Memorial Day 2013

In Flanders Fields
By: Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD (1872-1918)
Canadian Army

In Flanders Fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Courtesy of: http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/flanders.htm

The Moral Foundations of Occupy Wall Street

An illustrated guide to the signs at Zuccotti Park

by Jonathan Haidt from the January 2012 issue of Reason.com 

From a rational perspective, joining a protest rally is like voting: a complete waste of time. The odds that your voice or your protest sign will make a difference are no better than the odds that your vote will change an election. Yet people do join protests, and people do vote. They do these things not to advance their rational self-interest but to express moral passions and moral identities. 

In Lower Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park, home base of the Occupy Wall Street movement, a noisy, festive crowd of hundreds was doing just that when I stopped by on October 8. In an attempt to make sense of the goals and motivations of the protesters there, I brought along a small camera and Moral Foundations Theory, which I developed with psychologists at the University of California at Irvine (Pete Ditto), the University of Chicago (Craig Joseph), and the University of Southern California (Jesse Graham, Ravi Iyer, and Sena Koleva). This theory, which is based on ideas from the anthropologist Richard Shweder, outlines six clusters of moral concerns—care/harm, fairness/cheating, liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation—upon which, we argue, all political cultures and movements base their moral appeals. 

The foundations are like the taste receptors on the tongue: sweet, sour, salty, bitter, and savory. Each culinary culture creates its own unique cuisine using some combination of these tastes, including elements that lack immediate appeal on their own, such as bitterness. Similarly, each political movement bases its claims on a particular configuration of moral foundations. It would be awfully hard to rally people to your cause without making any reference to care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority, or sanctity. 

My colleagues and I found that political liberals tend to rely primarily on the moral foundation of care/harm, followed by fairness/cheating and liberty/oppression. They are very concerned about victims of oppression, but they rarely make moral appeals based on loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, or sanctity/degradation. Social conservatives, in contrast, use all six foundations. They are less concerned than liberals about harm but much more concerned about the moral foundations that bind groups and nations together, i.e., loyalty (patriotism), authority (law and order, traditional families), and sanctity (the Bible, God, the flag as a sacred object). Libertarians, true to their name, value liberty more than anyone else, and they value it far more than any other foundation. (You can read our complete research findings at www.MoralFoundations.org.) 

So what is the mix of moral foundations at Occupy Wall Street (OWS)? In my visit to Zuccotti Park, it was clear that the main moral foundation of OWS is fairness, followed by care and liberty. Loyalty, authority, and sanctity, by contrast, were very little in evidence. 

Fairness/cheating 

The psychological meaning of fairness is proportionality. Human beings have been engaging in cooperative enterprises for hundreds of thousands of years, and we are now vigilant for signs that anyone is taking out more than he is putting in. We really hate cheaters, slackers, and exploiters. By far the most common message I saw at OWS was that the rich (“the 1 percent”) got rich by taking without giving. They cheated and exploited their way to the top. As if that were not bad enough, we the taxpayers then had to bail them out after they crashed the economy, and so now they really owe us for saving their necks. It’s high time they started paying what they owe (see photos 1 and 2).

As a point of comparison, a similar look at signs found at the Tea Party rallies (based on a systematic study done by Reason Foundation Polling Director Emily Ekins) suggests that protesters there are also chiefly concerned with fairness. The key to understanding Tea Partiers’ morality, though, is that they want to restore the law of karma. They want laziness and cheating to be punished, and they see liberalism and liberal government as an assault on that project. The liberal fairness of OWS diverges from conservative and libertarian fairness in that liberals often think that equality of outcomes is evidence of fairness (see photo 3). 

When everyone’s contribution is the same, the proportional outcome is equality. But in a free market system, where some work harder or are more talented or lucky, it will always be the case that some people make a greater contribution than others. They therefore end up taking home a larger share of the pie. Fairness as proportionality guarantees that outcomes will not be equal. This, I believe, is one of the main reasons why modern leftists (but not classical liberals) are often hostile to capitalism itself, as were some at the OWS protest (see photos 4 and 5). 

