Nietzsche Joke Thursday, Feb 28 2008

“Students of Nietzsche never die, they just keep recurring”

 Ho ho ho.

Thanks to Niel Ashdown for that one.

One Response »

 

Locke, Hobbes and Violence Thursday, Feb 28 2008

Some very rough and ready thoughts about Locke and his relation to Hobbes vis-a-vis their attitudes towards violence and stability

 I went to an excellent lecture by Elizabeth Frazer today on Locke (and also Filmer), and she stressed a number of times the emphasis on violence contained especially in Locke’s Second Treatise on Government. This was interesting for me, because she seemed quite troubled by it, and I’ve also noticed that Waldron in Locke, God and Equality laments the fact that Locke is prepared to use extreme violence to deal with those who transgress the codes of civil society, thereby throwing us into a State of War (because for Locke, unlike Hobbes, the State of Nature is not automatically a State of War, indeed we can find ourselves suddenly in the latter even when a legitimate sovereign continues to rule).

In today’s lecture, Elizabeth Frazer mentioned Ashcroft’s interpretation of Locke as not so much a ‘liberal’ as a ‘radical’, prepared to endorse violence to bring about the political state of affairs he deemed most desirable. Now, I haven’t read Ashcroft, so i admit now that I don’t know his arguments. However I want to take the ideas about violence in Locke and construct a proto-thesis about how he might be read, which can be summarised as follows. Locke is applying what will later come to be designated liberal considerations to a conception of politics designed to transcend the Hobbesian. However, in order to achieve such transcendence Locke must posit what will later become known as a ‘thick’ conception of the good, and is prepared to use extreme force to deal with those who don’t accept the thick conception. This is interesting because I will endorse the postulation that Locke is concerned predominantly with stability – just as I believe Hobbes was. The difference between Locke and Hobbes may well then come down to Hobbes seeing stability as the primary and virtually exclusive concern, whereas Locke is compelled to ask what can be achieved once stability is assured. 

As I said, this is a rough and ready piece, and I don’t claim to be putting forward anything definitive. But I hope it is of interest to any Early Modern Politics Geeks out there. Also, i am too lazy to get proper references, so you’ll have to trust me, and I may well be open to strong objections that site actual bits of the text.

To begin, i’m going to focus on the example in Locke that Elizabeth Frazer employed in the lecture today, and the one that gets Waldron all upset. It is that if I am set upon by a robber who threatens my life in order to take my purse, then he places himself in a state of war with me. As a result, I am entitled to kill him, because this is the only way to defend myself – and myself is God’s property – and by extension my property. Further, those who would be robbers, and go about creating the State of War (or alternatively, treating the State of Nature not as a mere state of liberty, but a state of license) are those noxious beasts with which men can have neither Security nor Society. Correspondingly, society must destroy these men as it would destroy Lions and Tygers. Waldron doesn’t like this, because he sees it as a particularly anti-liberal attitude to criminals, which reduces them to mere beasts and degrades their status as human beings. This is especially problematic for Waldron, because his primary thesis is that Locke views all as fundamentally equal, because God made them that way. Elizabeth Frazer seemed to me to be voicing different concerns, which (due to the obviously limited nature of what she could present in her lecture) I inferred to be a general concern with the levels of violence Locke seems prepared to endorse, and that death appears to be a constant theme in the Second Treatise (as it is in Leviathan, which I agree with her about).

Yet this example of Locke’s has never troubled me in the way it definitely troubles Waldron, and certainly appears to trouble Elizabeth Frazer. To try and get my reasons clear, let’s begin by considering something else Locke says about criminals and transgressors, where we are not allowed to destroy them. Imagine I am getting off my horse and ask you, my servant, to hold my purse. Now imagine that as I dismount you run away. What I am certainly not allowed to do is chase after you and hack you to bits. In the previous example, I was allowed to destroy my enemy as a Lion or Tyger because if he killed me to take my property, the law would mean nothing – it could not restore life to my dead corpse. In this second example the case is different: there is a system of legal rules and enforcement that mean the perpetrator can be caught and dealt with, and my property returned. So as a first point, Locke isn’t saying that we can just go about slaughtering criminals as though they were brute beasts. Things are more subtle than that.

