deadly force to protect innocent persons, including multi-celled zygote persons, makes perfect sense.

As Dr. Seuss taught us long ago, “a person is a person, no matter how small.”

Joe Huster

Making Things Up

The theory that rape cannot result in pregnancy is somewhat shocking.  Thousands of women each year claim that they became pregnant as a result of rape, and there is nothing in the medical or scientific literature that would lead a rational person to doubt their allegations.  Nevertheless, many hard core pro-lifers – those who want to criminalize abortion without exception – accept that theory and, implicitly, call the women who claim that their pregnancies were the result of rape “liars.”

The logic goes something like this:  A fetus is, from the moment of conception, a full human person – a “someone.”  As a full human person, a fetus is entitled to the full range of legal protections enjoyed by all persons, including legal prohibitions against being killed.  The fact that you became a person as the result of rape is irrelevant to the question of whether prohibitions against being killed apply to you – as a “person” they do.  Therefore, a “rape” exception to an abortion ban is inappropriate.

The logic of this argument is airtight.  By that I mean the conclusion follows from the premises, logically.  If the premises are true, the conclusion is true.  However, the vast majority of people are uncomfortable with a law that would force a scared, fourteen year-old girl to bring her rapist’s baby to term.  It seems pretty obvious there should be an exception in such cases – and rightly so.

In a normal person’s mind, the presence of this kind of cognitive dissonance leads them to reconsider the premises they are relying on.  If I think there should be an exception for rape victims, perhaps I don’t really believe that a fetus is a full person from the moment of conception.  Maybe there is a period between conception and person-hood when an abortion is not tantamount to killing “someone.”  Of course, there is no logical problem adopting the view that, as unfortunate as forcing the young girl to bring her rapist’s baby to term would be, the law must do so in order to honor the embryo’s right to life.  However, there is a huge moral/psychological problem with adopting this view, which is why very few hard-core pro-lifer’s ever articulate it.

Enter the “make things up strategy.”  A certain faction of the pro-life camp has latched on to the theory that pregnancy cannot be the result of forcible rape.  They argue that a woman who is being forcibly raped is so traumatized that her body will not produce the hormonal “juices” that make pregnancy possible.  There is no science behind this claim.  It contradicts the testimony of thousands and thousands of actual women.  And it implies that all women who allege that rape caused their pregnancies are liars.  But no matter.  The theory dissolves the cognitive dissonance and exempts the believer from any need to reexamine their original premises.  I can go on believing as I wish.  Whew!

Unfortunately, this is not a strategy unique to the abortion debate.  The GOP has discovered that you can undermine any scientific finding or resolve any cognitive dissonance threatening an ideology by the following method:  (1) make something up; (2) find someone with impressive credentials to endorse it; and (3) keep repeating it until it sticks in people’s minds as “truth.”

The fact that it works for so many is really worrisome!

 Joe Huster

"Legitimate Rape"

The flap over Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin’s (R) “legitimate rape” comment is fascinating.  Akin claimed that in cases of “legitimate rape,” women have built in biological protections against pregnancy.

By “legitimate,” of course, Akin meant “genuine.”  His point was that rape exceptions (to abortion restrictions) are unnecessary because pregnancies do not happen to genuine rape victims.  His darker point, not explicitly stated but logically implied, is that every pregnant woman who has claimed “rape” is lying – she is instead pregnant as the result of her own voluntary decision and should, therefore, not be allowed to escape the consequences of her actions.

That this is pseudo-science serving a harsh ideology is undeniable.  That it is a repugnant tactical move (shaming pregnant women who allege rape) designed to exonerate an extremist political posture (forcing rape victims to carry their rapist’s fetus to term) is equally obvious.   But what interests me is why hard-core pro lifers – those who wish to criminalize all abortions without exception – resort to such silly, repugnant arguments.  Why don’t they just stick to their “personhood” argument?  After all, if you believe that a fetus is a “person” from the moment of conception, you have a rather straight-forward argument in favor of banning abortions – namely, abortion kills someone who has a right to life.

I suspect there are two reasons.  First, very few people believe that a zygote is a “person” or a “someone.”  Given the way we use those words, and what we normally mean when we use them, a multi-celled entity, however “human” and “alive,” does not qualify as a “person.”  Granted, some people disagree.  But in cases of such disagreement, there really isn’t anything to say.  When I meet people who insist that zygotes are “persons” or “someone’s” – and, as a Christian, I have met numerous people who took this position – I simply say that we’re using these terms in fundamentally different ways.  If you think a zygote is a “person” or a “someone,” fine.  Given what I mean when I use these terms, I don’t.

