Flexible fairness
When good policies expire
This is a perfect example of what you could call “freezing difference.” MSNBC explains:
Following an uproar over a policy it said was designed 30 years ago to achieve racial equality, a school district board in a Mississippi town on Friday scrapped a system of student elections where race determined whether a candidate could run for some class positions, including president.
The policy designated on a rotating basis the race of each position. So, for example, one year the class secretary had to be white, the next year black, and so on. There were four total class officer positions up for grabs. The school dropped the policy this year in response to a parent complaint after a 12-year-old girl was considered ineligible to run for one of the officer positions because of her race.
From where we stand, this feels wrong. The story writes itself: “Precocious black student prevented from running for class office due to her race. School stands by 30-year-old policy.”
But take a look at what the district superintendent said when he revoked the policy, making every officer position equal opportunity: Read more
ShareMakes much more sense to live in the present tense
Over at CNN, Will Bunch bemoans how Glenn Beck is attempting to rewrite history in order to support his own political agenda.
For thousands of followers […], there is a genuine desire to relearn American history. The only problem is that what they’re learning is bunk. It’s not history as it happened, but rather a Beck-scripted, Tea Party rewrite of history that demonizes Obama, Democrats and progressive activists.
This problem is a consequence of the harmful reverence for history that I wrote about earlier this week. If we didn’t have such a history-worshiping political culture, then no rewrite of history would have such an effect on our present day politics.
For example, Glenn Beck teaches his viewers that America’s creation was rooted in Christianity. Whether this is historically true or not, it shouldn’t matter. Even if America was rooted in Christianity, it shouldn’t settle the issue about whether today’s America should be a Christian nation.
The solution is a greater reverence – or at least awareness – of philosophy’s place in politics. If we had such a political culture, Glenn Beck and others would have to argue their case with solid theory and sound logic. And if he can do that, then maybe he’s right.
-Han
Photo by Flickr user Gage Skidmore used under a Creative Commons Attribution license.
TPP Weekly Rewind
Monday, August 23 – Friday, August 27
TPP Week-In-Review
- On Monday, Sam discussed the importance of politicians explicitly stating their political philosophies before urging President Obama to read The Public Philosopher; TPP intern Charles explained the view that a debate over first principles and the role of government has eclipsed the ‘culture wars’ over abortion and gay marriage; in another post, he argued that European countries ought to integrate the Roma;
- On Wednesday, TPP intern Han criticized some attempts to alter the Constitution by arguing against ‘Founding Father-ism’; TPP intern Ethan defended video games against people like British Defense Secretary Liam Fox, who called for a ban of the most recent Medal of Honor game
- On Thursday, TPP intern Charles investigated seeming Western news media indifference towards terrible Pakistani floods; and Jake explored the meaning of ‘moderate Islam‘ in light of a recent Ross Douthat piece
In Others’ Words
- A Korea Times article on the release of Michael Sandel’s new book on moral reasoning provided an interesting glimpse into East Asia’s regard for ethics, and philosophy in general
- Another article from Mainichi Daily News similarly illustrates the popularity of philosophy and philosophers in East Asia
- For Victoria Advocate, Raymond Smith decried the world’s fall into depravity
- Nina Rosenstand from Philosophy on the Mesa returned from vacation and jumped into a discussion of moral naturalism
- A user at Heathen-Hub pointed us to a talk on the ethics research of Eric Schwitzegebel and Joshua Knobe
- Philosophy In A Time of Error linked to an interesting attack advertisement against Immanuel Kant
- Tehran Times offered an interview with Eric Thomas Weber, who believes that John Rawls returned Western philosophers’ attention to the notion of the social contract
- Guest blogger Ryan Berg wrote for Capitolism on the relationship between the philosophical notion of ‘fairness’ and the Bush tax cuts
- Daniel McCarthy for The American Conservative discussed the issues at heart of the upcoming book, The Dilemmas of American Conservatism, and connected the thinking of Willmoore Kendall with that of Murray Rothbard
- A recent Politico article asks “What is Obama’s philosophy?”