Secondly, I am now going to posit an explanation about what underlies the two cases. In the first case the only way I can protect myself and my property is through violence. Further, the only way society can protect itself from what we might think of as pathological criminals – those that really are akin to Lions and Tygers in that the rest of us simply cannot ever have security or society with them - is to just kill them. This is pretty illiberal – but perhaps even modern ‘liberals’ will agree with the sentiment, and simply modify it to “lock the pathological criminals up in gaol, or mental assylums, forever”. That Locke advocates outright killing may just be down to his being a product of his time. The second case is clearly different: somebody who runs away with my purse can be dealt with adequately by the law.

What I take to underlie both cases and be common to them is the issue of stability, and Locke’s desire that society have it. For consider; the presence of pathological criminals – Lions and Tygers – fundamentally destabilises society; if people like that are around everything descends into anarchy and fear. To make society stable – and i suggest, therefore worth having – such people must be eradicated (in Locke’s case, literally). Petty non-pathological criminals are different. They cause minor nuisances (polecats and foxes?) but ultimately society will be more unstable if we go around killing the non-pathological for minor transgressions. Thus as regards such people, stability is best served by letting the apparatus of the state deal with them.

Now some remarks about stability in general, and the connection with Hobbes. I take Locke to have some fundamentally similar sentiments about stability to Hobbes, but to articulate them differently and take them in different directions.

Firstly, Hobbes and Locke share a similar enough context. The execution of Charles I loomed over all of mid-late 17th Century thinking – this will have been as common to Hobbes as to Locke. Further, whilst Hobbes had experienced the Civil Wars of 1642-9, Locke lived through the Succession Crisis of 1688, and the wrangling and deliberation prior to this (if we are to accept Laslett’s reading of the Two Treatise as written in the early 1680s). So both knew what it was like to live under tumult, and to desire societies where instability was eradicated.

Secondly, we turn to differences. I take Hobbes as being fundamentally desirous of stability no matter what. I would have to argue at great length to establish this, so I’m basically just going to assert it, on the back of both contextual consideration about the English Civil War, as well as an explanation of why Hobbes is not only prepared, but keen to endorse absolute Sovereign Power. I see Locke as also having a strong urge to achieve stability, but drawing back sharply from the implications of Hobbes-style Stability Uber Alles. Thus Locke needs to get two things to sit with each other: a fundamental commitment to stability, and a society in which the Sovereign can be challenged, and which recognises that it would be mad to suppose men fear the mischiefs of polecats and foxes, but are content, nay think it safety, to be devoured by Lions.

How does he achieve this? The answer is complex, but goes something like this. Locke endorses something which is pretty similar to what will later come to be termed ‘a thick conception of the good’, and it happens to be pretty ‘liberal’ in nature. The ‘thick’ conception Locke has in mind involves things like recognising we are all God’s property, respecting each others’ property, possibly even seeing that we are all fundamentally equal (if one is to endorse Waldron’s reading), and so forth. Now, if a group of people all endorse this ‘thick’ conception, then the society will be stable, and furthermore, all sort of wonderful things can take place in it, such as the cultivation of land, the election of representatives, and the challenging of particular governments. However, those who do not share this thick conception are dangerous. For they are fundamentally at odds with those who do share such a conception – they are like Lions and Tygers. Indeed, these people are dangerous because they threaten not only fundamental stability, but everything good and beneficial that can be built up in a state that enjoys stability. Thus it will be necessary for those sharing the thick conception to destroy as noxious beasts those who fundamentally threaten stability, which means those not endorsing the thick (liberal?) conception.

So Locke does endorse violence against these people, and perhaps as Waldron says there is something particularly unpleasant in Locke’s reducing some men to the level of beasts to be destroyed. But what I am suggesting is that the violence is a necessary part of achieving the stability which will be necessary for any desirable political society – that is, any stable society that is not predicated on the existence of an absolute Hobbesian sovereign.

 That’s the proto-thesis. Any thoughts?

8 Responses »

 

Real Life Moral Dilemma – can you help? Thursday, Feb 28 2008

As those who know me personally will attest, I have not eaten meat for what is going on for 6 years, and quite possibly longer. For a good 3 of those I was vegan, as opposed to just vegetarian. The thing is, I’m starting to have some seriously challenging thoughts about this particular practical ethical stance of mine. Here’s the reasoning leading me to think I should just pack it in…

To begin, note that my not eating meat has made absolutely zero difference to any animal, ever. I never killed my own meat, so my going vegetarian didn’t stop any animals from dying at my own hands. My objection has always been to modern high-intensity agri-business farming methods. Indeed my objections to that still stand: I think that the way we use and abuse animals in modern industrialised society, the way we raise and kill them, is morally indefensible. I’m not going to tell anyone that what we do to animals is OK – I think it clearly isn’t.

