PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 2nd May: Does egalitarianism damage merit?

Dear friends,

This Sunday we are discussing: Does egalitarianism damage merit?

The topic was proposed by Sara and in my short essay I try to discuss
how these two forces can be for the good of individuals and society.

Does egalitarianism damage merit? - essay by Lawrence
https://www.philomadrid.com/2021/04/does-egalitarianism-damage-merit.html


In the meantime you can link to the current news and notices here:
https://www.philomadrid.com/2020/10/news-and-notices.html

-Alfonso has a new website and he gave us link to his latest book of
poems: Después

-Oscar's book on his reflections on COVID-19 is still available

-David J. Butler has published a new book "Absent Friends" regarding the
Cementerio Británico in Madrid

Finally if you have problems with Skype try launching it again if you
have the App or browser. Send me a message for the link.

Best and take care
Lawrence

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813
Email: philomadrid@gmail.com
http://www.philomadrid.com

PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 2nd May: Does egalitarianism damage
merit?

Does egalitarianism damage merit?

Does egalitarianism damage merit?  Topic by Sara

Essay by Lawrence

 

This is a very serious topic in philosophy and especially in political philosophy. It is serious because not much has been done since the days of Locke. Sure, today we have higher standards of living and members of minority groups can reach the presidency of the US. But this is certainly not enough.

 

The idea of egalitarianism is based on equality which extends to the idea of equality of opportunities. This means that people should be treated the same as equal without discrimination or privilege of status. Merit is the idea of being the best candidate for a job or a position. Indeed both concepts, involve the idea of fairness and equal treatment. However, there must be a reason why we don’t already live in a utopia despite the progress that has been achieved as human beings since the times of Locke.

 

The problem with our topic question is that meritocracy is based on selecting the best person thus having to identify someone unique from all the other people. Whereas egalitarianism tells us that a priori everyone is equal and the same. Thus egalitarianism is a metaphysical* problem, basically a language problem by virtue of the meaning of the meaning of equal or equality. But merit is an empirical* problem we cannot define a priori who deserves to get the position until we investigate what the position requires the person to do and then investigate those candidates who presented themselves for the job.

 

However, there is no doubt that society will be best served with a solid foundation of egalitarianism first and then meritocracy given egalitarianism. The reason for this is that by excluding groups of people the pool of deserving people is much smaller than if all the possible candidates could present themselves.  A reduction in egalitarianism means a reduction in possible candidates for meritocracy.  

 

Today egalitarianism and meritocracy are usually discussed in terms of wealth and jobs/careers which is unfortunate since this is the reason why we are still discussing this subject in the twentieth century. Egalitarianism cannot mean just wealth distribution amongst all members of society. Firstly, if for the sake of the argument we were to equally divide the wealth of society amongst all individuals it means that any inequitable wealth would be enjoyed by everyone today at the expense of those who were exploited in the past. Secondly, no amount of individual gain from sharing collective wealth would suffice to create a world that can help us in education, healthcare and so on. Putting all that wealth to provide research and actual services would be more cost effective for society that just giving a cheque for a few Euros. Incidentally this shouldn’t be mixed up with say social security and unemployment benefit.  

 

The original idea of unemployment benefit was to provide a stop gap when people found a new job after being made redundant in their old job. Today it is evident that some governments and some companies are in a dance to make unemployment benefits (or whatever they are called today) the standard income in exchange for companies keeping more of their profits. Usually this takes form of some coercion by companies in the form of more profits or else we go somewhere else.

 

The other reason why dividing all the wealth and spreading it equally to everyone is that the result would be super inflation and within a short period of time we’ll end up with a few practically having all the money and the rest have nothing. See for example John Rawls philosophy on fairness.

 

As I have already pointed out, egalitarianism is a metaphysical idea and by definition it can only help us with concepts and ideas. Earlier I also mentioned that egalitarianism should also mean equality of opportunity but this should not mean that everyone should have the same opportunity, as in we should all submit our CV for the same job. By opportunity we must mean that everyone should have equal access to the means that make people equal amongst their peers. Children in need should have access to special needs education; poor people should not be priced out from institutions of learning; and so on.