BTW, even people who believe that zygotes are “persons” often argue on safer ground.  Consider the claim that “human life begins at conception.”   This statement has the virtue of being undoubtedly true.  It has the additional virtue of substituting the term “human life” for the term “someone.”  The apparent strategy is to get the concession on “human life,” and to then suggest that “human life” necessarily implies “someone’s life.”

What this argument strategy implicitly denies is the possibility that an entity could be (1) alive, and (2) human, and (3) not (yet) a someone.  But to most people, upon reflection, this appears to be a distinct possibility.  Consider the millions of fertilized human embryos currently stored in freezers.  One day they might be unfrozen, implanted in a womb, and develop into a baby born to a loving mother.  Such embryos are certainly human.  They are also alive.  But are they a “someone?”  Are there millions of “persons” in the freezers?

If you think the answer is “no,” as I do, then you can see why the argument “life begins at conception” does not save the personhood rationale.  That is because the description “not someone” is compatible with “alive” and “human.”

Additionally, there is a strong possibility that the “personhood” argument is not nearly as strong as it initially looks.  That is, even if one concedes that an embryo is a “person” from the moment of conception, it may not follow that abortion is morally impermissible, or that it should be outlawed.  On this point I’ll leave you to peruse the most famous (and arguably the most enjoyable) philosophical article ever written on this topic by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson.

Joe Huster  

Pants on Fire! - Redux. UPDATE

Talk about an unrelenting liar!

I just watched an ad-clip in which Mitt Romney accused President Obama of “raiding” the “Medicare Trust Fund” to the tune of $716 Billion, and then using the money to fund “Obama Care.”  Even a cursory review of the facts shows that this claim is utterly preposterous!  Consider what the Affordable Healthcare Act accomplishes:

1.         It closes the infamous “donut-hole” under Medicare Part D - the prescription drug coverage plan.  Seniors will no longer face out-of pocket expenditures for prescriptions above a certain level of spending;

2.         It allows seniors regular preventative check-up visits to their doctors without any co-payments; and

3.         It extends the solvency of Medicare eight (8) years (according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office).

Even more amazing – it accomplishes these improvements without cutting medical benefits in any way.

Imagine that!  The President steals huge sums of money from Medicare and, in the course of doing so, lowers it’s out of pocket costs, improves its benefits package, and extends its solvency.

That’s quite a feat!  I can’t figure out how someone could rob me of a huge sum of money and extend my solvency.  I sure as hell can’t figure out how you can rob me and thereby make me better off.

I understand how partisans can believe this – partisans can make themselves believe anything if it benefits their side. But does anyone really think Mitt Romney, with all his famed business acumen, is stupid enough to believe this?

No way.  He’s just a shameless liar.

Joe Huster

UPDATE:  The $716 Billion that Obama allegedly "stole" from Medicare were actually reductions in the rate of reimbursements to Medicare providers over the next ten (10) years.  These reductions were agreed to as part of the larger reform in which additional patients would be insured and hospitals and other providers would collect from their insurance, and thus recoup the losses due to the reduced Medicare compensation.  In any event, reducing payments to Medicare providers sounds like keeping additional money IN Medicare, not taking money OUT of Medicare.  What Mitt said was a pretty shameless lie!

Mitt Knows How the Economy Works

Mitt Romney knows how the economy works.    Damn straight he does!   That's what is so frightening about him.

Joe Huster

Pants On Fire!

I was just listening to Mitt Romney repeat the latest charge against President Obama.  In summary, the charge is “Obama said that if you have a business, you didn’t build it yourself.  The government did.”  After repeating this charge, Romney added that “saying something this outrageous demonstrates just how out of touch Obama is” [Paraphrase].

Where to begin!

First, Obama did not say that business owners “did not build their businesses” and/or “the government did.”  Obama was talking about the roads and bridges that were built by all of us collectively, that allow businesses to operate.  Although he may have experienced a slip of the tongue, the unmistakable message was that businesses do not thrive solely by the efforts of entrepreneurs.  They also benefit from the collective investment we all make in our infrastructure.  Entrepreneurs do not build their businesses on their own – they do so with help from the rest of us in the form of government.

Second.  Romney obviously knows this.  He is not stupid.  Anyone of reasonable intelligence who watched the clip of Obama’s speech knows what he meant to say.  So Romney is intentionally lying.  Not that lying is anything new to Mr. Romney.  He lies so reflexively and continuously that it is difficult to keep up – fortunately, someone is up to the task.