Another feature of liberal fairness is that it is often blended with concerns about care for the downtrodden and oppressed. This brings us to the next foundation: 

Care/harm 

The second most common moral foundation on display at OWS was care. My colleagues and I find that liberals score higher than conservatives and libertarians on all measures of compassion and empathy. Liberals are more “soft-hearted,” and this was evident in many signs (see photos 6, 7, and 8).

Liberty/oppression

The moral foundation of liberty was barely evident at OWS in the use of positive terms such as liberty or freedom, even though protesters took to calling Zuccotti Park by its previous name, Liberty Square. Occupy Wall Street is not a rally to “get government off our backs.” It’s a rally to get government to increase regulation of Wall Street and big business. The only sign of direct appeals to liberty that I saw during my visit was the ironic use of a favored Tea Party slogan to protect and care for vulnerable flowers as seen in photo 9. 

Instead, there was a strong emphasis at OWS on the evils of the opposite of liberty, namely oppression. There was a pervasive sense (or hope) that the downtrodden masses (“the 99 percent”) were beginning to unite to throw off the yoke of their oppressors (“the 1 percent”) (see photo 10).  

This is a process that the anthropologist Chris Boehm has observed in egalitarian societies. When one man tries to act like a leader or overlord, the other men unite into a “reverse dominance hierarchy” to take him down, as illustrated by this protester’s sweatshirt showing the unified “99 percent” about to crush the “1 percent” (see photo 11). 

Loyalty/betrayal 

The remaining three foundations, which tend to be used more by conservatives than by liberals, were not much in evidence at OWS. There were a few American flags scattered about, but the only direct expression of patriotism that I saw was this rather ambivalent sign, which would not have been very welcome at a Tea Party rally (see photo 12).

There were frequent invocations of solidarity, but this is different from the team-vs.-team tribalism of the loyalty foundation. Rather, liberal solidarity aims to erase boundaries between people and groups, to create harmony, not competition. Compared to conservatives, liberals tend to be universalists and internationalists (see photo 13). 

Of course, this solidarity is pursued as an effort to unite “the 99 percent” against “the 1 percent” OWS protesters are perfectly capable of drawing lines between people. Nonetheless, the psychological dynamic here is exactly what Boehm described as a reaction to oppression by an alpha male. It is very different from the dynamic that emerges from intergroup competition such as gang warfare or the most extreme sports rivalries, as manifested in distinctive symbols, clothing, and heroes, plus an intense focus on expelling outsiders and punishing traitors. None of that was apparent at OWS.

Authority/subversion 

Liberals tend to be wary of authority. I saw no signs suggesting respect for authority, order, or tradition. 

Sanctity/degradation 

The moral foundation of sanctity is based on the psychology of disgust and spirituality. It’s the idea that there is a vertical dimension from God at the top to animalistic carnality at the bottom. When conservative Christians condemn drug use and wanton sexuality, when they say that the body is a temple and life begins at conception, these appeals rest on the psychology of sanctity. Liberals tend to make less use of sanctity; they tend toward materialism (not in the sense of consumerism but in the philosophical sense of saying that nothing is divine and nothing is off-limits to human ingenuity and intervention). The cryptic sign in photo 14 would never be seen at a right wing rally. 

There was one clear invocation of sanctity and sacredness, a sign declaring a spot to be a “community sacred space” (see photo 15).
The moral foundations of OWS are consistent with the moral foundations of the left more generally: fairness, care, and concerns about oppression. The difference is that fairness is moved up from the second position where we normally find it (below care) to become the No. 1 motivation. This makes sense given that the protests are a response to the perceived cheating, lawbreaking, and greed of the major financial firms.  

Many pundits have commented on the fact that OWS has no specific list of demands, but the protesters’ basic message is quite clear: rein in the influence of big business, which has cheated and manipulated its way to great wealth (in part by buying legislation) while leaving a trail of oppressed and impoverished victims in its wake.

