Political Philosophy and Ethics discussion
Both Pol. and Ethical Philosophy
>
Pandemics: Governmental and Other Responses
I've read recently that social media platforms have been aggressive about cracking down on misinformation related to coronavirus. The question of free speech is an interesting topic with regards to coronavirus, especially considering how much direct control non-governmental organizations such as tech companies have on a fact-driven public discourse.I read a highly interesting book last year on the first amendment by Stanley Fish, which argued that we are in an era where censorship happens by flooding the airwaves with misinformation. Censorship has shifted from directly suppressing speech to drowning out competing voices with propaganda. I agree with Fish that the correct response to deal with this problem is for government and non-governmental institutions to accept that some censorship is essential for guaranteeing that the public stays informed.
My attention was directed to this topic by this article I just read:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/sheryl...
Mod
Accordingly, though I essentially despise Facebook, it is something of a travesty of constitutional law for Zuckerberg to be constantly hauled into a congressional committee to justify Facebook practices. Although I agree that he should prohibit misinformation, it really has nothing to do with government and nothing to do with censorship. If, however, the government forces him to curtail speech, that would be censorship. In principle, I would disagree with any such governmental action (talk about your "slippery slope") and am confident that the courts would not allow it. Or at least I would have been confident before all the Trump-Republican Senate appointments to the federal bench. At this point, all bets may be off the table.
I speak here as a retired constitutional lawyer who has studied and (formerly) litigated these issues for decades.
Fish is an emeritus law professor, so he makes the distinctions you are talking about. It's rather a reflection of my ability to convey the point he is making that is under question here. However, I think you would still fundamentally disagree with what he is saying, even if I were to convey it correctly.Fish does not go into lengthy discussion of specific court cases, but one of the points he makes is that the application of the First Amendment is not systematic, in spite of a considerable body of legal scholarship devoted to providing a unifying theory that would unequivocally answer when speech should be protected or not. His point is that speech is never free, even from the government, which suggests we should not consider the ideal of free speech sacrosanct, whether we are discussing censorship by the government or by anyone else. If we believe what we say matters, it matters who is allowed to say it and when. The question of whether the government or anyone else suppresses speech is a matter of degree, because all governments do it, even the USA, which has the most permissive free speech laws in the world.
Fish is not content to say that social media platforms have a constitutional right to decide who can use their platform and how - he argues that the way these social media platforms regulate speech is fundamental to safeguarding our democracy. Speech fundamentally shapes our world, and Fish thinks it is time we rethought our commitment to free speech as a basic human right. If the exercise of free speech pollutes our public discourse and prevents the public from holding those in power accountable, of what use is free speech? Whether flooding the airwaves with misinformation counts as censorship I will not debate here, since the narrow semantic point is irrelevant to what Fish is saying. His point is that where the Constitution was written in an environment where individuals were in danger of not being heard through direct suppression of their speech, today individuals are in danger from having their voices drowned out. If we recognize that, then we will realize that speech should not be free, and in fact, as I pointed out already, it never was anyway.
Alan, I can already tell you will detest Fish and his position by the fact that Fish is an expert on the application of postmodernism to literature. He can probably therefore be accurately be described as a postmodernist.
Mod
There are long-recognized exceptions to the First Amendment: falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is the classic example. But these exceptions are narrowly and (usually) thoughtfully crafted in the normal evolution of constitutional jurisprudence. Telling Facebook what it can and cannot legally allow on its platform is not a proper exception. Keep in mind that the liberals and conservatives in Congress have totally conflicting demands on what they want Facebook to do. Government should not compel Facebook to do anything with regard to the content of speech, but if Facebook wants to do so on its own accord they have a perfect right to do so.
By the way, note the criticisms of Fish’s work, by both Left and Right, in the Wikipedia article (here).
It may be true that Fish has no legal training, but he has published articles in legal journals and is taken seriously by other legal theorists. I gather that most legal scholars disagree with him, since Fish is of the opinion (from what I understand from his book) that jurisprudence should be recognized as something nakedly political. Fish in his book remarks on his skepticism of Hart's account of legal positivism. If Fish is not a lawyer, I am definitely not one. That means I am not sure how valid Fish's opinion is, and considering your skepticism of it, I will reconsider my opinion in light of further reflection and reading.I was unclear in my previous post, but Fish does not say that governments should tell Facebook how it should moderate its users. (So my framing of Facebook's "constitutional right" to choose how it controls what happens on its platform is probably completely off base here.) But if I recall correctly, Fish simply says that what Facebook does is important. It has an impact on public welfare even if the US government does not regulate it. Whatever the government does to address free speech concerns probably should not involve micromanaging how Facebook should be run. Fish makes the distinction between what social media platforms and what governments do, but this distinction should not obscure the fact that both have a lasting effect on the shape of public discourse.
So far, I have only described what Fish has said what Facebook and other social media platforms should do. With regards to government, Fish is of the opinion that government should be more willing to restrict free speech even if doing so can seem like politics from the bench. Fish does not describe a legal framework that would give cover for his implied agenda. Instead, he is content to show the inconsistency in the interpretation of the First Amendment in judicial opinions and legal scholarship. I think even whether he thinks more activist judges are a good idea is not clear. Fish seems to be content simply to play the gadfly. For example, regarding systematic interpretation of the First Amendment, Fish discusses the conflict between different interpretations of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause. It is possible, even likely, that Fish exaggerates the lack of consensus here, in spite of decisions from the bench that attempt to answer such questions decisively. His rhetorical choice to show how different legal theorists disagree to what extent, for example, hate speech should be allowed is probably not indicative of the authoritative nature of decisions such as the Skokie decision. I would probably need to know more to evaluate his points intelligently.