 

But the problem, for example, is not access to universities, but the idea some people have of privilege because of social status, discrimination and the idea that some people feel they are entitled to whatever they want. Education (I use education as an example, it could be healthcare etc) should not come at a monetary price whether it is for a first degree or a doctorate degree: education is education and it ought to be free.

 

But if we never had the opportunity to reach a level of opportunity, we are certainly not going to benefit from a meritocratic society. If we are trying to find the person who merits being a university professor, there is no merit if hundreds of thousands of people were denied a tertiary education degree for whatever reason:  money, health, special needs and so on. And there is no merit if all candidates for the Chair excluded members from minority groups, people who qualified from normal institutions and so on.

 

Incidentally, if you are interested in the machinations of the merits of publishing in scientific journals you can read this entertaining story: Einstein Versus the Physical Review – in Physics Today at https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.2117822 . This story is also known as: the paper by Einstein that was rejected.

 

I am not convinced that egalitarianism is damaging to meritocracy partly because egalitarianism is a metaphysical issue and, therefore, a problem of morality and political philosophy: that is we need to change our mind set about our relationships with others. And meritocracy is an empirical problem and should, therefore, be more inclusive rather that excluding.

 

In a way egalitarianism and meritocracy are complementary forces: without giving opportunities to everyone, we cannot be sure that we are selecting the most meritorious persons. Even more, egalitarianism and meritocracy are not qualifications, but rather a process. Egalitarianism implies finding what is lacking in a person and then helping that person to proceed in a normal life. By the same process those who are born with extraordinary intelligence should be helped to develop their talent.

 

What we know for sure is that discrimination and exploitation are not compatible with egalitarianism and meritocracy and as we can see from history how an absence of these forces can lead to turmoil and maybe even revolution.

 

 

* Since I have not really researched this topic in depth I do not necessarily claim originality of this idea.  

 

Best Lawrence                           

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813

 

Email: philomadrid@gmail.com

 

http://www.philomadrid.com

 

PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 25th April: Death Penalty – Capital Punishment

 Dear Friends,
 
This Sunday we are discussing: Death Penalty – Capital Punishment.
 
The topic was proposed by Norma and in my short essay I try to present two arguments that are philosophical robust against the death penalty.
 
Death Penalty – Capital Punishment
https://www.philomadrid.com/2021/04/death-penalty-capital-punishment.html
 
In the meantime you can link to the current news and notices here:
https://www.philomadrid.com/2020/10/news-and-notices.html
 
-Alfonso has a new website and he gave us link to his latest book of poems: Después
 
-Oscar's book on his reflections on COVID-19 is still available
 
-David J. Butler has published a new book "Absent Friends" regarding the Cementerio Británico in Madrid
 
Finally if you have problems with Skype try launching it again if you have the App or browser. Send me a message for the link.
 
Best and take care
Lawrence
 
telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813
Email: philomadrid@gmail.com
http://www.philomadrid.com
 
PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 25th April: Death Penalty – Capital Punishment
 

Death Penalty – Capital Punishment

 

Death Penalty – Capital Punishment

Topic by Norma

Essay by Lawrence

 

 

Capital punishment is a big subject and one that involves many opinions and many disciples. The issue itself is also wide ranging and complex beyond any attempt to bring all the relevant ideas together.

 

Hence, my intention is quite simple here, and my objective is to provide some ideas for the meeting although, of course, there are no limits during our discussion. In principle, capital punishment involves the state taking away the life of someone who infringed some rule or law: and usually murder is the ultimate infringement of law. I will refer to murder only as an example of an act that attracts capital punishment. But just because capital punishment is performed by the state it does not follow that the state is a legitimate state, or that laws governing capital punishment are constitutional, legal or moral. And then there is murder by terrorists, kidnappers and religious zealots who complicate the issue by claiming legitimacy to take away the life of someone.

 

The most compelling argument for capital punishment is that it serves as a deterrent against the most heinous crimes. This idea is not a very strong argument on the grounds that some people still commit murder in countries where they do have capital punishment. This does not mean that some people do not deserve the capital punishment, or that people do not feel emotional about the deeds of the murderer, but it does mean that there no causal moral relationship. However, there is a difference between wanting the population to follow the law and stopping a person from murdering someone.

