Pragmatism and Piracy

In November 2008 I wrote (apparently prophetically):

Two months ago, pirates hijacked a Greek ship outside the coast of Somalia. Today, the ship’s owner, “Mare Maritime,” paid the full ransom demanded by the pirates. Paying that ransom was a gravely immoral act and a serious threat to every person sailing East-African waters. 

What should have been done: Given a rational moral code–a code of rational self-interest–the ransom should never have been paid. It should hardly have been considered. Rather: Soldiers should have boarded the ship and eliminated the pirates the same day the hijacking was reported. If boarding had been deemed too risky for the soldiers involved, the ship should have been torpedoed. If possible, it should have been torpedoed only to the extent required for surrender. If strictly necessary, however, the entire ship should effectively have been blown up.

This would have killed 25 innocent crew members and sunk a $100.000.000+ ship. Importantly, however, it would have established a policy that rendered future piracy impossible.

In 1815, this was excellently grasped by US commander Stephen Decatur. When American ships were seized by Algerian pirates, Decatur on principle refused to pay any ransom, knowing that this would only encourage future piracy. Decatur–backed by the US Congress–answered using weapons. He and Congress were well aware that morally, all the blood spilt would be on the hands of the hijackers–and by effectively crushing Algiers, Decatur ended African hijacking and earned the US their reputation as a nation against which one does not initiate force. Given how crucial protection from force is for the flourishing of civilization and trade, my guess is that few actions in history have saved more lives.

What should be done now: It’s not yet too late to act in a principled manner in relation to our present day hijacking. Here is my proposal: All countries having ships in African waters should demand that Greece severely penalize the company that paid the ransom. If Greece does not comply, Greece should be boycotted. The interested countries should make it clear that subsidizing pirates is unacceptable, and they should form a mutually binding contract stating that if (meaning: when) a new ship is hijacked, this will  immediately and effectively be attacked by military forces.

Principled retaliation is the means by which piracy (and more generally: hijacking and hostage taking) can be defeated. Treating hijackings as isolated events and settling for short-sighted pragmatic solutions might be emotionally tempting (since it saves the lives immediately before us), but it non-the-less encourages future crime and future bloodshed.

Seldom do ideas manifest themselves in such a clear cut manner as they have done in this case. Yesterday, a Norwegian cargo ship (“Bow Asir”) was hijacked outside the coast of Somalia, and as was noted today by Norway’s largest newspaper (“VG”), during the last four days, Somali pirates have attacked seven ships (article in Norwegian). We don’t seem to learn from our past mistakes, however. The Norwegian shipping company  that owns “Bow Asir”  just announced they will pay the ransom–and the Norwegian government has decided not to interfere.

For a truly outstanding philosophical analysis of the principles involved in this issue, I recommend this talk on pragmatism and the importance of principled aciton by Tara Smith, Professor of Philosophy at UT Austin.

(Thanks to Doug Altner for his excellent comments on Stephen Decatur and the Barbary Wars)

Prostituerte og frisører (Nor.)

Tenk deg at du jobber som frisør og plutselig en dag får beskjed om at salongen din må legges ned. Grunnen, får du høre, er at politikerne har gjort det forbudt å profittere på hårklipp og derfor forbudt å drive salong.

Fra nå av må du klippe i leiligheten din. Det blir ensomt, tenker du, og det blir vanskelig å skaffe kunder, men du får ingen annen jobb, så du forsøker.

Like etter treffer du kvinnen du leier av, og du forteller henne at du etablerer hjemmesalong. Du smiler, men det gjør ikke hun. Hun blir illsint og ber deg pakke sakser og kammer og komme deg vekk. Når du klipper hjemme og betaler henne husleie, profitterer hun nemlig på hårklipp – og med det du gjør henne til kriminell.

Så nå står du på gata. Der går en skoleklasse forbi og du hører en gutt si til en jente “Moren din er en frisør!”. Da skjer noe forunderlig. En lærer kommer løpende, tar tak i gutten og sier strengt: “Fy! Du sier ikke slikt til folk! Du sier ikke at noen er en… ehm… frisør.” Barna fniser, for de er visst ikke vant til at en lærer bruker det ordet. “F-ordet”.

Det er altså ikke bra å klippe hår for penger, og det mener plutselig alle. Ingen liker frisører. De eneste som nå tør jobbe for frisørers vel er FriSenteret, og i en undersøkelse spør de landets 48 største bedrifter om de kunne tenke seg å ansette tidligere frisører. Ikke en eneste bedrift vil.