I think Fish is a thoughtful and compelling writer on subjects that do not relate to law, so if he is ultimately mistaken in his legal scholarship, I think it is instructive to work out why. I probably will not devote time in the near future to understand either legal theory or Fish's take on it, but this discussion has given me a direction for investigation if I find myself drawn into such topics again.
Mod
I don't have anything to add to what I said earlier about Fish.
A few random thoughts after reading the recent series of posts above:As I understand it, government can regulate time, place, and manner of speech, so long as it does so in a way that is content neutral. Hence, you can't shout fire in a crowded theater. If you want to organize a protest, the government can regulate the time and place, so long as it imposes the same rules for all protests. Etc.
Whether this legal framework can be broadened in response to social media is something, it seems to me, that could happen. In Europe, I've heard, they have a "right to be forgotten" on social media that would seem to involve the government telling social media platforms what they can and cannot do that is content neutral but goes beyond time, place, and manner. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know the details about this supposed "right to be forgotten."
There are also, I believe, regulations of commercial speech. It is legislation, I believe, that requires these drug commercials to include all the possible side effects. Here, the government is regulating content, but doing so in a neutral way, to protect the public from danger.
Also, newspapers can be sued, I believe, if they KNOWINGLY publish false information. Could this principle be extended to Facebook? This is a civil matter. It is not the government that polices newspapers, but it allows lawsuits. Could this principle be extended to Facebook?
Regarding Fish, he is an academic literary critic who gained fame years ago helping to promote a form of "reader response" criticism that became popular toward the end of the twentieth century. He went on to write about all sorts of things, always gaining attention because he is a very provocative writer; he knows how to get your attention. Examined closely, however, his work usually doesn't hold up very well. I more or less stopped reading him decades ago.
Mod
As I understand it, government can regulate time, place, and manner of speech, so long as it does so in a way that is content ..."
I have some comments to make regarding these matters, but I am preoccupied for a few hours with other matters. I'll respond later today or tomorrow.
Robert wrote: "A few random thoughts after reading the recent series of posts above:As I understand it, government can regulate time, place, and manner of speech, so long as it does so in a way that is content ..."
Hi Robert, I find your comments about Fish to be very interesting, especially regarding the quality of his work in literary criticism. I have been meaning to read his studies of Milton, particularly How Milton Works. When I read the introduction to that book several years ago, I was struck by Fish's portrayal of Milton as definitely anti-modern - that is, if we were to adopt Milton's attitude as portrayed by Fish in today's society. I think understanding Fish's portrayal of Milton is essential to understanding the conservative mind, and your comments have not deterred me from wanting to read this book, although they have perhaps deterred me from reading anything else by Fish.
I mention all this because I am curious to know if there are any studies of Milton that you would recommend? I have been meaning to read him for some time now, and am interested in different interpretations of Milton's artistic vision.
I feel my brain stretching when I read Fox News, which is why I often force myself to do it.https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sean-...
Sean Hannity has written a piece asking Andrew Cuomo to lift his requirement that prescriptions for hydroxychloroquinine have to come through the hospital system.
My instinctive reaction to the non-FDA-approved treatment of azithromycin combined with hydroxychlorquinine was initially one of horror, especially when the president endorsed it in one of his coronavirus briefings. Even though Trump was irresponsible in endorsing this unproven treatment (and telling lies about whether the FDA had approved it,) there is a reasonable question to be asked: if I'm on my deathbed, shouldn't I be given a choice as to whether to take this treatment? Does it make sense for me to have to go through unnecessary bureaucracy to obtain it?
After thinking about it, I think one thing that Hannity doesn't mention is that forcing people to go through the hospital system prevents them from hoarding the medicine. That's one thing Hannity does not explore in his article.
Mod
Correct.
Robert wrote: "Whether this legal framework can be broadened in response to social media is something, it seems to me, that could happen. In Europe, I've heard, they have a "right to be forgotten" on social media that would seem to involve the government telling social media platforms what they can and cannot do that is content neutral but goes beyond time, place, and manner. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know the details about this supposed "right to be forgotten."
See this Wikipedia article regarding “the right to be forgotten.” I haven’t studied this issue in any depth, as it is not a concept that has been applied in the United States. Here, a tort action exists in most if not all states for invasion of privacy that would deal with some of these matters. There are also defamation laws, which have always been considered an exception to the First Amendment. There are expungement statutes regarding criminal matters and privacy laws regarding redaction of Social Security numbers and other private information. I don’t question these kinds of things. What I am concerned about is any attempt by government to control opinion. Government may certainly make defamatory conduct illegal and may also prohibit the public disclosure of private facts. Special rules apply, however, to defamation or invasion of privacy actions brought by public officials or public figures.
Robert wrote: "There are also, I believe, regulations of commercial speech. It is legislation, I believe, that requires these drug commercials to include all the possible side effects. Here, the government is regulating content, but doing so in a neutral way, to protect the public from danger."
Correct, and I have no problem with that.
Robert wrote: "Also, newspapers can be sued, I believe, if they KNOWINGLY publish false information. Could this principle be extended to Facebook? This is a civil matter. It is not the government that polices newspapers, but it allows lawsuits. Could this principle be extended to Facebook?"