Will this message catch on with the rest of the country, much of which also values the loyalty, authority, and sanctity foundations? If OWS protesters engage in acts of violence, flag desecration, destruction of private property, or anything else that makes them seem subversive or anti-American, then I think most Americans will quickly reject them. Furthermore, if the protesters continue to focus on the gross inequality of outcomes in America, they will get nowhere. There is no equality foundation. Fairness means proportionality, and if Americans generally think that the rich got rich by working harder or by providing goods and services that were valued in a free market, they won’t support redistributionist policies. But if the OWS protesters can better articulate their case that “the 1 percent” got its riches by cheating, rather than by providing something valuable, or that “the 1 percent” abuses its power and oppresses “the 99 percent,” then Occupy Wall Street will find itself standing on a very secure pair of moral foundations. 

Jonathan Haidt is a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia and a visiting professor of business ethics at the NYU-Stern School of Business.

---------------------

onathan Haidt Explains Our Contentious Culture from BillMoyers.com on Vimeo.

Note:

While there is an obvious paucity of participants in this new site, as well as an "obvious paucity" of new articles, suffice to say I am having troubles, concerns with how to proceed.  One of the most vexing dilemmas I face is the use of multiple, pseudo-avatars.

I am politely asking that anyone who posts on this site use/maintain one identity, or don't comment!  I have used, with a very brief exception, the 'nom de plume'--"Purveyor1" since 2010.  I do not understand the paranoia or skullduggery associated with deceiving fellow bloggers. (particularly on this site)  Please save such pranks and mischief for other times and locations.  I envisioned this site as a place where the past, present and future philosophy can come together, hence deception has no place here.  BUT, good humor is always invited!

However, If one has the NEED to change avatars, please inform me and the rest of the bloggers.  Respectfully.

The Purveyor of Rhetoric

"From my mother's sleep I fell into the state,
And I hunched in its belly till my wet fur froze.
Six miles from earth, loosed from its dream of life,
I woke to black flak and the nightmare fighters.
When I died they washed me out of the turret with a hose."

"The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner"
by Randall Jarell

Has anyone out there in cyber space read "Johnny Got His Gun" by Dalton Trumbo?  How about,  "All Quiet on the Western Front?"  Or, "Fields of Fire?"


I guess I just got to thinking about how "neutral principle" applies war...  Anyway, I now have a web-site and this is my first test!

Purv

Naturalism as an unsound and invalid worldview

The challenge from Sapient:

Now, you have said on numerous occasions that NP, which IS Logic, is the evaluator of worldviews...have you run this by NP / Logic? Would you be willing to do so? Just the worldview parts that influence how you view all the rest?

Let me invited you to start a new thread with your worldview statement, the truth statements that you accept and upon which your logic is based...and lets put them to the NP/Logic test. This will give you a great opportunity to plead your case, defunct mine, which is exactly the opposite...hey, who could ask for more.

Now, since you insist that NP and Logic are the same, I am going to use Logic, science, etc to evaluate your worldview...you can call it NP if you like. Fair enough?

So, I invite you to go for it. Make sure and deal with your view on the laws of the natural world such as the law of contingency, 2nd law of thermodynamics, origins, etc...ie cause and effect, necessary and sufficient causes, decay, and creation v evolution, information theory.

Naturalism deals with all of those so i am assuming you considered them, and the evidence available, in order to make a rational decision--right?

If you need me to send the precepts of naturalism to you I will. But, I hesitate in this regard as I don't want you to think I am setting you up for the fall that is coming.

I look forward to it, and thanks in advance for the forum.

It was not my intention to challenge your worldview. Something about "freedom of religion" comes to mind. However, I am entirely willing to defend my worldview as valid and logical. Since we cannot agree on the definition of NP, let's agree not to use it.

Starting with the definition of naturalism from Merriam-Webster:

 2: a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena —http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/naturalism

Fist, a note on theories and the scientific method. The scientific does not prove anything to be "true" or "absolute." If the theory explains existing phenomena then it is a useful theory. If at some point the theory is shown to be incorrect then it will have to be modified or discarded. I purport that naturalism is a useful theory. I welcome anyone to disprove that naturalism is a valid theory in that sense.