Uten leilighet må du jobbe på gata. Noen ganger, etter det er blitt mørkt, spør du folk: “Psst… skal jeg stusse luggen din?” En gang iblant får du en kunde på den måten, men for det meste får du bare sjokkerte blikk og sinte kommentarer. Derfor går du mest i gatene hvor folk ikke bryr seg så mye. Der blir du plukket opp av kunder som kommer kjørende, og du klipper enten i kundens bil eller i kundens hjem.

For det meste går det bra, for de fleste er snille med deg, men en gang iblant er det noen som nekter å betale etter ferdig klipp, og da er det ingenting du kan gjøre. Du må bare gå tomhendt hjem. Og en lørdagskveld skjer det du frykter aller mest: i det du spør kunden om han vil ha det kort over ørene, snur han seg plutselig rundt, skriker “Frisør!” og slår deg i ansiktet. Så skamklipper han deg.

Gråtende og skjelvende går du til politiet og anmelder mannen. Der ligger det mellom linjene at dette må frisører bare forvente, og siden ingen kan bevise noe som skjedde i en ukjent bil i en park sent en natt, blir saken henlagt før du rekker å forlate politihuset.

Du lengter tilbake til salongen. Salongen var en del av et kjøpesenter og hadde både sikkerhetsvakter og overvåkningskameraer, så der kunne aldri slike ting skje. I tillegg er du redd, for du har begynt å hoste. I salongen hadde du sykepenger, men det har du ikke lenger, så du har ikke råd til å bli syk. Kanskje du bør finne en frisørmamma eller en skjult salong hvor du kan jobbe? Du tenker tanken, men du tør ikke. Å drive salong er kriminelt, så nå det er bare kriminelle som driver salonger. Du føler at verden har falt sammen rundt deg der du sitter på fortauet og snufser.

Men så hører du noe som får deg til å øyne et håp. Noen våkne politikere har oppdaget at frisører har det vanskelig, og de får forskere til å lage en rapport. Og der kommer det endelig frem: frisører et utsatt for vold og overgrep, de er knyttet til organisert kriminalitet og narkotikamisbruk og selvmordsraten blant frisører er skyhøy. Nå som fakta har kommet på bordet, tenker du, vil politikerne forstå at de har presset dere ut av samfunnet – og at de må la dere få komme tilbake og gi dere samme respekt og arbeidsvilkår som alle andre, slik som lærere, elektrikere, regnskapsførere, prostituerte og advokater.

Men så kommer sjokket. Politikerne gjør det utrolige. Det totalt utenkelige. De sier at rapporten bare viser hvor skadelig frisering er og at en liberal klippepolitikk har vist seg å feile. Vi kan ikke lenger godta at frisørtjenester blir kjøpt og solgt som om frisører var en vare, sier de, og hevder at friseringsmarkedet nå er blitt så brutalt at kjøp av hårklipp må totalforbys.

Med de små røstene dere har, forsøker både du, andre frisører og FriSenteret å protestere. Dere sier at forbudet og umyndiggjøringen er årsaken til problemene, og at mer forbud og mer umyndiggjøring bare vil gjøre problemene større. Men politikerne vil ikke høre. De vil vise handlekraft. Så med brede og selvrettferdige smil legger de livet ditt i grus.

Kommentar fra Sol Høgseth (FriTanke.no).
Mitt svar til Sol Høgseth (FriTanke.no).

Using close genes

Today, if a gay couple wants a child, they either 1) adopt achild or 2) get an ovum from a donor, fertilize it in a laboratory and make a doctor inseminate it into a woman whom they pay to carry and give birth to their child.

These are both excellent options for homosexuals eager to get a child. Imagine, however, that a specific gay couple – let us call them Albert and Mark – for some reason wants a child carrying their own genes. (Let us for the sake of the example assume that this can be a rational thing to prefer.) If they prefer this, option 1) will not be the one to choose. Option 2) will be somewhat better, but the child’s genetic code will carry the genes from one of them.

This does not satisfy Albert and Mark.

It their problem solvable? Can Albert and Mark have a child that genetically is truly theirs? The answer that first strikes one is “no”, since this will require technology beyond reach

It is easily solvable, however, if we just think outside the box. The solution is simply that the ovum fertilized by Albert’s sperm could come from Mark’s mother (if still fertile) or Mark’s sister. This wouldn’t give a full genetic match, of course, but quite a good one with regard to sharing genes – and it would be safe, affordable and fully possible. Even legal, I assume, as this does not imply inbreeding in any form or manner.