 

The majority of people in a population are law abiding people, and even within the criminal community, murderers are relatively few in number. Hence this suggests that the majority of people do not need to learn any lessons about murdering others. But there are two clear factors that tempt murders or make murder easier to commit.

 

For example, in the USA homicide by firearms was 13,958 for 2020 (Wikipedia: Gun violence in the United States); in Switzerland who have a very liberal gun laws, there were 13 firearms homicide in 2018 (1). But Switzerland has a population of 8.5million and the USA 328.2million so we expect a numerical difference, but Switzerland have abolished capital punishment. My point here is that it might be argued that having access to the tools for murder, might lead people to murder. But I am more inclined to think that people who have easy access to the tools of murder would be more inclined to commit murder if they intend to murder someone; even if they commit murder by accident or in the heat of the moment.

 

Making draconian rules that attract capital punishment is another way of increasing or having a high number of people who are murdered by capital punishment. Dictators are very efficient at implementing this policy of using capital punishment as a political tool. These dictators are not interested in the safety of society but their own political survival. Two historical examples are the Nazis murdering their opposition and racial groups, and the Soviet Union under Stalin murdering many ethnic minorities and types of people with a certain background. Today China and North Korea offer modern examples of using capital punishment to support oppressive policies. Look at the entry “Death Penalty” in Amnesty.org for more background information (2).

 

Apart from mistakes, many people also argue that capital punishment should not be allowed because it is disproportional to the crime; capital punishment as retaliation is as immoral as murder; and asking executioners to perform an act of killing someone is equally repugnant. Whilst all these arguments and many more are valid arguments against capital punishment, they do not provide universalisable philosophical principles.

 

Usually, proponents of capital punishment employ emotional argument to defend the punishment: they deserve it; what about us, we should have a say; and if people cannot do their job they should leave it. I want to propose two arguments that address this universalisable condition against capital punishment.

 

The first universalisable principle is that the state has no moral or political authority to murder people other than in self defence and then to protect society in general. By definition a murderer who has been caught and appears in front of a court of law is no longer a danger to society. Once a murderer is in the custody of the state then the state is responsible for the actions of that person. This idea is extended, for example, in the Geneva Convention about prisoners of war who are afforded the rights of non-combatants. Indeed the Geneva Convention should be made applicable to all armed groups who identify themselves as fighting for a cause.

 

The state, however, does have a right to ask citizens to go to war to protect the country and in so doing some might die, but the state has no right to kill helpless people. This does not mean that the state should not sanction heinous criminals, but that is another matter.

 

The second universalisable principle is that capital punishment should never be used to implement oppressive policies. And this principle should apply to all countries by default. If the Holocaust has taught us anything is that murdering people for political means is just unacceptable and is inhuman. But looking at the historical development since 1945 the impression we have today is that six million Jews and a few more million people were murdered practically for nothing. State murder is still common in some countries in Asia and Africa, and even the US some states exploit capital punishment for political gain. Some countries still pass an inordinate number of laws that attract the capital punishment. So the second universalisable principle is that states should not be allowed to benefit from the murder of their citizens and people.

 

To conclude the matter it is not why or why not capital punishment but rather the state should never have the power to take away the life of people. They should address the issue of what to do with people who commit murder more humanely and intelligently.

 

 

(1 (1)  Switzerland — Gun Facts, Figures and the Law

https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland

 

(1 (2)  Death Penalty
https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/death-penalty/

 

Best Lawrence

 

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813

Email: philomadrid@gmail.com

http://www.philomadrid.com

 

PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 18th April: Cancel Culture

Dear Friends,

This Sunday we are discussing: Cancel Culture

The topic was proposed by Ignacio. In my short essay I try to identify
some philosophical issues. Unfortunately, the term might be new but not
the practice that is as old as the hills.

Cancel Culture
https://www.philomadrid.com/2021/04/cancel-culture.html

In the meantime you can link to the current news and notices here:
https://www.philomadrid.com/2020/10/news-and-notices.html

-Alfonso has a new website and he gave us link to his latest book of
poems: Después

-Oscar's book on his reflections on COVID-19 is still available

-David J. Butler has published a new book "Absent Friends" regarding the
Cementerio Británico in Madrid

Finally if you have problems with Skype try launching it again if you
have the App or browser. Send me a message for the link.