Third, I find it amazing that Mitt Romney and other conservatives think this will be an effective line of criticism.  I mean, Mr. Romney is correct about one thing – Obama would have to be pretty out of touch to say something that stupid.  No one except a die-hard partisan Obama hater could bring themselves to believe that Obama actually thinks the government, rather than business owners, builds private businesses – and Romney’s already got their votes.  I’d be embarrassed to publicly assign that belief to anyone – much less to the president of the United States.

So not only is Mitt Romney a liar, he’s a political fool.  And to think I used to admire the man!

Forth, I find it astonishing that Romney is willing to lie so brazenly and repeatedly in public.  He is a Mormon, after all.  From what I know about Mormon teaching, the entire reason every human being is put on earth by God is to perfect themselves - morally speaking.  And perfect honesty is an element of that moral perfection.  Didn’t Jesus say “what should it profit a man if he gain the entire world only to lose his soul.”  I’ve never seen a more public display of someone rejecting that teaching.

According to his own professed beliefs, Mitt Romney is apparently willing to lose his soul to gain the entire world.  And none if his fellow Mormons appear concerned about this.

I’m just saying . . .

Joe Huster

Constitutional Crisis

Hi Everyone,

Our local church is going through a transition regarding its association with the Missionary Church.  The Constitution of the Missionary Church limits membership to those who affirm an extensive set of moral and doctrinal positions.  It seems that some of the members of our Church (me obviously) are not on-board with all of these doctrines and we’re debating whether this fact should force us to disassociate ourselves and start a new church.

So I read through the Missionary Church’s constitution this morning.  Got a big kick out of it!  Frankly, if the Missionary Church is committed to limiting its membership to individuals who agree with each of their stands, there needs to be a serious membership purge.

But I digress.  Of particular interest to me were the sections that began “we recognize that sincere Christians have conscientious differences as to their understanding of the teaching of the word of God regarding . . .” and “we recognize there are committed Christians who hold different views concerning . . .”

The issues being discussed were “participation in war” and the doctrine of “assurance.”  The constitution explicitly stated that “sincere Christians” can reasonably disagree about these issues – implying that sincere Christians could not reasonably disagree about the issues on which the Missionary Church was willing to take a stand.  On those issues, the rightness of their views is so obvious that no genuine believer could, in good faith, take a different position.

It takes a remarkable degree of arrogance to think, for example, that the doctrine of inerrancy is so obviously correct that no sincere Christian could question it.  The doctrine is absurd on its face, given that the only way confirm it would be to check the bible for errors - and the doctrine itself expressly forbids such checking.  I’m guessing that we’re supposed to believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures because the scriptures themselves claim to be inerrant.  But how do we know that scriptural claims of inerrancy (assuming they exist) aren’t themselves errors of the very sort some of us are worried about?

I mean, come on guys.  This is low hanging fruit!  I can’t make myself accept a doctrine justified by such obviously circular reasoning.  Add to that the fact that the scriptures endorse some pretty questionable ideas, practices and historical narratives and I’m wondering how anyone in their right mind could believe in inerrancy.

Don't even get me started on Gay rights!

And yet the Missionary church is so confident about this doctrine that it is willing to say every genuine Christian accepts this doctrine as obviously correct?

I’ve long believed that we should always remain open-minded.  I don’t believe open mindedness is an intrinsic virtue – that it is valuable in and of itself.  I don’t think that we should expose ourselves to new ideas just because they are new, particularly when older ideas have served us well.

But open-mindedness has “instrumental” value because it is a necessary condition for correcting error.  An interesting feature of having beliefs is that everyone necessarily thinks their current beliefs are true.  It is impossible to think otherwise.  Of course, everyone also knows that they have believed wrongly in the past, so it is reasonable to assume that at least some of our current beliefs are wrong.  The problem is that we don’t know which of our current beliefs are incorrect.  They all seem correct right now (or we would have already abandoned them).

And there is only one way to find out – we must listen to those who reject our beliefs with an open mind.  By “open,” I don’t mean uncritical.  Beliefs that have served us well are entitled to some deference.  And criticisms of our beliefs should themselves be subjected to scrutiny.  “Open” means actively entertaining the possibility that my current belief or understanding may be wrong, or partially wrong, or incomplete.  It means giving those who dissent a fair hearing – not for their sake, or out of some silly notion that all beliefs are entitled to respect – but for our sake, so that we might have the opportunity to exchange error for truth.

