Political and Philosophical Questions

Some interesting questions that have really been changing the way I think about politics lately:

Are poor people to blame for their monetary situation?
Are rich people to blame for their monetary situation?
If different reactions, why?

Is it the government's job to bail out large companies?
Is it the government's job to bail out individuals?
If different reactions, why?

What counts as a bailout? (Social Security? Medicaid? Pro-business regulations and subsidies?)

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? "A healthy society involves the use of no coercive force."

(For following examples, "freedoms" or "rights" are assumed to stop where another person's begins.)
Coercive force applied to freedom of speech is acceptable/unacceptable. When one vs the other? (For instance, is it one person's job to PAY for another person to have the ability to speak freely).
Coercive force applied to freedom of movement is acceptable/unacceptable. When one vs the other? (For instance, is it one person's job to PAY for another person to have the ability to move freely).
Coercive force applied to freedom of property (the right to claim ownership of something) is acceptable/unacceptable. When one vs the other? (For instance, is it ok to take money? What about land or a house? A car? Who has the right to take money/land/a car?).

Who has the right to use coercive force? (In most places, the reality is that it is more or less the monopoly of the government.)

What is a government? (should be vs actually is)
Who is part of a government? (should be vs actually is)
Who controls a government? (should control vs actually controls)

Ok, so I have some replies to these things, but I don't want to just post them here. I want some people to actually think about these questions. It'd be AWESOME if someone typed up their thoughts, but so long as some people read this and kind of think about their ideas, that's good.

Something I know I care about is having a consistent approach to the world. I try not to overdo it - I think trying too hard to be conscientiously consistent can lead to indecisiveness of a ridiculous extent. But I think these questions made me think about things from a slightly different perspective, and reevaluate how consistent my beliefs actually were.

Looking forward to some interesting discussions with whoever reads this!

Book Club: Big Sleep

Phillip Marlowe

Carmen Sternwood -- pulls wings off flies

Vivian - Mrs. Regan -- calculating, smart

Objectivity, distance as detective model

Maid, cleaning up rich people's lives, tidy morally? maybe not… observer being complicit in the crime… what is his motivation to do this job? doesn't enjoy it much, not getting highly compensated. is marlowe good or bad? Ambivalent?

Vivian cares a lot about… something? Carmen is "naked" always, maybe? Isn't suited for the world she lives in.

Brody and Eddie Mars we've met once each… each is a themed color,

"Doghouse Riley": a reference to something? made up name. "dog house" as in "jail" and "riley" as in "irish", "justice/cops". Repetition. Reassuring himself, defying other people's labels.

Carmen as in the opera. Tragic figure. Wholly objectified. Insane. Unpredictable. Body and emotions, but no brain.

Vivian as in… ? Defined by her missing husband. "Mrs. Regan." Intentional? Manipulative. Brains, veiled emotions. Mannish? Emulating men?

Agnes… silver claws. Blonde, relies on Brody entirely, animal-like in viciousness and loyalty. Not big in brains. Almost Brody's pet. Outraged and offended.

Women are very flat. Women=sexuality=shallow? None of them are old, only one them is actively helpful and she only exists for one page (28).

After the break is a synopsis of what we've read so far. If you're interested in reading or... something, then don't read it! Spoilers and all that.

Thoughts on Duty and Self Interest

There's a set of issues that C and I gripe about consistently, and have similar (but not the same) views on. A set of these gripings relates to morality -- everything from its lack of importance in public elementary and secondary education to its deep ties in many people's minds to religion.

C and I disagree on lots of remarkably important details - things like how to define "duty" and "responsibility" and "rights". These things all relate to morality -- why to be a moral person, how to make "right" decisions, and what to strive for in making "right" decisions.

But we agree on the bigger, more complicated issues such as the education and religion problems -- in the case of education, C and I think morality should be taught and examined and thought through in a school setting. In the case of religion, C and I agree that not only is it incorrect to tie morality and religion together from a practical point of view, but it is detrimental (at least for us) to both spiritual growth and moral analysis to tie the two together.

I think "duty" is best thought of as a choice. Which I suppose isn't the standard definition at all. (Looking it up now...