Best and take care
Lawrence

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813
Email: philomadrid@gmail.com
http://www.philomadrid.com

PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 18th April: Cancel Culture

Cancel Culture

 

Cancel Culture – topic by Ignacio

Essay by Lawrence

 

Although by definition cancel culture includes the idea of people being ostracised in real life, the damage and preliminary hate is mostly done on social media. The term cancel culture is relatively new and prospered in the on-line environment.

 

Basically, cancel culture is a consequence of people turning against an individual either professionally or socially to expel the targeted individuals from their social or professional circles. What causes this approbation is usually a discretion which annoys or angers a large group of people. For example, people might be ostracised for racial comments, legitimate activities such as playing a role in a film as a slave master, or simply because they are successful.

 

And although there are many cancel culture instances based on racism, political correctness, extreme feminism, religious ideology, there are also examples in corporate culture, wars, medical issues, and so on.

 

The unpleasant side of cancel culture is that it is the individual that is targeted not the organisation for example Wall Street or Hollywood. It also does not matter whether the accusations against the individual are true or false or justified. This is more like mob rule: we believe it, so it must be true and we are right. To mitigate these detestable attributes, culture cancel is mainly a North American phenomenon more than anything else although no one is immune these days. After all cancel culture is mainly an internet phenomenon.

 

So what are the main philosophical issues about cancel culture? One of the most relevant issues is that there is no collective ethics or etiquette to help us know the norms for participating on the internet. This does not mean that the internet ought to be censored, but rather the basics of participate on the internet similar to the etiquette of walking in the street.

 

The rational of cancel culture is to right a wrong.  The wrong, of course, is a subjective wrong, something someone disagrees with but that does not matter. What matters is that the individual is punished. Hence the question is whether cancel culture is based on hatred or on a false sense of entitlement based on subjective emotional criteria? There is a difference between objecting to a film made thirty years ago about slavery, and a viciously attacking someone who played a role just because we disagree with the film. Especially when in modern society we have some legal redress to activities we feel are illegal or immoral.

 

The problem is not so much that these overzealous ideologues can do quite a lot of harm but rather how to ostracize people who are really causing real harm to society. For example, politicians who arouse passions of hatred or racism in a mob. The fact that these politician are in parliament suggests that the electoral system does not have any mechanisms to exclude these trouble makers.

 

In contrast, social media platforms seem to be relatively quick at removing trouble makers from their platform: for example ex President Trump although it took Twitter four years to remove him from the platform.

 

Moving away from the extremist of cancel culture, people can still create legitimate environments (or groups) that would exclude others. Indeed even a philosophy group that welcomes everyone and excludes no one would still be intimidating for some people who might find it difficult to debate in public. The idea of exclusion is not necessary an affront, but probably a natural selection process. There is nothing more natural than choosing one way or another on the pure belief that it is better for us.

 

In effect although the term cancel culture and the internet context is new, the idea of ostracising people with malice for perceived wrong doing is as old as the first holy books.

 

Best Lawrence

 

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813

Email: philomadrid@gmail.com

http://www.philomadrid.com

PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 11th April: Hate Culture,,,

Dear Friends,

This Sunday we are discussing: Hate Culture

The topic was proposed by Ines and in my essay I discuss the extreme
form of hatred that in past we used to call racism.

Hate Culture
https://www.philomadrid.com/2021/04/hate-culture.html

In the meantime you can link to the current news and notices here:
https://www.philomadrid.com/2020/10/news-and-notices.html

-Alfonso has a new website and he gave us link to his latest book of
poems: Después

-Oscar's book on his reflections on COVID-19 is still available

-David J. Butler has published a new book "Absent Friends" regarding the
Cementerio Británico in Madrid

Finally if you have problems with Skype try launching it again if you
have the App or browser. Send me a message for the link.

Best and take care
Lawrence

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813
Email: philomadrid@gmail.com
http://www.philomadrid.com

PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 11th April: Hate Culture

Hate Culture

 

Hate Culture   topic by Ines

Essay by Lawrence

 

The term Hate Culture (or the Culture of Hate) is really a modern term introduced to reflect human behaviour on social media. The ease to join a social media platform makes it even easier to find a topic to express and spread hatred. By implication, hatred speech varies from the mild to near criminal incitement. And of course, hatred can be directed for various reasons.