That’s why I think constitutions of this sort are so problematic.  There’s nothing wrong with a statement of beliefs.  What’s wrong is the attempt to protect these beliefs from criticism by constitutionally excluding members who disagree. That is not only wrong.  It is foolish.  It guarantees that all members of the Missionary Church will continue to hold false beliefs to the extent that the constitutional drafters were wrong about anything.

Joe Huster

This is a genuinely charming public marriage proposal!

Enjoy!

Joe H.

Obama Comes Out - Romney Hides Out -UPDATE

President Obama came out in favor of same sex marriage.  Good for him.  Mitt Romney, on the other hand, said he doesn’t support same sex marriage.  When asked why he doesn’t support same sex marriage, he repeated the oft stated “I believe marriage is between one man and one woman.”

I know I am repeating myself, but I feel compelled to point out, once again, that “I believe marriage is between one man and one woman” is neither an argument nor a reason – it’s a statement of preference.  At best it is a statement indicating an unusually strong commitment to an unexamined Platonic “form.”

Consider the interpretive options for this statement.  First, the proposition “marriage is between one man and one woman” is the relevant assertion - anyone who makes this statement can be assumed to believe it.

But what does someone who asserts “marriage is between one man and one woman” believe?  As a statement of fact, the proposition is demonstrably false.  There are thousands of legally valid same-sex marriages in existence in numerous countries, including the United States.  There are also many legally valid polygamous marriages in various parts of the world.   No one in their right mind could be advancing this proposition as a factual assessment of actual legal marriages.

Those familiar with Plato’s theory of the forms might recognize an implicit appeal to the eternal unchanging idea of “marriage.”  Plato believed that each particular thing (is what it is because it) partakes of an eternal “form” or idea.  The form itself is unchanging and complete.  It exists in a realm accessible only to the intellect.

According to Plato, particular men are men because they embody the form “man.”  Embodiment of the form “man” is what distinguishes men from women.  Conversely, particular women are women because they embody the form “woman.”  Embodiment of the form “Woman” is what distinguishes women from men.

In other words, things are what they are because they embody an eternal unchanging “essence” that is common to all things of that type. 

Many opponents of same-sex marriage have something like this in mind when they insist that “marriage is between one man and one woman.”  They are appealing to (what they perceive is) an eternal unchanging idea – an idea defined by God in the process of his creation.  On this theory, same sex marriage is an absurdity because “marriage,” by inalterable definition, is between one man and one woman.

Unfortunately, this is not a proper application of Plato’s epistemology.  For Plato, a form is intellectually grasped through a process known as the “dialectic.”  The dialectic involves an attempt to articulate the essence of a thing, based on what can be observed about particular things of that type, followed by a critique of the articulated essence, followed by a refined articulation of a thing’s essence, etc., until a stable and workable definition emerges.

In other words, Plato would not start with an eternal unchanging definition of “man” and then use it to distinguish particular men from particular women.  Plato would instead examine particular men, in an attempt to isolate what they all shared in common, particularly in contrast to women, and then subject his idea to rational scrutiny so as to refine his idea of “man,” until it provided a stable and workable insight regarding the essence of “man.”

This is precisely what the opponents of “same-sex marriage” refuse to do.  Like Plato, they subscribe to a theory of “forms.”  But unlike Plato, they insist upon a definition of marriage that they will not submit to the dialectic process.  Their invocation of Plato’s theory, to the extent that they realize they are invoking Plato, amounts to their insistence that marriage be defined so as to exclude gays.  They are not trying to grasp the essence of marriage by examining particular marriages.  They are attempting to prevent proposed “gay marriages” from being considered relevant to our understanding of the institution.

This indicates that the proposition “marriage is between one man and one woman” is best translated as “I prefer that marriage be defined as between one man and one woman.”  And this proposition translates fairly straightforwardly to the proposition “I prefer that gays be excluded from the institution of marriage.”

Okay.  Fine.  But then I have to ask, “why do you prefer that gays be excluded from the institution of marriage?”  And it won’t do to simply assert that “marriage is between one man and one woman.”

Joe H.

 UPDATE

This is a pretty fair assessment    of Mitt Romney's response to the revelation that he gang assaulted a weaker boy in high school.



.

Ode to Obama and Romney

I was thinking of posting a list of reasons why I will not be voting for President Obama this year - and sure as hell won't be voting for Mitt Romney.  But I discovered this morning that   someone else has captured my sentiments perfectly. 
 