As indicated above, there are complicated rules in defamation and invasion of privacy cases that I don’t have the time or space to elaborate here. Persons who defame or invade others’ privacy on Facebook can be sued for defamation or invasion of privacy, subject to these rules. Public officials and public figures cannot sue for such torts unless the defendant acted with knowing or reckless falsity. This is a First Amendment principle, as promulgated by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), and its progeny. One question is whether Facebook itself (the company) could be sued for allowing its platform to be used for such tortious conduct. That is a difficult issue that I have not studied in depth and about which I have no current opinion. If Facebook itself could be sued in this way, it would probably mean the end of Facebook.
Allen, for Milton I'd recommend a book on my "to read" list: Christopher Hill: Milton and the English Revolution.Decades ago I read Hill's The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas during the English Revolution. Based on that, I always thought that if I wanted to "get into" Milton, Hill's book on Milton would offer a perspective that would interest me.
A response to the final paragraph in Alan's post #12:A few months ago I heard a discussion of Facebook on Fareed Zakaria's Sunday morning show on CNN. There was mention of a 1990s law that was designed to help platforms like Facebook to get off the ground economically.
Niall Ferguson was on the panel and he argued that this law needs to be revisited because as it is written it allows Facebook to be in effect both a public forum and a publisher of ads, using data collected from posts on the forum to sell ads targeting particular audiences. Consequently, whenever Facebook is challenged because of what appears on it, it can claim that it is just a public forum, not responsible for what occurs there. At the same time, it can turn around and make money by publishing things that are defamatory etc. without having to worry about lawsuits. In other words, it isn't just allowing others to use its platform, it is using it itself by collecting data from uses of its platform to make money as a publisher of ads. At least that is how I understood the argument--I don't know the title of the law.
I also have no firsthand knowledge of Facebook because I have never been on it.
As they say, when things are free online, that is usually because the ones using them for free are the product that someone is selling.
Robert wrote: "Allen, for Milton I'd recommend a book on my "to read" list: Christopher Hill: Milton and the English Revolution.Decades ago I read Hill's The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas during the E..."
Thank you Robert. Based on the description of the book, Hill's reading is dramatically different from Fish's. I may not get to Hill sometime this year, but I have added several of his books to my to-read list. The English Civil War has appeared in several books I have read recently, and I think knowing more about it would help me understand the historical evolution of Modernity, at least as it exists in the Anglophone world.
I just read a highly interesting article on the Cuomo brothers and what their popularity suggests for the future of news media.https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/05/bu...
Here is the heart of the article:
========
The coronavirus crisis has accelerated trends in American TV. There’s a technological shift; executives are already thinking about how much money they will save by sticking to Skype and Zoom (or, in CNN’s case, Cisco Webex, which struck perhaps the year’s luckiest marketing deal to put its logo on the screen of now-ubiquitous remote interviews). There’s the new experience of seeing reporters and anchors at home — which manages to feel both informal and staged at the same time.
But the biggest shift may be the one Mr. Zucker and the Cuomos are now leading. They are, in their way, answering the endlessly debated question of how to restore trust in media. Do you strive to project an impossible ideal of total objectivity? Or do you reveal more of yourself, on Twitter or on Instagram and in your home?
The old model for authority in public affairs, of course, is a man in a suit and a tie behind a desk. It was appropriated with particular success by Donald Trump on “The Apprentice,” another Zucker creation. Today, daily White House news briefings often feel like clumsily produced episodes of reality television, a kind of parody of old-fashioned TV seriousness.
Meanwhile, Mr. Zucker’s CNN is taking TV news in the other direction, toward reality television and Instagram, winning trust through the projection of a rough-cut realness. The Cuomos aren’t just feeling your pain. You’re feeling theirs.
I just read this article in The Atlantic about how the coronavirus may define our politics for the next twenty years the way 9/11 did.https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/arc...
One thing that has me a little concerned is Trump's anti-China rhetoric. My initial reaction when I first heard him calling the virus "the Chinese virus" was that it was just more noise from Trump. But this article in The Atlantic made me realize that the rhetoric Trump is using now is highly significant. The National Review has followed Trump's lead by publishing articles engaging in China bashing, as well as peddling conspiracy theories about the possible origins of the virus in a Chinese lab. Such anti-China sentiment could be the shape of rhetoric on the American right in the years to come. This is honestly a little disconcerting, although what with the racism that the American right has come to stand for in recent years, I don't know why I am surprised I might at last have to feel the brunt of it.
I feel zero attachment to my Chinese ethnicity and always cringe slightly when encountering Asian-American identity politics. But this is concerning. My younger brother just had a baby, and it makes me a little sad that she may now grow up in an environment where half the country views her as a contamination on the moral greatness of the American republic.
As I said, I have zero attachment to my ethnicity, but I recall a quote that I believe was spoken by Mazu Daoyi: "平常心是道." It means not to be disturbed from one's normal, everyday state of mind in approaching all things. My father, in a way very unlike himself, has started repeating this phrase often in his conversations with me. I suppose it is as good a mental attitude as any for meeting this circumstance.
Mod
Mod
The order states that “Commonwealth agencies shall provide for payment to affected healthcare providers and facilities, manufacturers and suppliers of PPE, pharmaceuticals, and other medical resources under terms and conditions agreed upon. The compensation price of PPE, pharmaceuticals, and other medical resources shall be the average price at which the same or similar consumer goods or services were obtainable in the affected areas during the last seven days immediately prior to March 6, 2020.”