Have fun!

Neutral principle defined

Purveyor is busy writing his next column where, I trust, he will address some of your concerns. I'm pretty sure he is tired of explaining, "neutral principle" (NP) over and over again. While we wait, as Purvy's neutral principle disciple, I'm here to explain and defend NP. As the last thread has become a gun toting, boot kicking, weapons, orgasm fest, I've started a new post. Purvy's own words from previous conversations:

Neutral Principle is a philosophy, an applied philosophy! When I was an undergraduate I was so dissatisfied with the way philosophy was taught, I organized my own 3 credit course, whereby WE, the group/students read the great philosophers and related those lessons to current political and legal events. It was the most fulfilling class ever and I went on to teach seminars based on that format. NP urges the adherent, so to speak, to practice in their personal lives what they promote in their political and legal lives: "I will not lie, cheat nor steal."

Curiously, those demands can be found in Poly-theism, Christianity, Judaism, etc. NP starts with the reasoned, the ethical and coincidentally, serves the religious, emotional and moral inclination.

NP is PROCESS! The consistent and honest application of process. [removed] NP is NOT a catch all for every problem, particularly international problems, maybe someday, but not now as moral and ethical considerations very widely across international boundaries. Furthermore, moral and ethical values are all to often used as a ruse, a surreptitious, deceitful way for one nation/society to get what it wants, morality and ethics be damned?

And:

...one of my favorite analogies...

Back in 1990, a Court case "Colorado v. Hill" determined that a woman entering a health clinic has a right to "bubble or zone of protection." The principle being that a protester in close proximity, (10 or so feet) can arguably be threatening. Furthermore, free speech is coincidentally protected as the protester(s) can still be heard and/or display any placards or signs from "10 or so feet," or across the street. Effectively, there are two competing rights at issue and sans moral relativism, how does society deal with such?

Judge St Joan, applied principle in her decision, NOT her own moral predilection, rather she protected both the individual as well as the abstraction of free speech?

Now, "the other shoe drops"... What about a "scab" crossing a picket line? Shouldn't a strike breaker be accorded the same principles--a ten foot "zone of protection" just like the woman entering a clinic? Again, coincidentally the striker's freedom of speech is protected, HENCE, principle, "neutral principle" is the basis for legal reason?

OUCH! I have presented this dilemma to many people and depending on one's moral-political inclination, can cause dissonance! But, that's NP! Moreover, the phrase "pro-choice" is not only about abortion, it's about a philosophy! For millennia, the "Divine Right of Kings," made our choices for us, then came the "enlightenment" and the "American Experiment." Somewhere along the way Karl Marx made the scene, while at the same time America began to lose her principles? We need to find those lost "principles?

I firmly believe that NP is what the Founders envisioned, but not necessarily by those words?

Summary:

I see neutral principle as a set of principles or philosophy derived from first principles in a logical and consistent manner. In the US, those first principles would be our Constitution. It's the "logical and consistent manner" that is so lacking in today's mainstream parties. Each party has it's platform and then contorts the Constitution and the rule of law to justify its position.

Any questions, boys and girls?

On principle

ON PRINCIPLE:

Legal activities and health insurance companies

(Written in 1995)

By

Purveyor (disqus.com/purveyor1)

Suppose the company or business you work for announced a policy wherein the company's health insurance carrier would not provide health insurance to employees who ski, snowboard, hand glide or ride motorcycles. Your employer and the health care provider could claim that those activities increase the likelihood of the individual being injured or killed if he or she engages in any of those activities. Effectively your employer and the health insurance company would consider those activities "reckless" behavior and an unreasonable risk, hence proscribe coverage.

What would you do? Would you stop skiing, sell your motorcycle? Would you conceal your hang gliding? What would happen if you or a family member were somehow injured and the company found out you are a snowboarder and voided your coverage? Does this sound implausible? It is not, and companies such as Sturm-Ruger Company, which is one of the biggest gun manufactures in the world and virtually has such a policy. Sturm-Ruger's company health insurance policy does not cover activities such as "parachuting, sky diving, bungee jumping, motor vehicle, boat or aircraft racing, piloting of [a] hang glider, ultra-light or experimental aircraft, operating or being a passenger of a three-wheel vehicle, operating a motorcycle without wearing a helmet." What activity is next?