I find it astonishing that so many conservatives see Obama as a radical leftist.  There is absolutely no evidence that Obama is anything but a pragmatic, centrist conservative.  The fact that he is viewed as a radical by so many on the right illustrates, to my mind, the psychologically distorting power of tribal partisan allegiance.

That said, I predict, for reasons 1-4 cited in Rose’s post, that the Obama presidency will end up doing greater damage to the nation than the Bush presidency.  By refusing to prosecute criminal elites within our government and financial system, as the law requires, President Obama has created the impunity state.  The (now working) presumption that elite officials and corporate executives are immune from prosecution when they break our laws will eventually work far more harm to our nation than anything done under the Bush presidency.  Mark my words on this.

I like President Obama, and agree with him on most issues.  I'm confident that he will beat Mitt Romney like a drum come November.  But I can’t support him.

For the record, I also used to respect Mitt Romney.  His record of accomplishment is quite remarkable.  And he is, underneath the "severe conservative" façade, a reasonable man.  Unfortunately, Mr. Romney has repeatedly demonstrated a cravenness so deep that I cannot bear the thought of voting for him.  A man who passed up the opportunity to denounce Rush Limbaugh for repeatedly calling a young female political opponent a “slut,” lacks character, plain and simple.

Sigh!

Joe H.

The Upside of GOP Intolerance

This post by Timothy Noah is highly worth reading. It illustrates the impossible task facing Mitt Romney as he proceeds to the general election - the task of moving back to the political center.

The problem, put simply, is that movement conservatives have become “open” extremists. They’ve convinced themselves that their views on social and economic issues reflect the majority of the country and, therefore, they no longer feel any need to disguise or soften their positions, or to brook any compromise.

Hence Romney’s endorsement of the Paul Ryan budget.

Hence Romney’s support for draconian measures at the state level to encourage self-deportation by illegal immigrants.

Hence Romney’s endorsement of Mississippi’s “Personhood Amendment.”

Hence Romney’s description of himself as a “severe conservative” (whatever that is).

I agree with Noah that this is a good thing. The fact that Mitt Romney did not feel free to denounce Rush Limbaugh for calling Goergetown law student Sandra Fluke a“slut,” the fact that Romney denounced a national health care reform law almost identical to the program he implemented in Massachusetts - and which he proclaimed was an appropriate model for national reform, and the fact that he is now unwilling to defend his openly gay policy aide, Richard Grenell, from anti-gay bigots, is great news. The GOP no longer believes it needs to hide who they are - and they won’t let Romney do it for them.

Best news I’ve gotten in awhile. Joe H.

Ayn Rand vs. Thomas Aquinas

Ayn Rand’s philosophy, known as “Objectivism,” elevates selfishness to the highest human virtue.  It celebrates individual liberty, “lassiez faire" capitalism and rejects all forms of government driven wealth redistribution

Paul Ryan used to hand out copies of “Atlas Shrugged,” Ms. Rand’s most famous novel, to all of his congressional staffers.  Moreover, his budget plan - a plan that Mitt Romney endorsed as “marvelous”- would slash social spending on the poor and elderly to an extent that Ms. Rand is likely to come out of the grave and kiss Paul Ryan on the mouth if it gets enacted.

But things appear to have changed recently.  Regarding his alleged devotion to Ayn Rand, Paul Ryan recently told the National Review that he rejects her philosophy.  “It's an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my world-view. If somebody is going to try to paste a person's view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas. Don’t give me Ayn Rand."

Oh Really?  Thomas Aquinas - the philosopher/theologian who famously insisted that:

“Man should not consider his material possession his own, but as common to all, so as to share them without hesitation when others are in need.”

Well what do you know.  Paul Ryan endorses socialism!  Now that’s news!

Joe Huster

"Stand Your Ground" Conservatives

One thing that puzzles me about Florida’s “stand your ground” law is that it was championed by “conservatives.”

For hundreds of years English common law (i.e., the organic body of law developed slowly, case by case, by English judges beginning around the eleventh century – and the law that formed the basis of our legal system), held that a person facing a threat inside his home could use deadly force to repel the attacker, but a person threatened outside of his home could not resort to deadly force without first attempting to retreat from the danger.

The rule, known as “castle law,” presumed that a person confronted inside his home (or castle) had no place to retreat to, and so had no duty to retreat. However, a person threatened in a public place might be able to retreat and, thus, to reduce violence and its associated harms, the law imposed a duty to retreat whenever possible.