The order is effectively immediately and remains in effect “for the duration of the disaster emergency.”
Needless to say, this order raises substantial questions regarding the proper role of government in emergency situations.
What Alan describes in post #19 sounds to me like a variant at the state level of the Defense Production Act (DPA) at the national level. By not using DPA to control prices, Trump is evidently allowing the cost of medical supplies needed to combat COVID-19 to skyrocket, thus allowing some people to make a fortune. DPA must have some guidelines on when it can be enforced. Violation of these guidelines can presumably be challenged in court, though I'm not clear on who would have standing to do so.I expect a larger debate to emerge over the use of massive surveillance to track COVID-19 in ways that make it possible to re-open the economy while at the same time minimizing the chances of renewing spread of the virus. Evidently this is what China is doing, but it already had a surveillance system that it could adapt for this purpose. Kushner is evidently working on this idea. It would be an analogue to the Patriot Act passed after 9/11.
I wonder if COVID-19 and what it has done would qualify as a "butterfly effect" in chaos theory. My knowledge of this "effect" is limited. I associate it, perhaps mistakenly, with a model of nonlinear causality by which a small cause could have a big effect.My thought is that maybe this pandemic could offer an example that would make it easy to understand this "butterfly effect."
Based on bits and pieces I've gathered, here is how the Chinese system to inhibit spread of the virus MAY work.You have an app on your phone that resisters green (you can go anywhere), yellow (self-quarantine 7 days ), or red (14 days instead of 7).
1) Everyone is tracked on GPS 24/7.
2) Person X tests positive for the virus. The system identifies everyone who was in the vicinity of X during a past number of days.
3) System determines who should get yellow or red.
Hence, your phone may register green when you leave for dinner, but when you get to the restaurant and show your phone, it may register red.
Hi Robert, I read two articles in the last few days about some researchers who want to create a version of the app that will ensure privacy, so that it can be used in the US where privacy concerns are an issue. From what I remember, there are at least two ways the app can protect privacy:1) All the code is open-source, for total transparency. If there are any security backdoors or exploits, they can be patched immediately.
2) Instead of associating accounts with a user's personal information, every user will emit an id that will change automatically every few hours. The system does not keep any information about the user except the id. When a user learns that they have tested positive, they will upload the list of ids cached on their phone into the system. Anyone who has had contact with the user, as identified through those ids, will know that they need to quarantine themselves.
It sounds like an effective preventative measure, but what with the paranoia these days about tech companies accessing information through your phone, it may not get widespread adoption in certain parts of the country.
Mod
This, to me, goes too far. Can you imagine what Trump and his cronies (including but not limited to Kushner) would do with this? Although I support the social-distancing governmental orders that have promulgated (pursuant to previously enacted legislation regarding emergencies) in the last few weeks, the proposed new surveillance would launch us right into full-blown totalitarianism. During the Cold War of yesteryear, people said, "Better dead than red" (or, alternatively, "Better red than dead," depending on one's political preferences). I would say today, "Better dead than Big Brother!" If Trump and Company are at the controls of a massively expanded surveillance state, we are doomed. And even with a more benign president, the system would be in place for a future administration to misuse. Count me out on this one! I may be one of the first involuntary inductees into Trump's "reeducation camps."
Hi Alan, what has to be kept in mind is that the surveillance system could be made in such a way that it does not collect any personal information from the user. If the code is open source, that means anyone can read it and be sure it does not do anything malicious.On desktop computers, it is possible to run an operating system where everything is totally transparent to the user. This is because the user can read all the code before deciding to build and install any program on their own system. This is especially true with regards to open source software where total transparency is present.
This is harder on phones, because when you install an app on your phone, you have to go through Google or Apple's app store. However, on jailbreaked phones, I think it is possible (although I have no personal experience with this) to install only software whose code you have personally reviewed.
The reason why none of this might matter is because the moment a conspiracy theory gets out that the app is doing all kinds of malicious things with your personal information, that's the end of trust as far as the segment of the population that doesn't trust expertise is concerned. Even if any software engineer can review the code and be confident it is perfectly safe to use, it won't matter.
Mod
I am not an IT professional and have little understanding of what you are talking about. What I do know is that the Chinese government is using such technology for social control and persecution, much like the scenario in George Orwell's 1984. Let's not let that genie out of the bottle!
Haha, I wasn't going to continue this line of inquiry, but it appears we won't have much choice in the matter, as Google and Apple are incorporating functionality into the their phones to perform contact tracing.https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/10/21...
Based on the article, people have a choice whether to opt in by downloading an app, but the underlying operating system will nevertheless have all the functionality for what the app requires to do what it needs to do.
The article addresses the measures being taken to address privacy concerns.
If your response is any indication, Alan, this sounds like it's going to be a public relations fiasco, since on top of suspicion that already exists towards tech companies, coronavirus response is already a politicized issue.
I just spoke to my brother yesterday, and he is one of those people who don't read the news everyday. The vast majority of people are like him - on the whole, rather indifferent to what goes on in the public commons as long as it doesn't impact day-to-day life. I imagine he is rather indifferent to news like this either way.
Mod
First, my concern is not about privacy. Privacy has been dead for many years—perhaps more than a decade. Private corporations know every nuance of what we do online, and they use this information to pitch advertising. The cow is out of the barn on that one. This is good (I speak ironically), old-fashioned capitalism, and the American people—who are capitalist to the core—are generally just fine with that. Or, if they are not, they can just destroy and dispose of their computers and cell phones. Evidently, they can opt out of some or all private tracking, though I am not sure how effective or easy such opting-out is.