Yet nothing I have done for the past 6 years has saved a single animal life. Those who say that vegetarians save animals lives are living in a sort of Sorites Cloud Cukoo Land. For while it might be true that given the total number of vegetarians in, say, the UK, the corresponding decline in market demand has led to X number of cows not being born and therefore not being reared for slaughter. This X can then be aggregated out amongst the number of vegetarians, concluding that each vegetarian saved (or rather, prevented the creation and then destruction of) X/n number of cows. This might be true (though I suspect it’s actually uncalculable due to limited information). The point is it has made no difference whether I was a vegetarian or not: my impact on market demand is far too small to make any difference – either in the past or if I start buying steak tomorrow. Thus my not eating meat has saved no cows’ lives, and if I start eating meat, the same number of cows (or whatever) will die.

Which leads to another point. If I really did care about saving animals lives, I should have done far more: for example I should have bought cows and a field to put them in, or barricaded the gateways to slaughterhouses, or at the very least given out leaflets in the street encouraging people to go veggie, thus potentially altering market demand. The fact is I have done nothing of these things – and i’d be lying if I said I care enough to start now.

So why be vegetarian? I think we get to the heart of the issue when we turn reflection towards me and why I want to do or not do certain things. Part of the sentiment here is, I think, laudable: the meat industry is morally abhorrent; I cannot justify it, and so want no part in it. That is a sort of ‘clean hands’ argument against meat-eating. The other part is less laudable: it comes down to quite liking the smug superiority of being a non-meat eater, and feeling great about the fact that I have the moral wisdom and strength of character to do what I see to be right. I don’t like that thought about myself, because it is massively egotistical and thoroughly self-interested: the animals aren’t the issue here, my ego is.

Given that those are the things which seem to really matter, ethically speaking, as to whether I should be vegetarian, I can pose a neat question. Firstly, I want to get rid of the ego stuff: I don’t want to keep endorsing moral principles which at root I know to be motivated by self-flattery not genuine ethical sentiments. So we can chuck all that stuff out. All that remains is the ‘clean hands’ considerations, and it seems we then have a clear confrontation. For what matters more to me? That I keep my hands clean? Or that I live a less inconvenienced life, where I can eat the same food as my friends, not worry about ingredients in prepared foods or when going to restaurants, make my Mum’s life less difficult, make my Gran happy and relieved (she thinks i’ll die young and soon if i keep not eating meat), not have to make a scene every time I go round to other people’s for dinner, and generally just be normal?

Right now, i’ve got to be honest and say the latter things are pressing more strongly than the clean hands considerations. Part of me just doesn’t care if my hands are clean – after all, the rest of me is pretty dirty already.

 So what should I do? I’m giving 48 hours for anybody to come up with a solidly convincing reason why I should stay vegetarian. And don’t talk to me about consequences unless you’ve got some really nifty moves lined up. I want to know why I, an individual moral agent with projects, commitments, life-plans and designs upon the world, should for the sake of my soul (as you might like to think of it) not eat meat. After 48 hours, if no good arguments are forthcoming, I’m eating steak.

Secondly, is this a paradigmatic case of clear eyed akrasia? I can’t decide, but i’m tempted to think that it might very well be… 

43 Responses »

 

Rousseau #2: Rousseau in Nietzsche Anticipation Wednesday, Feb 27 2008

Look at this from Book IV, Chapter 8. Again, probably the only person in the world who cares, but it’s almost as if Jean-Jacques had got an advance copy of the Genealogy of Morals:

“Christianity as a religion is entirely spiritual, occupied solely with heavenly things; the country of the Christian is not of this world. He does his duty, indeed, but does it with profound indifference to the good or ill success of his cares. Provided he has nothing to reproach himself with, it matters little to him whether things go well or ill here on earth. If the State is prosperous, he hardly dares to share in the public happiness, for fear he may grow proud of his country’s glory; if the State is languishing, he blesses the hand of God that is hard upon His people.