Example: I’m in a bar and a guy comes up to me and says “I don’t like the cut of your jib. I’m going to beat your head in.” Castle law required those of us with bad jibs to exit the bar, if possible, until the authorities arrived. We could only resort to force if it became impossible to leave.
But Florida conservatives decided that castle law was wimpy and enacted a “stand your ground” law that allows people who “reasonably” feel threatened by another person in public to defend themselves without attempting to retreat. A person who defends himself under these circumstances in Florida is immunized from criminal or civil liability.

Why do I mention this? Because one of the central tenets of conservative thought has been that organic systems, developed over long periods of time, embody wisdom that progressive “reformers” easily overlook. Conservatives have long urged caution in making changes to social institutions and practices that have evolved organically. Look at the tenacity with which some conservatives have fought against changes to marriage law, and before that to racial roles, and before that to male/female roles.

What puzzles me is that “Florida conservatives” voted to ignore a common law rule that had been created and refined over hundreds of years of actual case experience, to give Floridians new “stand your ground” rights. Did it ever occur to them that there might be a reason for the castle law rule? Did they read any of the past cases? Did they consult the judges’reasons?

Did they forget they were conservatives?

Beats me. But I’m glad we still have a duty to retreat in Hawaii. I’m not ashamed to admit that I’ve got a bad jib and need to leave the bar.

Joe Huster

Coming Out

I haven't posted much in the last month, after staring a series on "rights."  I will get back to that topic and try to post more consistently.

However, I do wan't to post this note that I distributed to certain members of my church, so that everyone can know where I'm coming from on a couple of key issues facing us.  I hope you find it worthwhile

*****

Let me share a couple of thoughts

There are two distinct ways of approaching the scriptures as a resource for moral insight.   The first and most common method is to treat the scriptures as a “criterion” for moral truth.  A person who approaches the scriptures as a “criterion” for moral truth asks the following question when confronted with a moral issue - what do the scriptures teach about the subject?  For this person, the entire difficulty - if there is any - is in figuring out what the scriptures teach.  Once this person believes that she knows what the scripture teaches, she has no further need for moral reasoning; no need to ask “do the scriptures get it right?

The second method is to approach the scriptures as a “source” for moral insight, but not as a criterion for moral insight.  A person who approaches the scripture in this manner acknowledges that the scriptures contain moral insight, even profound insight, but does not assume scriptural inerrancy.  For this person, “thus says the lord” is not a convincing argument, particularly when what the “lord” seems to be saying is obviously wrong.

I confess that I am FIRMLY in the latter camp.  All of us are on some issues.  All of us know that the scripture’s endorsement of slavery, or God’s alleged command to Saul to kill every man, woman, child and animal in an act of war, do not provide sound moral guidance.  We instinctively acknowledge that additional explanation is needed to mitigate the message of these passages.  That is because, taken at face value, the wrongfulness of their moral advice is impossible to deny.

However, on most moral issues, the vast majority of our fellow believers stick with the first approach.  It is simpler, works fairly well on a wide range of conduct, and wards off a lot of unnecessary doubt.

Why don’t I take that approach?  The short answer is, “I can’t.”   I’ve developed an unshakable conviction that the level of justification one has for believing a proposition is directly proportional to one's willingness to subject that proposition to genuine scrutiny - and that goes for scriptural propositions as well.  The only way to know if the moral guidance provided by the scriptures is sound is to test that guidance against our most defensible moral convictions.

But to do this, I have to be willing to entertain the possibility that the scripture’s guidance, or at least our current understanding of it, is wrong.  If I am unwilling to entertain the possibility that a particular scriptural claim is false, no matter how false it looks (either on its face or after critical scrutiny), then I am unwilling to subject that claim to genuine scrutiny and, thus, have no reason for believing it to be true. I am simply assuming it to be true and sticking to my guns, evidence or arguments be damned.

But hey, I can do that with any proposition - Barak Obama is a Kenyan socialist and closet Muslim!  Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

Now, I whole-heartedly believe that the scriptures are divinely inspired and provide tremendously important insight into the human condition - including human morality.  But I don’t believe that because someone told me it was true, or because I am supposed to believe it as part of a creed.  I believe it because I have studied and reflected on the scriptures, and listened to other people’s reflections, and have encountered many of those insights myself.  In this respect I am a very traditional Christian.

However, my inability - or unwillingness as many would describe it - to accept scriptural teaching that appears to be wrong, makes me a pretty scary dude to many of my fellow believers.  I understand that and accept the consequences.  But I do believe that my approach is best and intend to stick with it.  I really have no other choice.