The question is what government is going to compel us to do. Your article states that the system under consideration is voluntary. That is not the case, however, with the literally totalitarian electronic system currently being implemented in China that is being used not only for pandemic control but also for political and social purposes. It is this I oppose. As for the defects in the voluntary system currently under consideration in the US, see the above-linked ACLU White Paper.
Many logicians consider the “slippery slope” argument to be a logical fallacy. Although I have long opposed the “slippery slope” argument when it is used to argue that adopting certain political measures will inevitably lead to socialism, which will in turn inevitably lead to communism (meaning Stalinism) (see, for example, Reagan’s opposition to Medicare with that argument and Goldwater’s similar arguments before him), the technology under consideration may, indeed, be a slippery slope to a Chinese-style universal surveillance for political and social control. It is all too easy for technology to morph into something more insidious than what it was in earlier iterations.
But, not having time to investigate this issue in depth, I am currently agnostic about whether the particular system discussed in your article, which is purportedly voluntary, could be useful in limiting the spread of the pandemic. Like the ACLU, however, I have grave reservations about its effectiveness and its potential governmental misuse.
Mod
Governors have been issuing "stay at home" executive orders.Does the President have the constitutional power to overrule the Governors?
Mod
Does the President have the constitutional power to overrule the Governors?"
I don't think so. States have long had "police powers" to regulate public health matters. The courts might have constitutional authority to overrule state government action (on constitutional or other legal grounds) regarding such matters, but the president does not.
Alan wrote: "Allen – I don’t have time to get into the weeds of this issue, but I have now read the article you linked (I read a similar article a day or two ago) as well as the August 8, 2020 ACLU White Paper ..."My thought when reading your reply, Alan, was that of course the government should not be in the business of spying on its citizens. The current degree of surveillance that's done on American citizens for national security reasons is hugely controversial for good reason.
However, there is another thing to consider. I listened to former White House Chief-of-Staff Denis McDonough give an interview several years ago where he discussed how technologically backward the US federal government is. Just procuring new workstations and working e-mail accounts is more difficult than it should be, and at the time when McDonough was still working at the White House, this was a major administrative challenge. Part of it was due to the absence of funds as a result of Congress's inability to pass a budget in most years. This is just one manifestation of the broken system that is the current US federal government. The partisanship that is at the core of this political dysfunction doesn't seem like it is anywhere near dissipating in the near term.
It's true that the Chinese Communist Party may be seen by outsiders as oppressively involved in the lives of its citizens, but based on my observation of the popular perception of the role of government in Communist China, the extreme dysfunction of America's federal government is just evidence of the desirability of single-party rule by people who have lived under it all their lives. I've had conversations with coworkers from China taper off into long awkward pauses as soon as politics is mentioned, so most of my knowledge is based off reporting in US and UK based newspapers on the perception of America by China. I have been lucky enough to have two people from Mainland China who have spoken candidly about political issues, but on the whole, I've rarely been able to engage respectfully with anyone from China on these issues. In a sense, I spend most of my time in a bubble where the assumption is that liberal democracy is the best system.
It's actually rather disappointing talking to my parents sometimes who grew up in Taiwan and remember when it was subject to authoritarian government by a military regime before being liberalized in the nineties. They don't see what advantages democracy has to authoritarianism. Many of my relatives feel the same way, even the ones who had a good view of the US prior to Trump's election. Rather interestingly, the US's documented human rights abuses in the War on Terror as well as the election of Trump have done more than anything to lower the estimation of the US's stature in the eyes of my relatives. There is now this sense of equivalence between China and the US, as if the nature of the difference between the two societies is one of different tradeoffs. The US has lost all sense of moral legitimacy, which arguably it had regained in some degree under the Obama administration after the fiasco of the Iraq War under George W. Bush.
How does the topic of coronavirus contact tracing feed into all this? Despite the dubious ethical nature of China's use of contact tracing, their efforts to pioneer this kind of technologically driven solution signals to the world that the US is no longer the unquestioned technological innovator of the world, just as it is no longer the unquestioned moral guidepost to the world after the end of the Cold War. I find that concerning.
Mod
True. The federal government’s IT system is decades behind the times. An IRS worker (now retired) admitted and complained about this when talking with my wife and me at a party a few years ago. Why is this? Ask the Republicans who have steadfastly refused to fund upgrades in federal government technology. In their view, government is the enemy. As Grover Norquist stated, “I'm not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."
Allen wrote: "It's true that the Chinese Communist Party may be seen by outsiders as oppressively involved in the lives of its citizens, but based on my observation of the popular perception of the role of government in Communist China, the extreme dysfunction of America's federal government is just evidence of the desirability of single-party rule by people who have lived under it all their lives."
Like they used to say about Mussolini, “At least he made the trains run on time.” It is true that our federal government is dysfunctional, but it doesn’t have to be that way. The voters get the politicians they vote into office. Authoritarian single-party rule is worse. As Churchill said, “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time; . . . .” (Winston S. Churchill, Speech to the House of Commons, November 11, 1947, quoted in Churchill, Europe Unite: Post-War Speeches [New York: Rosetta Books, 2014], Kindle).