 

Except that the internet and social media is even more important for hate groups to mobilise and spread their hate in the real world. It is a mistake to assume that what happens on the internet does not have an effect in real life.

 

I shall, therefore, start by briefly try to understand what we mean by hatred. But my main concern will be about hate culture in politics today. Hatred is a natural phenomenon that we experience either as an emotion or even a mental disposition. In general we can say that hate is a product of someone doing harm to us: when it is serious we enter into a hate mode towards that person. And by us I mean both as an individual and a group. The harm itself might not be directed at us personally, for example we might just be victims of the system, this is not like being scared.

 

Just feeling hate should not be an alarming event in normal life, it is natural, the problem is when hate manifests itself into anger, aggression and violence. Hate need not be rational or logical, and political hate is probably more a case of group behaviour than wrong done to a single individual. What is clear about hate in a political context is that it becomes more intense the more we consider extremist views at the spectrum end of an ideology.

 

An important type of hatred for us is racism and xenophobia, when hatred is directed not to the individual but rather the race and origin of that person. In other words identifying the individual with the group identity usually based on superficial features.

 

We can understand hatred directed at an individual for harm done to us, but hatred based on race is something beyond emotional hatred. Racism seems to be very close to biological hatred rather than emotional hatred. I would argue that a biological trait, such as biological racism (hatred), is subject to evolutionary processes and would persist as long as it created an advantage. However, no matter how much a trait becomes redundant because of a changing environment, the trait might still be present anyway. By biological racism I mean something where the agent is violent against someone intruding on the group: for example nursing mothers in many animal species just pounce on anything outside her group when approached.

 

I would argue that racism in the 21^st has no scope in human behaviour, on the grounds that today biological racism alone is not a threat to human beings. In other words there is no advantage being racist because today racial groups are quite diluted.  

 

One of the reasons is that the bonds of individuals with the group (ie race) are not as comprehensive as in the past. Today as individuals we depend on knowledge and tools developed in other cultures, other racial groups and by methodologies that have survived the test of time. A second reason is that racial groups are much bigger today probably due to the higher standard of living and easier communication. Thus the competition has move from group solidarity to individual intelligence. But most important is that racists societies run on pure xenophobic principles are biologically destined to fail because of inevitable inbreeding.

 

The Nationalist Socialists (Nazis) in 1939 were very close to categorical demise because of their inbred ideology at the very least: a similar situation exists today in England with the brexit supporters.

 

So why do we still find racism and racial hatred today? To be fair hate culture is not only about racism, but also about group identities: capitalists vs communists: science vs science sceptics:  mask wearers vs mask rejecters: and so on. But just because today there is no scope for biological racism it does not mean that biological racism has disappeared. Indeed today in most western societies there is no fear of genetic stagnation, but these past few years biological racism has been well exploited by those interested in power.

 

Today we know that racism, and specifically antisemitism, as a political tool was established with Nazis in Germany between the world wars. What is unclear is why specifically antisemitism for the Nazis when the Jewish population in Germany was well integrated in the German war machine and institutions: the political fight of the Nazis was against the inequity of the Treaty of Versailles and not the performance of the indigenous Jewish population during the war.

 

At the time of WW1 and before many Jews had to move to Western Europe including Germany, from Russia because of the pogroms: another antisemitic programme in Russia similar to the final solution in Germany. Today the influx of Syrians and other Middle Eastern (mainly) people into Germany have already established themselves in the country contributing to the German economy. And that after tacking into account the Covid effect.

 

This leaves us with the argument that a hate culture, and more precisely racism, is exploited by so called right wing parties to alienate the population to gain power and authority. Although I say right wing parties in reality it is any party that has seized and abused the democratic process of a country to control the population.

 

What is clear is that those who resort to some organised hate culture, their intentions are not necessarily honest. After all, the Nazis were dangerous not because they killed millions of people, but because they were very good at using language to manipulate law abiding people. Today we don’t have bombs falling on our cities but we still have the racist rhetoric in the West.

 

Best Lawrence

 

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813

Email: philomadrid@gmail.com

http://www.philomadrid.com