For the State to be peaceable and for harmony to be maintained, all the citizens without exception would have to be good Christians; if by ill hap there should be a single self-seeker or hypocrite, a Catiline or a Cromwell, for instance, he would certainly get the better of his pious compatriots. Christian charity does not readily allow a man to think hardly of his neighbours. As soon as, by some trick, he has discovered the art of imposing on them and getting hold of a share in the public authority, you have a man established in dignity; it is the will of God that he be respected: very soon you have a power; it is God’s will that it be obeyed: and if the power is abused by him who wields it, it is the scourge wherewith God punishes His children. There would be scruples about driving out the usurper: public tranquillity would have to be disturbed, violence would have to be employed, and blood spilt; all this accords ill with Christian meekness; and after all, in this vale of tears, what does it matter whether we are free men or serfs? The essential thing is to get to heaven, and resignation is only an additional means of doing so.”

4 Responses »

 

Rousseau #1: Rousseau in Funny Sarcasm Shocker Wednesday, Feb 27 2008

I recently had to concede to Chris Brooke and James Arnold that Hobbes is actually quite funny, though I still reckon de Tocqueville is funnier. Anyway i noticed today that old Jean-Jacques himself has a few moments of albeit quite sarcastic wit, which I’d never picked up on before.

 For example:

I have said nothing about King Adam, or about emperor Noah, father of three great monarchs, who among themselves divided the universe, as did the children of Saturn, whom some believed they recognised in them. I hope my moderation will be appreciated; for since I am a direct descendant from one of these Princes, and perhaps from the elder branch, for all I know, I might, upon verification of titles, find I am the legitimate King of humankind. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that Adam was Sovereign of the world as Robinson was of his island, as long as he was its sole inhabitant; and what made this empire convenient was that the monarch, secure on his throne, had neither rebellions, nor wars, nor conspirators to fear.

- Book I, Chapter 2 of The Social Contract

Or:

“This would certainly have been to the taste of Barbeyrac, who dedicated his translation to King George I of England. But unfortunately the expulsion of James II, which he calls an abdication, forced him to be on his guard, to equivocate, to be evasive, in order not to make a usurper of William. If these two writers [Grotius and Barbeyrac] had adopted the true principles, all their difficulties would have been solved, and they would always have been consistent; but they would have sadly told the truth and paid court only to the people. Now, truth does not lead to fortune, and the people confers no ambassadorships, professorships or pensions.”

- Book II Chapter 2 of The Social Contract

Now the second quote is really just a bit funny (at least, if you are sad and live in libraries like I do, it is a bit funny), whereas the first is more interesting. Because the sentiment in the first quote appears to be reminiscent of Locke’s argument in the First Treatise on Government, that even if Adam held all of the Earth under his dominion, it doesn’t follow that Kings, even if they were descended directly from Adam – which obviously they’re not – have a proper right to rule on that basis alone.

At least, I think that’s interesting, because I often read Rousseau as quite fiercely opposed to especially Hobbes, but also Locke. Maybe nobody else cares. Probably.

3 Responses »

 

End of Civilization as we know it Wednesday, Feb 27 2008

What with the first Manchester Earthquake last Friday, the Kent Earthquake on Saturday, and the Hull Earthquake on Tuesday, it is clear that the world is coming to an end.

I take this as clear proof that God is angry with us for allowing Jonathon Ross not only to appear on national television (being paid a ridiculous sum of £6m a year, funded from our license fees) but also to go on existing, period.

The End is Nigh! Repent your sins for the Beast with the Seven Heads and Ten Horns arises! 666!

EDIT: God has been in contact, he says it’s not Jonathon Ross – although he admittedly has no time for the Annoying Midget – but rather Richard Branson that is the problem. We have 40 days and 40 nights in which to end Branson’s existence upon this earth. The tremors will become ever more serious until His will is fulfilled.

Leave a Response »

 

Earthquake? Wednesday, Feb 27 2008

So i was just lying in bed reading, and my whole room shook, including especially my bed.

 Was this an earthquake? In Oxford?

Nothing on the news so far, but remember that if it was then you heard it here first.

EDIT: I just popped out of my room, and was discussing the tremor with the Phenomenon of Dhruv, who lives next door. I told him the BBC website was reporting that an alien spaceship had landed in the West Midlands, and that caused the tremor. He actually believed me. Priceless.

EDIT: BBC, not as fast as me.