Allen wrote: "Rather interestingly, the US's documented human rights abuses in the War on Terror as well as the election of Trump have done more than anything to lower the estimation of the US's stature in the eyes of my relatives. There is now this sense of equivalence between China and the US, as if the nature of the difference between the two societies is one of different tradeoffs. The US has lost all sense of moral legitimacy, which arguably it had regained in some degree under the Obama administration after the fiasco of the Iraq War under George W. Bush."
True, but things can improve, per the elections of 2008, 2012, and (hopefully) 2020. Moreover, I don’t think that there is a moral equivalence between the US and China. Fortunately, unlike China and Russia, we have a two-term limit on the president, which cannot be changed (notwithstanding the ardent desire of Trump) without a constitutional amendment. That is one of the good things that the Republicans did (the Twenty-Second Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified February 27, 1951), and I have blessed them every day since January 20, 2017 for that good deed.
Allen wrote: " How does the topic of coronavirus contact tracing feed into all this? Despite the dubious ethical nature of China's use of contact tracing, their efforts to pioneer this kind of technologically driven solution signals to the world that the US is no longer the unquestioned technological innovator of the world, just as it is no longer the unquestioned moral guidepost to the world after the end of the Cold War. I find that concerning."
With regard to the last paragraph of your post, I would ask the world to wait a few more years when, hopefully, all of this will be behind us.
Dear All,Here's the twelfth installment in PWB's series on "Morality and the Human Condition"--
Morality and the Human Condition, #12–Four Worries about Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics, & Contemporary Virtue Ethics.
https://againstprofphil.org/2020/04/1...
The COVID-19 pandemic of course raises many moral & political issues, including issues about everyday virtues, often misdescribed as issues about mere "etiquette"--
https://www.citylab.com/life/2020/04/...
which is why I've posted this in this thread, as well as in the PWB & virtue ethics threads.
Robert wrote: "Dear All,Here's the twelfth installment in PWB's series on "Morality and the Human Condition"--
Morality and the Human Condition, #12–Four Worries about Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics, & Contemporary..."
Hi Robert, what do you mean when you say that to describe social distancing as a matter of mere etiquette is to misdescribe it?
I just finished reading a book on Chu Hsi's recension of the Confucian Four Books, which became the authoritative textbook for all civil service examinations after the Yuan dynasty.
One of the things we can infer from the language of the Four Books is that virtue is fundamentally social. Gardner conveys this by translating the term 仁 (ren) as True Goodness. I have seen it otherwise translated as benevolence. However one translates it, it is the core Confucian virtue that is the character for person (人) combined with two (二). It entails treating people well (恕) and to be true to oneself (忠.) It requires that virtue be expressed in a social context.
In this reading, all ethics is in fact a matter of etiquette. This is supported by an interpretation of the Confucian canon where we read the word 禮 as "etiquette" instead of "ritual." What is important about this etiquette is that it requires genuine depth of feeling, and that it not become something dead or a matter of rote. Etiquette on this understanding is required to establish social order, which in the Confucian mold usually involves a recognition of hierarchy. However, for our purposes, living as we do in an egalitarian society, we need not incorporate that commitment to hierarchy into our understanding here. What is important is that our politics 政 be correct 正, in that policies are devised to bring benefit to the people.
Confucius in the Analects and the Doctrine of the Mean often says how important it is to modulate action according to circumstance. There are numerous examples in the Four Books that I will not cite here about finding the correct application of one's virtue in a given situation. Where social distancing is concerned, that would mean acting in humane ways that neither rigidly conform to a code or set of laws, or ignores the important ways individual action can influence societal welfare.
Of course, I understand if you choose to reject the Confucian way of framing this problem, seeing it as authoritarian. Rather interestingly, one cannot accuse Confucianism as a statist ideology, as Confucianism explicitly rejects strict laws and punishment as the way to govern. Instead, people are to be led to virtue through the example of the ruler, who on top of humane social policy uses ritual and music to harmonize the public. I am not a Confucian myself, although its effect through my upbringing on my current thought is ineradicable.
Mod
Bob Hanna can speak for himself, but my guess is that he doesn't have a big problem with Confucianism as an ethical philosophy. It will be interesting to see his comparison/contrast of Confucianism with neo-Kantian philosophy.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that Japanese culture also puts a high premium on etiquette, perhaps as a result of the high population density on the Japanese islands. My understanding is that Japanese culture is heavily influenced by Buddhism. Was/is it also influenced by Confucianism?
Mod
I do, however, disagree with the proposition that all ethics is social. As I have previously argued, ethics has two dimensions: individual and social. Moreover, my slight reading of Confucius suggests that he would not disparage the concept of individual ethics. Wasn’t this the point of the Golden Mean (analogous to Aristotle’s later concept of the ethical mean)? Or is my little knowledge of Confucius a dangerous thing, per the common aphorism?
Mod
Quote from the Wikipedia article on Confucius:
Often overlooked in Confucian ethics are the virtues to the self: sincerity and the cultivation of knowledge. Virtuous action towards others begins with virtuous and sincere thought, which begins with knowledge. A virtuous disposition without knowledge is susceptible to corruption, and virtuous action without sincerity is not true righteousness. Cultivating knowledge and sincerity is also important for one's own sake; the superior person loves learning for the sake of learning and righteousness for the sake of righteousness.
Many thanks! for those comments & follow-up thoughts in ##35-36, Allen & Alan.Actually, as Alan correctly speculated, I'm quite sympathetic to Confucianism as a version of virtue ethics.