My immediate reaction is why not just add owning or shooting a gun and/or hunting with a firearm to the list of non-insured activities? Isn't gun ownership too a "reckless" behavior and an unreasonable risk? Doesn't owning a firearm increase the possibility of the owner being wounded or killed by a gun? I wonder how Sturm-Ruger Company would feel if Volant Skis, or Harley Davidson implemented a company health insurance program that inhibited gun ownership?

The very nature of providing insurance is that the provider takes a calculated risk that there will be more money paid in, than paid out. Health insurance carriers are in business to make money and, therefore, will attempt to put limitations on what is an acceptable claim so they make more money. In fact, company executives are required, by law, to do whatever is necessary, legally, to be profitable. But, insurance companies can do it because they can, thus potentially becoming quasi-governmental? When insurance companies venture into this area they arguably can and do infringe on our personal freedom to engage in very legal activities. Effectively, insurance companies if allowed to remain in business without regulation, then those companies will soon be able to do what government can't: Very pro-actively, control our behavior.

The Federal Government, and in some cases the States are too, limited by the Constitution and Bill of Rights from enacting laws that proscribe individual prerogative(s). Suppose Congress colluded with the insurance industry to mandate helmet laws. (For example: South Dakota v. Dole, S.Ct. 1987 offers insight into Congressional leverage of this nature) So too could Government and business scheme to inhibit gun ownership, etc. A provocative notion?

Congress, to be consistent when regulating what insurance companies can and can't do with regard to personal freedom, must accept that America may have to swallow some unpleasant pills in order to swallow some that are, so to speak. Much like the very laws that Congress itself fashions, liberty has a societal cost. I suggest to the Sturm-Ruger Company: If you do not want insurance companies to inhibit gun ownership, then you must, out of principle, not want insurance companies to inhibit, hang gliding, snow boarding or motorcycling since you are treading on a very "slippery slope." I suggest to all businesses and corporations that have or are considering policies which inhibit activities or behavior that are quite legal: "be careful what you ask for, as you might get it."

The idea of personal freedom and individual rights carries a cost of doing business. A society such as ours much accept the disturbances which accompany our civil liberties, in order for our society to remain free. People will be killed by guns, people will be injured on motorcycles and people will get sick and die of cancer from smoking. Senator Ben Nighthorse-Campbell doesn't agree with helmet laws for motorcyclists, yet he has indicated a desire to enact gun laws. Isn't that an inconsistency? Couldn't gun ownership too be encompassed within a substantive right of personal choice and privacy, as well as within the second amendment, proper? Constitutional and legal principles should be neutral in order to be principles, or else they are nothing more than situational, moral caprice.

Sturm-Ruger, and their insurance carrier made a business judgement, and if there is a principle involved such as insurance companies having carte blanche ability to specify what they will and what they won't cover in their policies. If that is the principle, then companies that manufacture guns, like Sturm-Ruger had better watch out since their ox too, may soon be gored. Sturm-Ruger had better be prepared for another company or group to implement an unprincipled value judgement that Sturm-Ruger might not agree with. Alternatively, Sturm-Ruger could demonstrate, and remove the inhibitions included in the policy. I wonder how many motorcyclists own handguns and rifles. I do. And you can bet that as of right now I won't buy that .44 Ruger Vaquero I covet. How about you?

You may credibly argue that without the policy inhibitions proffered by Ruger, that the cost of health insurance would go up for their employees. Not so, Congress can regulate the insurance industry by way of the commerce clause, and part of that regulation is looking at the profits generated by the industry. It is true that the insurance industry is a very profitable one. That industry can and should be made to sacrifice a little profit in order that society's freedom(s) remain a bit more intact.

I suggest that Government, businesses and companies apply principle when venturing into the area of personal freedom. Or it is only a matter of time before your ox is gored!