4 Responses »

 

Thoughts Please Tuesday, Feb 26 2008

So the Hilary ‘Hildog’ Clinton campaign team has tried to smear Obama by revealing a picture of him wearing a turban and a white shawl thing. See over here.

Why is this such a big issue? I mean, are Americans really that bothered? Is it because it makes Obama look like a rag-head sand-nigger aka an enemy combatant in the war on terror aka a terrorist (depending on whose lingo you want to employ), and Average American Joe wont like that? Or is there some more complex reason?

Feedback in comments.

6 Responses »

 

More Sun Monday, Feb 25 2008

According to today’s Sun front page, 99% of people want capital punishment to be re-introduced in the UK.

 Presumably this means that everybody except those already serving life sentences for murder is in favour of this. I’m glad The Sun has been able to inform me of this important truth about the world.

 Of course it is completely right to say that the death penalty deters murder. After all, without a death penalty I am tempted to go out killing people. The fact that I don’t go out killing people has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I am emotionally reasonably well balanced, have normal human relationships with other people, think that other people’s lives matter in and of themselves, and have it deeply ingrained into my moral psyche that killing is wrong. No, nothing at all.

 Further, if I do decide to go out murdering, I reckon I’ll only do it if I don’t think I will get caught. In which case I frankly wont care what the punishment that accompanies being caught is. Of course, if I murder in a fit of passion then I’m not thinking about the consequences because i’m consumed by rage, or anger, or jealousy or fear. That is, i’m not thinking about deterrents, because I’m not thinking.

So yes, bring back the death penalty, for it is a sensible idea and a sane, humane and civilised response to the problem of murder in modern society.

2 Responses »

 

Amusing Sunday, Feb 24 2008

My mum sent me this in an email, it was mildly amusing, so thought I’d share:

 ********

A Message from John Cleese – British comedian:

To the citizens of the United States of America:

In light of your failure in recent years to nominate competent
candidates for President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we
hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective
immediately.

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties
over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except Kansas, which
she does not fancy).

Your new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, will appoint a Governor for
America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate
will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year to
determine whether any of you noticed.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following
rules are introduced with immediate effect: You should look up
‘revocation’ in the Oxford English Dictionary.

1. Then look up aluminium, and check the pronunciation guide. You will
be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.

2. The letter ‘U’ will be reinstated in words such as ‘colour’, ‘favour’
and ‘neighbour.’ Likewise, you will learn to spell ‘doughnut’ without
skipping half the letters, and the suffix ‘-ize’ will be replaced by the
suffix ‘-ise’. Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary
to acceptable levels. (look up ‘vocabulary’).

3. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises
such as ‘like’ and ‘you know’ is an unacceptable and inefficient form of
communication. There is no such thing as US English. We will let
Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell- checker will be
adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter ‘u’ and the
elimination of -ize.

4. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.

5. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns,
lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and
therapists shows that you’re not adult enough to be independent. Guns
should only be handled by adults. If you’re not adult enough to sort
things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you’re
not grown up enough to handle a gun.

6. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything
more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. A permit will be required if you
wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

7. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will
start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you
will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of
conversion tables.
Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British
sense of humour.

8. The Former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been
calling gasoline) -roughly $6/US gallon. Get used to it.

9. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries
are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips
are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal
fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.

10. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually
beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to
as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be
referred to as Lager. South African beer is also acceptable as they are
pound for pound the greatest sporting Nation on earth and it can only be
due to the beer. They are also part of British Commonwealth – see what
it did for them. American brands will be referred to as Near-Frozen
Gnat’s Urine, so that all can be sold without risk of further confusion.

11. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as
good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to
play English characters. Watching Andie Macdowell attempt English
dialogue in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having
one’s ears removed with a cheese grater.

12. You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of
proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in
time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American
football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds
or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies). Don’t try
Rugby – the South Africans and Kiwis will thrash you, like they
regularly thrash us.

13. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to
host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played
outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware that there is a
world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn
cricket, and we will let you face the South Africans first to take the
sting out of their deliveries.

14. You must tell us who killed JFK. It’s been driving us mad.

15. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty’s
Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all
monies due (backdated to 1776).

16. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 pm with proper cups, with
saucers, and never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes;
plus strawberries (with cream) when in season.

God save the Queen.

4 Responses »