My remark about etiquette was drawing on a famous essay by Philippa Foot, "Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives," in which she dialectically opposes (i) the strict, universal "ought" of the Kantian categorical imperative, which is (supposedly) completely insensitive to historical or social context, & (ii) mere etiquette, which hasn't any moral force, although it does have historical & social importance, & then proposes, as a way of getting between those extremes, (iii) context-sensitive moral judgments that we can use as somewhat general guides, i.e., counsels of virtue, that, as she points out, would count as non-moral hypothetical imperatives in Kant's official system of imperatives.
So her essay is a famous critique of classical Kantian ethics, & part of a defense of her own Aristotle-inspired version of virtue ethics.
My own view is that Kant's own official/exoteric system of moral principles in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals needs to be revised & updated in order to accommodate & respond not only to virtue-ethical criticisms like Foot's but also to the problematic fact of moral dilemmas, etc.
In general, however, I see no fundamental problem standing in the way of embedding a sub-theory of moral virtue (whether Aristotelian or Confucian, etc.) within the larger framework of a revised & updated Kantian ethics.
Anyhow, for better or worse, I've tried to do that in detail in Kantian Ethics & Human Existence--
https://www.academia.edu/36359647/The...
But there's also an introductory, compact version of that in section V of Morality and the Human Condition, which as you know is running serially on PWB's blog, but also available as a complete .pdf text here--
https://www.academia.edu/41451992/Mor...
I have been told before that Japanese culture is even more thoroughly Confucian than Chinese culture, although what with my recent reading of the source texts and available scholarship, that seems like a statement that has to be qualified with a deeper knowledge of Japanese culture than I have.The Four Books can be regarded as the locus classicus of Confucian thought, at least from the time of Chu Hsi onwards, and Chu Hsi's commentary is the orthodox reading. There is a persistent strain of individualism that one can detect in Chu Hsi's reading: the insistence that sagehood is available to all, and the importance of personal responsibility and individual action. Is this individualism in conflict with the reputation of Confucianism and Confucian societies towards collectivism and a herd-mentality? Undoubtedly, the tension is there, and can be resolved if we understand that, in practice, Confucianism was a form of soft authoritarianism that lent authority to a male, educated elite over the rest of society. (So the undeniable strain of patriarchy present in Japanese culture in many ways makes it more Confucian than Chinese culture, even though the question of to what extent patriarchy is necessary to the philosophical content of the Four Books is a contentious one.)
Nevertheless, one could easily resolve the tension in another way. For example, one can say that Confucianism is fundamentally concerned with the moral development of the individual, irrespective of class, gender, or what have you. Western scholarship has a tendency to emphasize this latter aspect of Confucianism in order to make it seem more relevant to the larger conversation Western scholarship is embedded in. This can be seen, for example, in the translation of 忠 as "being true to oneself" in the edition of the Four Books that I just read. Arguably, it can be translated as loyalty or respect instead, but the connotations of authenticity are there as well in the root texts, so that "being true to oneself" is a perfectly reasonable translation. The repeated celebration of the individual's agency in the world of political praxis is something that I could not help but notice when reading the concluding passages of the Doctrine of the Mean, which embody the rhetorical climax of Chu Hsi's arrangement of the Four Books. So to highlight the persistent strain of individualism present in the Four Books is something one can do without doing violence to the texts, although the same cannot be said of the strongly patriarchal and communitarian cultures of societies that have been strongly influenced by Confucianism.
With regards to the Golden Mean, Gardner in his book devotes several pages to discussing the role of the Mean (中) in Confucian thought. What is significant about Chu Hsi's reading is that the Mean in Confucian thought is not simply a form of moderation, which is what I understand Aristotle to have recommended in his ethics. In fact, in the Mencius, Mencius criticizes a famous worthy for rigidly following the middle course in all things. Perhaps a better understanding of what Chu Hsi meant by the Mean is revealed through the translation of Gardner (the translator) of 中庸, usually rendered as The Doctrine of the Mean. Gardner believes a better translation is Maintaining Perfect Balance. By substituting the word "balance" for "mean" Gardner aims to make two points: 1) that the practice of morality is an ongoing act that the aspiring Confucian must engage in constantly, and 2) that balance may entail not pursuing the middle position every time - it simply means responding to situations appropriately in their particularity. This understanding of the Mean posits the aspiring Confucian as one who is constantly having to practice virtue in a world of flux and change. This is described in more detail in the Book of Changes, one of the Confucian Five Classics.
One passage from the Doctrine of the Mean that I found rather intriguing is the following:
诗云，『伐柯伐柯，其则不远。』执柯以伐柯，睨而视之。犹以为远。故君子以人治人，改而止。
Gardner's translation follows:
"The Book of Odes says: 'Hew an axe handle, hew an axe handle; The model is near at hand.' We take hold of one axe handle in order to hew another axe handle. Yet if we look from one to the other, the two appear far different. Therefore, the superior man uses the Way of man to govern men. When they are reformed, he stops."
This passage has puzzled commentators since antiquity, leading some commentators to believe that a line is missing from the message. The passage moves from comparing one ax handle to another ax handle, and remarking that the two are different, to saying that the superior man uses the Way to govern men, and upon doing so, stops.