- And then a recent Salon article criticized that Politico piece, before exploring the same issue
Sign up to get the TPP Weekly Rewind in your inbox every Friday
Monday, August 23-Friday, August 27
TPP Week-In-Review
- On Monday, Sam discussed the importance of politicians explicitly stating their political philosophies before urging President Obama to read The Public Philosopher; TPP intern Charles explained the view that a debate over first principles and the role of government has eclipsed the ‘culture wars’ over abortion and gay marriage; in another post, he argued that European countries ought to integrate the Roma;
- On Wednesday, TPP intern Han criticized some attempts to alter the Constitution by arguing against ‘Founding Father-ism’; TPP intern Ethan defended video games against people like British Defense Secretary Liam Fox, who called for a ban of the most recent Medal of Honor game
- On Thursday, TPP intern Charles investigated seeming Western news media indifference towards terrible Pakistani floods
In Others’ Words
- A Korea Times article on the release of Michael Sandel’s new book on moral reasoning provided an interesting glimpse into East Asia’s regard for ethics, and philosophy in general
- Another article from Mainichi Daily News similarly illustrates the popularity of philosophy and philosophers in East Asia
- For Victoria Advocate, Raymond Smith decried the world’s fall into depravity
- Nina Rosenstand from Philosophy on the Mesa returned from vacation and jumped into a discussion of moral naturalism
- A user at Heathen-Hub pointed us to a talk on the ethics research of Eric Schwitzegebel and Joshua Knobe
- Philosophy In A Time of Error linked to an interesting attack advertisement against Immanuel Kant
- Tehran Times offered an interview with Eric Thomas Weber, who believes that John Rawls returned Western philosophers’ attention to the notion of the social contract
- Guest blogger Ryan Berg wrote for Capitolism on the relationship between the philosophical notion of ‘fairness’ and the Bush tax cuts
- Daniel McCarthy for The American Conservative discussed the issues at heart of the upcoming book, The Dilemmas of American Conservatism, and connected the thinking of Willmoore Kendall with that of Murray Rothbard
- A recent Politico article asks “What is Obama’s philosophy?”
- And then a recent Salon article criticized that Politico piece, before exploring the same issue
Moderate or “moderate” Islam?
Who’s liberal enough?
Ross Douthat writes a thoughtful piece at the NYT Blog on how to understand and engage with Muslim critics of radical Islamism. He rejects those Western thinkers who limit the category of “moderate Muslims” to those, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Irshad Manji, who endorse Western liberalism absolutely and without qualification. He writes:
This school of thought strikes me as misguided. Manji and Hirsi Ali are brave and admirable, but what they’re offering (Hirsi Ali especially) is ultimately a straightforward critique of Muslim traditions and belief, not a bridge between Islam and the liberal West that devout Muslims can cross with their religious faith intact. If such bridges are going to be built, much of the work will necessarily be done by figures who sometimes seem ambiguous and even two-faced, who have illiberal conversation partners and influences, and whose ideas are tailored to audiences in Cairo or Beirut or Baghdad as well as audiences in Europe and America. That’s how change — religious, ideological, whatever — nearly always works.
On the other side, Douthat is clear that making “these kind of distinctions doesn’t require us to suspend all judgment where would-be Islamic moderates are concerned” and that ” forays into more dubious territory should be greeted with swift pushback, rather than simply being accepted as a necessary part of the moderate Muslim package.”
I discussed similar issues here.
-Jake
Image by Flickr user Paul Lowry used under a Creative Commons Attribution License
Who deserves sympathy?
On both the 11th and the 23rd of this month there have been stories on BBC citing the inadequacy of the international aid response to the Pakistani floods. At the moment, there are seven mentions of the Pakistani floods on the front pages of the BBC site.
U.S. news outlets have less to say. CNN, Fox, CBS, the New York Times, and the Washington Post have one or two mentions each on their front pages. ABC News and the Wall Street Journal have none at all. Elsewhere in the world, Der Spiegel, Xinhua and Pravda are about the same.
The British understandably feel a peculiar connection with their former colonial possession. But in most of the world, you would not think that there is an ongoing calamity displacing millions of people, exposing them to hunger and disease.
One BBC article offers tentative answers for this indifference. Some suggest that Pakistan is merely unlucky. The floods come while donors are fatigued from the Haitian earthquake; the disaster unfolded over a span of weeks and makes a weak headliner; the floods are a part of the seasonal monsoon rains.
Other explanations, however, point to Pakistan’s perceived faults. Namely, Pakistan’s links to terrorism and corruption within its government make sympathy a tough sell. Comments on the story’s page suggest, sometimes harshly, that a country capable of amassing nuclear weapons, maintaining a large army and funneling money to terrorists surely has the means to rescue its own people.
This is close to approval of collective punishment. Victims of the flood cannot be held personally responsible for the dubious actions of Pakistan’s ISI (its clandestine intelligence service), its decades under military government, or greed and corruption of its officials. Moral and legal codes everywhere assign agency to individuals and judge them accordingly. Can individuals be blamed for the actions of others in a group over whom they have little control? What are the bounds of collective responsibility?