Why don’t rational gay couples do this? Or, for that matter: why don’t straight couples where one part is infertile do it?

Lakoff: “Enlightenment reason is invalid!”

“Enlightenment reason is invalid!” So claimed famous linguist George Lakoff in a speech yesterday at my student house (International House,  UC Berkeley).

As Lakoff sees it, moderen linguistics and cognitive science has proved (an interesting concept) that reason and logic is a mistake. It isn’t true, he maintains, that human beings accept or reject claims on the basis of reason. Only some bewildered Enlightenment philosophers thought so. Rather than using reason, we use emotions, associations, ”framings”, thought patterns and metaphors when we make decisions; we react to what feels good to us, to what gives us good reactions, to what reminds us of something nice.

What Lakoff came to speak on was a particular political consequences of this idea: namely, that politicians should not use logic and arguments. After all,  that’s not what we react to. Rather, they should learn from science and use emotions, associations, ”framings”, thought patterns and metaphors . After all: there is nothing wrong in doing so. Doing so is adhering to human nature.

This is disaster.

It is certainly true that human beings often let themselves move by feelings and associations rather than arguments. I do not, moreover, think you need to be an advanced cognitive scientist to discover this: just think of the whirling crowds that mindlessly hailed Hitler and Khomeini.

Observations of human beings functioning on a pre-conceptual level, however, is not evidence that humans as such function or are determined to function this way. In fact, looking at Khomeini’s followers and saying “humans are always irrational” is no more valid than looking at Galileo and Newton and saying “human beings are always rational”. Humans are neither always irrational nor always rational, and this is so because human beings face a choice: to blindly accept what “feels good” or to engage their faculty of reason to find out what is actually the case.

And choosing to engage our faculties of reason is the most important thing we can do. Epistemologically, reasoning sets us in contact with reality and helps us gain knowledge. Politically, it is our our means to keep Hitlers and Khomeinis away from our government positions.

What Lakoff does is therefore a disaster. Rather than urging tomorrow’s political leaders to use reason, argue honestly and seek to understand the world, Professor Lakoff urges them to the opposite: to use even more empty slogans, appeals to emotion, dirty tricks and word games – i.e. not to engange their faculties of reason, and to do so in the name of science.

Thoughts on philosophy instruction

Some philosophy instructors are amazing. They teach you more in 90 minutes than days of intense reading  ever could. Other  instructors, however – though equally knowledgeable – might leave you with nothing, or even with more confusion than when you came. Why is this so? In my experience as a student (and to some extent: as a teacher), the answer is very often hierarchy. To exaggerate (a little), many instructors start off at some random or semi-random point, move randomly around their material and believe that when everything is mentioned (they call it “covered”), the material is taught. This, however, doesn’t work and cannot work. Philosophy is hierarchical, and here is how I have come to teach ideas given my idea of what hierarchy is and what it requires:

1) Illustrate the problem that is meant to be solved by the idea you’re teaching. All ideas are solutions to problems (or, which is the same: answers to questions), and one needs to  understand a problem before one can successfully solve it. Until (or unless) you illustrate for our students that they are confronted with a real problem in need of (and worthy of) a solution, they will neither have the context to understand nor the motivation to grapple with your idea.

2) Present the idea as forcefully as you can. Walk them through the necessary steps from what they know to what they’re supposed to learn. Do your best to make them accept the idea. If you cannot do this, you generally don’t know well enough the idea you are teaching. If you’re teaching utilitarianism, make them utilitarians for the day.

3) Give examples of how this theory solves (or gives plausible solutions to) different problems. Use a few well prepared examples to which you (or your students) apply the theory you have established. If a theory is not applied, it will not become real in the students’ minds.

[ 4) Group work or home work: Make the students formulate the theory in one forceful sentence, and ask them to take pride in getting it exact. If not to outrageous, encourage your students to think/act as if the idea were true. ]

5) Criticize the theory. Only after a thorough positive presentation is time ripe for criticism. Formulate exact criticisms and make it clear what premises the criticisms challenge. Put your students in the role both as defenders of the idea and as accusers. If you want, make a small courtroom gimmick.

6) Go on to the next theory. In a well structured course, the theories presented are different answers to the same question(s). Explain what more we now know about the question, and start on a similar presentation of the next theory. Constantly compare and contrast new and old theories, so that you help your students integrate the material. That way they can complete the course with a unified body of knowledge rather than a useless grap-bag of unrelated theories.