However, for me the passage has a very clear meaning, apparent to anyone who has ever tried to educate children - that people are different, and one should not aim to make those one teaches exactly like oneself. The shift from one generation to another is like the imperceptible shift from the use of one ax handle to create another ax handle - there are inevitably small changes that will result, but this should not trouble us. What is important about governing other people is knowing when to stop, that of "改而止" - knowing when the desired change has been effected, and then stopping. For me, the humaneness of the moral vision here is admirable, for both its implications for personal conduct as well as political philosophy. Throughout this passage, there is an emphasis on the recognition of one's own limits as one of the most important things one can know for engaging in practical action.
Hi Robert, I didn't see your reply when I made my response. Thanks for contextualizing this discussion with the works of other philosophers. Philippa Foot is a name I have only heard before, although it has been such a common occurrence that I hope to expand my philosophical knowledge so as to understand how her contribution to moral philosophy figures within the larger conversation outside of just her engagement with Kant.
Mod
Thank you again for your erudite and thoughtful analysis of Confucius. Leo Strauss, who knew many several European languages as well as Hebrew and Arabic, said (I am paraphrasing) that he could not be an expert on Asian philosophers because he did not know their languages. You certainly do not have that limitation!
Can you advise as to the best English edition(s) and translation(s) of Confucius and/or his successors?
Hi Alan, thanks for your complimentary remarks. I know contemporary Chinese reasonably well, but reading ancient texts from different periods requires a detailed knowledge of classical grammar that I do not possess. I used to fantasize about learning classical Chinese well enough to read the source texts on my own. I have since decided that there are other things I would like to do with my time. Still, knowing a little Chinese often helps when I am curious how accurate a translation is. The original text can often easily be found online for a quick comparison.Because I am by no means an expert on classical Chinese, I hesitate to endorse any translation. The original texts of Confucius and his immediate followers are extremely concise and therefore ambiguous. The peculiarity one experiences in reading them in the original is comparable, I would suggest, to trying to make sense of Tacitus at times. Much depends on one's interpretative vision, although perhaps the same could be said about interpreting any text within the limits of one's own limited, hermeneutic circle.
Still, if there is a book you would like to start with, I can definitely recommend the book I just finished: The Four Books: The Basic Teachings of the Later Confucian Tradition by Daniel Gardner. Gardner takes the approach of following Chu Hsi's interpretation, which became orthodox during what could be called medieval China. (I use that term to describe the period of the Sung dynasty when Chu Hsi lived without being sure if a trained sinologist would agree with that assessment.)
Gardner does not directly translate Chu Hsi's commentary, I suspect because classical Chinese sounds very odd when translated literally into English. He instead paraphrases Chu Hsi's commentary to contextualize the texts within Chu Hsi's distinctive metaphysics and educational philosophy. The root text by Confucius and his immediate followers he translates into idiomatic and perhaps somewhat periphrastic English. That is not to say Gardner's translation is wordy, but a reflection on the recondite and abbreviated quality of the original texts. My experience with Gardner's translation is overwhelmingly positive in terms of the clarity of the exposition, since Gardner is selective about what passages he chooses to translate. I have tried to evaluate some of his translation decisions, but I have to admit I lack the specialist's knowledge about how valid Gardner's choices are. Nevertheless, considering the care Gardner takes in his commentary, I feel confident in the quality of his scholarship.
Mod
Mod
I meant to comment on this point in an earlier post, but I forgot to do so. Just to be clear, Aristotle did not consider the proper ethical mean to be an arithmetic mean. In some cases, it is closer to one extreme than the other, and in some cases there is no proper mean at all. See, for example, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics 1106a-b.
Mod
Mod
It is in many ways astounding to see how the ideological plates of republican/conservative politics and thinking have shifted so quickly as a result of COVID and government reactions. Even prior to the virus attacking us, certain Republican leaders (Rubio,Hartley) among others were beginning to spin ideas that sound and look like some on the progressive left regarding corporate regulations and finances. Jonah Goldberg, the sometimes bomb-throwing conservative writer and contributor to NR and AEI always has some interesting things to say about this issue. A recent piece from AEI highlights some of these fractures.https://www.aei.org/articles/what-doe...
What’s interesting in the long run is how the COVID pandemic will alter our political and cultural realities. How will political parties be affected by the dislocations and disruptions of the virus? Does the Republican Party split into two parts, traditional ‘Reagan small government types” and Trumpian economic populists ready to spend whatever it takes. What will be the new normal going forward? And will some of the policy changes and spending already made and being considered be a temporary fix to a crisis situation or a permanent part of our economic and political reality.
What does all that mean for taxes, safety net, governmental planning, national defense, etc. The list goes on.
I have no crystal ball for sure, but believing that we are returning to status quo ante seems to me to be a pure fantasy.
Mod
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/04/09/...https://www.vox.com/2020/4/10/2121549...
My takeaway from reading these two articles is that the economy would be going into a nosedive even if we could lift "shelter in place" right now. However, it is not likely that "shelter in place" will be lifted short of a miracle. If coronavirus is only seasonal, people will be able to go back to work. But the policies being suggested to get people back to work in the event that doesn't happen all seem intractable. There is an absence of political willpower at the federal level that would be required to implement the necessary policies in the event coronavirus doesn't recede in the summer.
I was furloughed at the start of April, and I just got a new job that if all goes well should start on Monday. But I have a feeling I will be working from home for a while.
I start out with two interesting and informative Washington Post articles:
• “Ford and GM are undertaking a warlike effort to produce ventilators. It may fall short and come too late,” April 4, 2020 (here).
• “The U.S. was beset by denial and dysfunction as the coronavirus raged,” April 4, 2020 (here).