Which brings me to the issue of homosexuality.  The Apostle Paul specifically denounced homosexual activity several times - I think it is foolish to deny that.  Moreover, I grew up in about as homophobic an environment as one can imagine.  As a young Christian at the age of twenty, I was categorically convinced that homosexuality was sinful and felt as “icky” about it as I could.

However, in my mid-twenties, I began to study philosophy - moral philosophy in particular.  Anyone trained in moral philosophy learns, by deeply ingrained habit, to do one very sensible thing - to demand that their beliefs be justified by reasons.  By the mid 1990’s, I was in graduate school and Christians were becoming very concerned about homosexuality.  So it was inevitable that I would eventually ask myself, “What reasons do I have for thinking that homosexuality is immoral?”

I thought about this question for several years - read many articles discussing the subject from a moral perspective, talked to many people - and I eventually reached the following conclusion: I had no good reason to think homosexuality was immoral.  I had originally accepted that view because the bible endorsed it and I felt “icky” about gayness.  But I realized that this was an inadequate foundation for my belief and I eventually abandoned it.

By the way, the “ick” feeling eventually ebbed as I got to know gay people.  So much for it being a natural warning implanted in me by the almighty.

My best moral analysis is that “being gay” is morally neutral - it is a harmless variation on a dominant natural theme (heterosexual attraction) akin in significance to being left-handed.  I don’t know what causes this variation, or for how many it is the result of a fixable problem.  I do know that approximately 11 million people in our country (a population equal to the State of Ohio ) find themselves sexually and romantically attracted to members of the same sex and that, for them, their orientation is inalterable.

As a Christian, I am very concerned about the well-being of these 11 million people.  I don’t see how denying gays the opportunity to participate in our most important social institution (marriage) helps non-gays or the institution of marriage itself.  In fact, their exclusion threatens the perceived legitimacy of marriage as a practice for an increasingly large number of people.   Moreover, I certainly see the numerous ways in which the exclusion harms, marginalizes, and stigmatizes gay people.  I see this and wonder, “How can we continue to treat Gays in this manner and claim to love them.”  What good reason do we have for imposing so much harm and disability on gays, simply because they are sexually attracted to members of their own sex?

None whatsoever, as far as I can see.

Joe H.

What is a Right?

In my last post, I described the rights-based theory of (economic) justice, and its defense of lassie faire capitalism, as resting on the following two premises:

(1) Justice exists so long as no individual’s rights are violated; and

(2) In a market system free of coercion and fraud, no individual’s rights are violated.

In order to evaluate these premises - to see if they are true - we need to know what a "right" is. One of the first things any philosophy student learns is that we often deploy familiar concepts that we think we understand, but which we have no real understanding of at all. The concept of a "right" is a very good example. We often know what rights we have, but we don’t know what a right is.

That changes right now!

The best definition of a right that I have encountered was developed by the Philosopher Lawrence Becker, who proposed:

"A right is the state of affairs that exists when one 'entity' (the right(s) holder) has a claim on an act or a forbearance from another entity (the right(s) regarder) in the sense that, should the claim be exercised and the act or the forbearance be withheld, it would be justifiable, other things being equal, to use coercive measures to extract either the performance owed, or compensation in lieu of the performance."

Consider the classic example of a criminal defendant’s "right to counsel." In this example, the suspect is the right(s) holder and the state is the right(s) regarder. Under our federal constitution, any criminal defendant (i.e., anyone charged with a crime that could result in her loss of liberty) has a claim against the state to allow her access to legal counsel. Not only that, but in cases where the defendant cannot afford private counsel, she has a claim against the state to provide her with legal counsel at the state’s expense. If the state fails or refuses, the defendant has a remedy against the state - she cannot be criminally convicted. That is the "coercive measure" used to enforce the defendant’s right to counsel.

This is just one example, but it illustrates the basic elements of a rights claim. An entity, be it a person, organization or governmental entity, has a "right" only if it has a legitimate (i.e., morally defensible) claim against another entity. To be a right, the claim must create a duty either that the right(s) regarding entity do something for the right(s) holder or refrain from doing something to the right(s) holder. The claim must also be important enough that we deem it legitimate to resort to coercion against the right(s) regarder in the event that it fails or refuses to perform its duty.