-Charles
Image by Flickr user DFID-UK Department for International Development used under a Creative Commons Attribution License
Morality and gaming
Why banning realistic depictions of war in games is wrong
The BBC reported on Monday that British Defense Secretary Liam Fox has continued to defend comments he made calling for a retail ban of the newest Medal of Honor game. The publishers of the game, Electronic Arts, have defended it and accused Fox of portraying its content unfaithfully.
Fox denounced the game on Sunday, saying it was “shocking that someone would think it acceptable to recreate the acts of the Taliban against British soldiers.” Fox also made an appeal to patriotism, arguing that this new installment of the franchise is a “thoroughly un-British game.”
His comments can be seen in the context of a larger crusade against objectionable content in videogames that has involved some of the best-selling games of all time, including the Grand Theft Auto series and the newest installment of the Call of Duty series.
Arguments against these games usually claim that their content is immoral, obscene, or in some other way objectionable. Additionally, this claim is often accompanied by the idea that the interactive aspect of a game has a special persuasive power. Read more
All those yesterdays
Philosophy, the Constitution, and respect for the Founding Fathers
According to a report by the Associated Press, Republicans have proposed forty-two amendments to the Constitution during the current Congress, compared to twenty-seven such proposals by the Democrats (one third of which are part of a package from a single member).
This is surprising because many Republicans won their seats as strict defenders of the Constitution’s “plain language.” One of these politicians, Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia, explains away the discrepancy.
He said the Founding Fathers never imagined the size and scope of today’s federal government and that he’s simply resurrecting their vision by trying to amend it. “It’s not picking and choosing,” he said. “We need to do a lot of tweaking to make the Constitution as it was originally intended, instead of some perverse idea of what the Constitution says and does.”
Apparently, politicians like Rep. Broun appeal to the intentions of the Founding Fathers as their political philosophy, not the Constitution itself. Variations of this “Founding Father-ism” exist across the political spectrum, yet there are several problems with this position. Read more
Obama: read this blog
Political consultants ask Obama to do more philosophizing
A lengthy piece in today’s Politico quotes a wide range of political consultants, former high-level White House advisers, and pollsters who all reiterate the same shortcoming about President Obama:
By declining to speak clearly and often about his larger philosophy — and insisting that his actions are guided not by ideology but a results-oriented “pragmatism” — he has bred confusion and disappointment among his allies, and left his agenda and motives vulnerable to distortion by his enemies.
Obama’s predicament highlights an important role for political philosophy that even we here at The Public Philosopher tend to discount: it’s practical capacity to add clarity of vision to the messy business of governing. Read more
Statelessness sucks
George Soros writes at Project Syndicate that the recent expulsion of the Roma from France is tantamount to collective punishment. His outrage is echoed by a French priest who prays for Sarkozy to have a heart attack.
Although every state obviously has a right to protect public order, critics of the expulsion wonder “what harm can a few hundred people do?”
They wonder too how it’s acceptable for an EU country to forcibly relocate EU citizens without due process, especially when all EU citizens are entitled to freedom of movement.
The Roma are the continent’s largest ethnic minority group. They are not native to Europe and are in fact descended from Indians. Their distinct ethnic identity combined with misperceptions has historically made them outcasts everywhere. The Roma presently being deported from France tried to escape dire poverty and discrimination in Romania.
Despite being EU citizens, the French government’s recent treatment of them signals that no state may reliably look out for them.
How should we respond to the problem of stateless people? For Theodor Herzl and the Zionists, the answer was obvious – to reclaim an ancestral homeland and establish a new nation. But the present Arab-Israeli conflict highlights the extraordinary difficulty and moral complexity of such a solution. And no reasonable person could suggest that the Roma try to re-conquer Punjab in northern India.
The solution will have to be the least impossible of impossible alternatives. The European countries should probably make a concerted effort to integrate the Roma and make them full members of their societies.
Not only does the “plight of so many millions of Roma… [make] a mockery of European values” as Soros writes, but the alternative is to allow a moral and social problem of enormous proportions to fester and ultimately truly undermine public order.
-Charles
Image by Flickr user Rivard used under a Creative Commons Attributions License
It’s the economy, stupid
Equality butts heads with freedom
Jonathan Martin and Ben Smith write at Politico that a new debate about first principles and the role of government has replaced the social issues at stake during the “culture wars” of the last three decades.
This dispute over first principles is deeply entwined with questions of national identity and the appropriate role of the government in the economy.
On one extreme is a minimalist state, in which the government is responsible for little more than upholding the rule of law and providing for a common defense. On the other extreme is a socialist state in which the government manages all facets of economic activity.
Neither extreme applies to any industrialized country today. Rather, the modern world is populated by welfare states of various stripes.
