TPP Weekly Rewind
TPP Week-In-Review
- On Monday, Sam argued WikiLeaks was in for a lot of trouble, and TPP intern Charles dissected the recent extension of unemployment benefits
- On Tuesday, Luke suggested that people living in poverty don’t actually get to choose what food they eat, and then criticized an online New York Times interactive feature; TPP intern Charles raised some questions concerning justice and the Cambodian Holocaust; TPP intern Han disparaged reporting ‘fringe ideas’ in the political realm, and insisted in a separate post that we might not owe too much to future generations
- On Wednesday, John criticized the way the Obama administration wants to do business with for-profit colleges; TPP intern Ethan chastised WikiLeaks as careless; and TPP intern Jonathan compared WikiLeaks to other publications
- On Thursday, John made a cool announcement
- On Friday, Jake dissected the different ethical perspectives to be considered concerning former chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee Charlie Rangel; TPP intern Han pointed to a connection between hands and ethics; and TPP intern Charles discussed an unfortunate connection between psychology and politics
In Others’ Words
- Michael Ruse wrote for The Huffington Post’s Religion and Science blog that science is beating out religion
- David Gushee maintained that libertarianism does not groove well with Christian principles
- Kyle Olson ranted against civil rights organizations and unions for Big Government
- Dickh at Richard Howe explained why he won’t shop at Target any longer
- Carbondale Chasmite at The Chasm discussed his love for conservative philosophers
- Robert Wolffe shared the final installment of his introductory series on game theory and related fields
- Guest columnist Betty Roberts described how to properly judge a justice
- Aaron Connelly warned at Jakarta Globe that President Obama’s political philosophy might get him in trouble in East Asia
-Jonathan
The case for nuance
Human psychology meets politics
The BBC recently published a story claiming that the specter of cross-border violence associated with illegal immigration and drug-trafficking is largely mythical. Indeed, El Paso is among the safest large cities in the country. Nonetheless, the myth of border violence persists. Supporters of the Arizona immigration laws point to the recent death of a rancher as the result of lax immigration policing, and a majority of the population appears to support the new laws.
Why might such beliefs persist in the face of clear evidence? The answer might lie in the manner in which humans interpret the world around them.
A mind with a heart of its own
News from the psychology front: apparently, in laboratory tests people associate positive ideas (honesty, integrity, etc.) with their dominate hand and negative ideas with their non-dominant hand. A study of recent debates by presidential candidates has shown that these results hold in the real world as well. The piece itself is optimistic, promising that “watching politicians’ hands could help voters to know their minds.” I, however, always find studies that discover psychological links between ethical concepts and ethically irrelevant phenomena depressing. Ethics is hard enough without our brains trying to trick us all the time!
-Han
Photo by flickr user justthismoment used under a Creative Commons Attribution license
The ethics of the House ethics committee
Who do they represent?
The most interesting ethical questions surrounding Charlie Rangel don’t concern him, his villas, or his rent controlled apartments. They are about the operation and purpose of the House ethics committee and what ethical perspective members of the House should bring to bear on the controversy.
Rangel, dethroned former chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has been charged by the ethics committee with 13 violations, including, among other sins, using his office to solicit donations to school to be named in his honor and failing to pay taxes on and report rental income from a house in the Dominican Republic. Settlement talks have stalled and Democrats are wringing their hands over the prospect of a public ethics trial for a fellow party member. It will not help their chances in the November elections.
A number of ethical perspectives in tension here, and for everyone involved. Here are a few.
First, there is the special obligation one has to himself, his life’s work, and his family. This means wanting to keep one’s job as a Congressman (or to regain one’s job as a chairman), and leads to asking the question: What process and outcome will be best for my election chances?
Second, there is obligation to one’s party, both as a matter of duties to an organization one has freely joined and also as a matter of personal integrity, in the sense of fealty to one’s political and philosophical ideology. This leads to question: What process and outcome will be best for my party’s election chances?
WikiLeaks: a new breed of leak?
WikiLeaks and its documents are here. What do we do now?
On Monday, Sam highlighted WikiLeaks’ enormous release of secret documents concerning Afghanistan and Pakistan, and US efforts in and relations with both countries. As he noted, one of the first questions we should ask is whether or not WikiLeaks’ document release is legal.
Obviously, the cat is out of the bag: WikiLeaks and its documents, for good or for bad, are here. The bigger question now is how governments and citizens will respond.
Leaks, even large ones, are not unheard of (think Pentagon Papers). To answer both this question, and the earlier one to which Sam pointed, we need to determine if this leak is unlike any previous ones—and whether deserves a unique response as a result. Read more
Pay attention to Wikileaks?
Sam recently wrote about the ethical complexities that arise from the unsanctioned and rather unruly behavior of Wikileaks, a site that has gotten a lot of attention recently for its mass release of documents relating to the war effort in Afghanistan.
He cautioned that Wikileaks, as a non-traditional rogue outfit, should not expect the same standards of treatment in the U.S. that would be accorded to journalistic efforts that go through all the proper channels.
An article in the Wall Street Journal raises similar concerns about the legitimacy of Wikileaks. It portrays Wikileaks founder Julian Assange as “frustrated” that a large percentage of Wikileaks disclosures have been largely ignored by the public, and the latest leak (and accompanying media attention) as an attempt to reignite popular interest.
Setting aside questions about the sensitivity of Wikileaks content and its lack of traditional journalistic methodology, it’s perhaps more troubling to think of this latest leak as a publicity stunt. While the leak itself has generated tons of news, its contents have doubtlessly remained largely unexplored by the individuals Wikileaks purports to serve. Its revelations (the war isn’t going as well as we thought?) are far too banal to justify a media craze about their release.