Duty is a term that conveys a sense of moral commitment to someone or something. The moral commitment is the sort that results in action[citation needed] and it is not a matter of passive feeling or mere recognition. When someone recognizes a duty, that person commits himself/herself to the cause involved without considering the self-interested courses of actions that may have been relevant previously. This is not to suggest that living a life of duty precludes one of the best sorts of lives but duty does involve some sacrifice of immediate self-interest.
Cicero is an early philosopher who acknowledged this possibility. He discusses duty in his work “On Duty." He suggests that duties can come from four different sources:
a result of being human

It is a result of one's particular place in life (your family, your country, your job)

It is a result of one's character

One's own moral expectations for oneself can generate duties

From the root idea of obligation to serve or give something in return, involved in the conception of duty, have sprung various derivative uses of the word; thus it is used of the services performed by a minister of a church, by a soldier, or by any employee or servant.

Many schools of thought have debated the idea of duty. While many assert mankind's duty on their own terms, some philosophers have absolutely rejected a sense of duty.

Ok, so that's interesting. I'm going to pull out the "immediate self interest" part and rephrase that to "immediate gratification" so that fullfilling a duty usually implies some sort of delayed gratification, or perhaps it might be better to think of it as fullfilling a different sort of desire than those that typically come to mind when someone thinks of the type of things that "gratify" a person. Instead of the "baser" emotions (and I don't mean this in a perjorative sense) such as hunger and thirst and sex drive and possibly greed and jealousy, maybe a "duty" can gratify the "higher" emotions (and I don't mean this in the sense that they're better, just that maybe they're more complicated somehow) such as honor, personal self worth, and pride in one's actions.

In the wikipedia article (that's what I quoted, btw) there is mention of "recognizing" a duty. I think this is important to underline. I take "recognition" to mean, in this sense, something that has been come to after serious thought and analysis. After taking into consideration as many important factors as an individual can, they can "recognize" a duty. It might depend some on the individual what those factors are; for me they include personal gain, social gain, and sustainablity in action to promote long term and not just short term benefits.

So, to summarize, an optimal sort of "duty" is something that has been thought through carefully, and then consciously committed to. So marriage is a good example of the sort of approach I think people should take to duties in general.

Quick fake review of "Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need it More than Ever"

So. Talking/discussing this book (well, the introduction) with C. Here's some of the comments that came out of it:

There's a difference between "rights" and "privileges", which I guess is important - but much more important to me is the difference between what a healthy, positive society does/enacts/spends money and effort on versus what it chooses to leave alone or up to individuals. But there's an even more interesting distinction, which keeps becoming more and more apparent to me as I talk things over with C. It's this: laws declaring "must not!" versus laws declaring "must!" Another way to look at this, that I really like but haven't finished thinking through yet, is a passive law (one that requires little to no action to enact) versus an active law. An example would be a law against murder (a "must not" or "passive" law) versus a law commanding citizens to pay taxes (a "must!" or "active" law).

The Bill of Rights has an interesting mix of "active" and "passive" language in it. Or maybe I'll stick with the "must" and "must not" phrasing of C. Examples: Freedom of speech, religion, unreasonable search and seizure, right to bear arms (which I don't like, but it's an example nonetheless) are all Must Not rights/freedoms. Right to a job, to earn enough for food/clothing/recreation, of all farmers to raise crops and sell them at a price allowing for a pleasant living, for every business to operate in an environment free of unfair competition and domination from monopolies, of every family to a decent home, to adequate medical care and to achieve and enjoy good health, to adequate protection in old age from nasty events, to a good education are all Musts. (The "musts" all come from FDR's second bill of rights).

I support "must" laws in many cases, but not as rights! They are privileges granted by a sane and healthy society to encourage future sanity and health of its members. "Must nots" I also support, also not really as rights though. I think they are foundations of a strong society and if people want to live in a pleasant environment they are required. But that doesn't make them rights, it just makes them incredibly sensible and pragmatic.

Is eating food a "right" of being alive? No, people starve all the time. But it's unpleasant, and leads to death, and is generally to be avoided at all costs. So a good family (or on a larger scale, a society) provides its members with access to food.