Now that we have a working definition of a "right," the next step is determining how to evaluate rights claims. After all, many people claim to have rights that they don’t really have. On the libertarian argument, individuals have two rights - the right to be free from coercion and the right not to be defrauded. That is the essence of the explicit premise stated in proposition (2). What is not explicitly stated, but is of crucial importance, is the implied premise that individuals have no other rights pertaining to economic transactions. That is the unstated (but presupposed) presmise in proposition (2).

In my next two posts I will outline Professor Becker’s criteria for evaluating the legitimacy of rights claims and, then, apply that criteria to the libertarian premises.

See you soon.

Joe Huster

“Other People’s Money”

I’ve been listening to the Republican Presidential candidates invoke the phrase “other people’s money” as an indirect attack on social spending.  The idea is that food stamp programs, welfare assistance programs, medical assistance programs, and the like are theft.  They involve the government taking resources (by threat of force) from successful people and giving it to other, generally undeserving, people.

On second thought, that sounds more like "robbery" than simple "theft," but I digress.

For rhetorical and psychological effect, the undeserving recipients are usually depicted as dark skinned - or “blah” people if you trust former Senator Rick Santorum.  But that (false) claim is ancillary to the logic of their main argument.  Their basic point is that whatever you acquire within a free market system, using your own talents, skills, resources, and so forth, is yours, provided that you did not engage in coercion or fraud when acquiring it.  Taxing high earners to provide resources for the less fortunate is theft, pure and simple.

Republicans also argue that social spending is counter-productive because it creates dependency and other moral hazards.  But when push comes to shove – i.e., when it can be demonstrably demonstrated that social spending has a positive effect on the needy and/or everyone else, “theft” is the fall back argument.

The “social spending is theft” conclusion rests on the libertarian premise that, absent coercion or fraud, individuals have an absolute property right to everything they acquire within a voluntary market system.  Of course, most libertarians concede that some government spending via coercive taxation is permissible.  But only spending for things that are necessary for a market economy –infrastructure and defense are good examples.  Spending to improve the lives and opportunities of the needy, or their children, is theft.  Such spending is, in the words of Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum, the government forcefully taking “other people’s money” and giving to someone else.

What to make of this?  Well, for starters, the libertarian premise itself rests on an even deeper premise.  That deeper premise is that a voluntary free market system that effectively protects participants from fraud or coercion is just.  Put another way, for libertarians, there are only two prerequisites for a just social system – the absence of coercion and fraud.

This is known as a “rights” based theory of justice.  The idea is that (1) justice exists so long as no individual’s rights are violated; and (2) in a market system free of coercion and fraud, no individual’s rights are violated.  This means that any pattern of holdings emerging from transactions conducted within a voluntary market system free of coercion and fraud are just.

And, if I hold what I hold justly, I have a property right to my holdings.  No one, including the government, may seize my holdings by force, even if the purpose for such seizure is benevolent and wise (which it probably isn’t anyway).

In coming posts, I will examine this deeper premise.  I will argue that it is a theory of justice that most people, when they give the matter adequate thought, will reject.  I will also attempt to describe the best competing alternative to the rights based theory of justice – a theory developed by the late John Rawls known as “justice as fairness.”

However, in what remains of this post, I want to illustrate why all of us should be highly suspicious of the rights based theory of justice without recourse to a complicated moral argument – I want to do this with a story.

I have friends (a married couple) who adopted a baby girl.  Baby girl was born severely premature due to her birth mother’s drug use.  Baby girl required several weeks of intensive hospital care just to keep her alive – but keep her alive it did!  Baby girl is now a healthy young girl who can expect to live a long productive life and provide joy and love to her adopted family for many years to come.

Great story huh?  But who paid for the several weeks of intensive hospital care?  I don’t know what the final hospital bill was, but I recently racked up a $30,000.00 medical bill for a four-day stay in the hospital for a ruptured appendix.  I’m sure her bill was substantially larger – several hundred thousand dollars at a minimum.  I know her birth mother didn’t pay for the care – she had zero financial resources.  I also know that her adoptive parents didn’t pay for the care – her adoption was not finalized until after the hospitalization, so she was not covered by her adoptive parents’ medical insurance.

The corporation that owned the hospital might have paid for the care, but that is unlikely.  Any medical corporation that routinely gave away its care would become bankrupt in short order.  Nor am I aware of any charity stepping in to ease the burden.

The fact is none of these parties paid for her care.  Her care was almost certainly paid for with “other people’s money.”

Imagine that!  Our government seized “other peoples' money” and gave it to Baby girl to save her life.  And she wasn’t even a “blah” person.

Oh my God!  Call the Republicans immediately!  Let’s have another debate!

Joe H.