Wikileaks’ intention in leaking this information is just as important as the information itself. If they did it largely to draw attention to themselves, their actions are both unprincipled and dishonest. Before they continue to blow the whistle on the U.S. government, Wikileaks should take a look at its own practices.
Wikileaks would have a far easier time convincing the public of its fidelity to the principles of open democracy if it acted less carelessly with its information.
-Ethan
Image used under a Creative Commons attribution license from Flickr user jenny8lee.
Education and ROI
Should the government be in the business of maximizing its educational investment?
Last week, the Obama administration released its proposals for reforming the way the federal government does business with for-profit colleges. What’s at stake is millions of dollars of federally-backed loans. Data suggests that for-profit colleges have a comparatively poor track record of graduating students into jobs capable of supporting debt payment. In effect, many for-profit colleges run without significant downside risk, which is all held by the government. The proposed regulations call for a halt to government-backed loans to schools with less than 45% of their graduates able to make payments on the debt principle.
The underlying moral foundations of the administration’s move are debatable; is the concern that the government is making poor investments, or that the poor investments are going to fund predatory private interests?
If it’s the former, the proposed reforms are likely to be ineffective. Although educational resources are important, the brightest students will likely succeed whether at Harvard, State U, or University of Phoenix. Likewise, the least capable students are likely to fail at any institution. Admissions offices no doubt have years of data suggesting which students are likely to fail to graduate. This is not to say that universities have no role, but that the abilities of the student are probably better predictors of future success. If the government wanted to get the most out of its investment, it would do better to review applications individually, choosing the best-performing students.
If, in addition to wanting to maximize its investment the administration is also trying to clamp down on predatory practices, I’m not sure what it’s moral claim would be. Why should the government encourage the students who are least likely to succeed to attend State U rather than University of Phoenix? Perhaps the argument could be made that the government is just doing more of what it already does — funneling money to public universities. But if this is the goal, it can and should be done in a better way than putting the debt load on the backs of students who are unlikely to be able to pay it off.
Ultimately, the administration is avoiding the key issue — that, for thousands of students, investment in a BA is unlikely to pay off when it involves tens of thousands of debt. Other administration priorities, like reinvestment in community colleges, are likely to lead to better returns.
- John
Image courtesy Wikimedia commons.
Livin’ in the future
Global warming and intergenerational justice
As environmental activists and their allies mourn the death of the climate bill, the ethics of environmental protection bring up many interesting questions. In this post, I’d like to take a look at one often overlooked issue. The true effects of global warming (and other environmental problems), even at its worst, will probably be felt most by a generation that has not yet been born. Does this change the moral calculus? What do we owe future generations?
Theoretically, it is tempting to think that we owe them nothing. After all, future generations by definition do not exist, and it is hard to imagine persons who do not exist having rights. Classic conceptions of justice rely on reciprocity or consent – concepts that cannot be applied to future generations. Yet, this position is obviously counter-intuitive. Nobody thinks it’s morally permissible to leave the planet an inhospitable wasteland when we die. Read more
Reason to believe?
Here is an interesting piece on peer reviewed journals and science reporting. Apparently, science journalists are starting to look toward non-peer reviewed pre-print repositories like the arXiv to find papers to report on.
And there’s some pretty mind-blowing stuff lurking in the arXiv. Ars recently received a tip to check out a paper that suggests Bell’s Inequalities are simply a big misunderstanding, and we’ve spent decades chasing a phenomenon—quantum entanglement—that doesn’t actually exist. These sorts of fringe ideas sometimes do make it into the scientific literature, but they generally don’t, and rarely have much of an impact if they do. (In fact, if a paper lingers in the arXiv for years without ever finding a publisher, that’s probably saying something about its science.)
The conclusion is that using such sources is sensationalist and irresponsible. As interesting as this question is for science reporting, I wonder about similar issues in reporting political opinions. Is it responsible to report “fringe ideas” in the political realm? After all, something akin to peer review happens to political ideas as well, since different sources also have differing levels of respectability. It seems that many ideas are so unlikely to be correct that they are not worthy of the respect and time devoted to them when they are reported.
The relevant philosophical issues here are complex and often very technical (involving philosophy of science and meta-ethics), theorizing about the nature of knowledge and the relation between ethics and science. Still, this shows that even the most technical and abstract parts of philosophy are still applicable to the “real world.”
-Han
Photo by Flickr user Nic’s events used under Creative Commons Attribution license
Crimes against humanity: with oppression and injustice for most
For his role in 16,000 deaths during the Khmer Rouge, Kaing Guek Eav, alias “Duch,” was recently sentenced to 35 years in prison. That he may walk free in 19 years at the age of 86 due to time served has baffled and infuriated Cambodians. The worst tyrants of the last century mostly escaped formal justice (Hitler, Stalin, Mao); others did die in ignominious circumstances and were effectively the victims of mob violence (Mussolini, Ceausescu, arguably Saddam). Duch’s case and surprisingly light sentence brings to mind the perennial question of justice for politically-motivated atrocities.
We seem to know what crimes against humanity are when we see them. But the story is often more complicated in places like the most impoverished parts of the Third World, where politics is a life-or-death affair. Interest groups are divided along ethnic, class, or religious fault lines and power is a means to extract resources for the favored group at the expense of all others. An old Kenyan aphorism holds that to seize the machinery of the state means that “it is our turn to eat.” In these cases murder, rape and torture may become routine tools of political intimidation.
How do we evaluate crimes against humanity and the justice that should follow when the only clear distinction between victim and victimizer is that the latter is stronger than the other, and when it seems likely that the other side would behave just as monstrously if the circumstances permitted?
-Charles
Photo by Flickr user Sebr used under a Creative Commons Attribution license
Share us