Why philosophy is crucial to society and politics

Why philosophy is crucial to society and politics

One of the things that really stood out to me in the 2016 Presidential Campaign was when Marco Rubio said we need more welders, and less philosophers. I can see what he was saying to a point, that in general welders have a specific job while a philosopher will probably not be just a philosopher, they’ll need to actually apply their knowledge and skills to being a consultant, or a teacher, or any number of other careers. However, everyone has the capacity to be a philosopher, and to a degree are. Philosophy is often derided as being pie-in-the-sky talk of hypothetical matters, and it can be, but it’s also something that comes into play in our daily lives. In our society and politics today, I think we desperately need more of it.

How do we determine how we vote?

How do we rationalize the actions of our favored candidates and party against those we do not favor?

What offends us and what do we think is the proper response depending on who offended us and why we were offended?

I am not an expert on philosophy. I’ve never taken a class on philosophy, my knowledge of it is from things I’ve picked up over time as well as the Crash Course Philosophy videos, which I’ll link the first video for.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A_CAkYt3GY

It’s okay though. We don’t have to get a PhD in Philosophy to be able to be rational, consistent, and ethical with our political discourse. In this post, I’ll be covering six brief lessons in philosophy that I think need to be used more in our current debates, followed by an example of what can happen when we don’t use a healthy amount of philosophy in our discourse.

Truth vs. Validity

It’s hard to distinguish truth from validity, and it often screws up our debates in society and politics. Something that it “true” is a fact, it is something that is empirically correct. Validity on the other hand is something that is logical, that follows a train of thought that make sense.

An example of something that is true, but not valid would be the following:

God does not like LGBT people, it causes God to punish people, therefore Hurricane Harvey and Irma devastated the United States and the Carribean.

The underlined part is a fact, two hurricanes did indeed cause a lot of damage, but there is no validity, no rational connection that shows that they were a punishment from God. There is no way to really disprove whether the claims are true or not, but we can challenge the logic behind it.

An example of something that is valid, but not true on the other hand:

Vaccinations can cause autism, your neighbors vaccinated their child, therefore the child might become autistic because of the vaccinations.

The argument is logical from start to finish, that indeed if vaccinations can cause autism, and if a child is vaccinated, then the child will be at more risk. However it is not true, there is no evidence to support this claim, except for a study that was proven false.

In both cases, the arguments leading up to the conclusion are the issue, but for different reasons. In the first case, it follows no real rhyme or reason and is paired with a very real natural disaster to try to appear legitimate, which it is not. In the latter case, it makes sense step by step but is based on bad information. These aren’t made up hypotheticals, these are arguments and beliefs some people have, but in order to counter it it’s important to be able to point out what specifically is wrong with it, knowing it is wrong in and of itself is not enough.

Human vs. Person

I really like philosophy’s distinction between a “human” and a “person”. A human is a biological species that the greatest saints, most depraved monsters, and all of us in between belong to. A person on the other hand is someone worth moral consideration, that they are worthy of having rights, privileges, respect, and so on.

Human and person as words are used interchangeably, and sadly the concepts are mixed up as well. There are too many examples where we don’t even accept another group as the same species, while on the flip side we often treat moral consideration by society as inherent to our biological makeup. This is a dangerous confusion for a society to have when the boundaries of what is our choice as a society and how we are physically born can’t be distinguished.

For most of us it’s okay to give more personhood to some than others. Most of us are all right with military veterans, and those who put themselves in harm’s way like Police and Firemen getting some extra respect and benefits. We allot them more personhood for their sacrifice, for the dangers they put themselves in. On the flip side, we take away some degree of personhood from criminals, we dole out punishments that often restrict what they can do and where they can go. However, most of us will agree that regardless of their great deeds, veterans and others are not entitled to do whatever they want, whenever they want. There are still rules that they share with the rest of us. Likewise, despite their crimes, criminals are still entitled to at least a minimum of rights and protections.

However, in today’s society we are not just debating the merits of the brave, the consequences of crime. Who has the right to protest, in what manner may the protest, what issues may the protest? Who deserves our empathy? Who deserves our condemnation? Who should be punished? These are questions we’ll continue to contend with, question of how we define “people” and sadly much of it still revolves around gender, race, religion, and other demographics meant to be protected by our laws.

Identity

What makes me, me, and what makes you, you? Although at first it might seem like one of those esoteric questions without a right answer, it plays out in our lives and in society every day. “I am an American because I do X, and therefore I’m entitled to Y” is a very prevalent sentiment in our country. When we say this we’re defining what it means to be an American, as well as what we should have because of it. Is “X” hard work, service, a mean hamburger on the grill? Is “Y” the right to free speech, representation by our officials, a middle income wage? From religion, to social class, to profession, to even what kind of hobby or sport we do can be something we feel is a vital part of who we are, and we define them with “X’s” and “Y’s”.

On a societal level we not only create a self-identity, but an identity for others. If what it means to be an America is to stand up for the Pledge of Allegiance, then Collin Kaepernick is not an American by that definition. If what it means to be an American is to practice your right to free speech, and to have a legal citizenship, then Collin Kaepernick is an American by definition. What we end up with is those who identify him as an “other”, something who is not us, and those who identify who as “same”, as someone who is one of us.

We unfortunately mistake identity for Truth though, as undisputed fact. Identity is a concept, one that we do not and will not agree upon and that is all right. What is the problem is when we fail to accept that other identities, other ways to define the world exist beyond our own. We use the same words whether citizen, patriot, American, and more to describe different worldviews that do not match.

Harmful words

Words can and do actually hurt. It doesn’t feel good to be rejected, or scolded, or threatened even if nothing physically happens. The word “snowflakes” has become all too common by people of many different political opinions to describe those who are offended by things they themselves are not offended by. Going back once more to the Ten Strategies I posted before, it’s generally not productive to delegitimize a person’s feelings.

However, it is important to distinguish how and why we’re offended. There is a difference between “dirty words” that upset our sensibilities and “hate speech” that directly attacks a person for what they are, and of course a more personal attack.

We can be offended by bad language, violence, or pornography in a game, movie, or tv show. We can be offended by irreverent behavior that we find gross or unsettling. This all falls into the dirty category, things upset our sense of properness. A good example is our rating system, kids can’t go see an R-rated movie unless accompanied by a parent or guardian.

Hate speech is meant to harm what a person is whether their gender, race, religion, nationality, sexuality, or some other part of what a person is. As opposed to offending our sense of properness, it is an attack on a person themselves, and by extension everyone else who belongs to the group that the victim was targeted for being.

And a personal attack is just that, it is something that is targeted towards a single person that can be inconsequential, could be incredibly serious and potentially dangerous, or somewhere in between. Unlike hate speech though, it is not an attack against an entire subsect of people.

I really hope the term “snowflake” goes away, though realistically if it does it’ll probably be because another catchy word has taken its place. It’s okay for us to be offended, we just have to be able to distinguish why we’re offended and respond accordingly. If as a society we find something that upsets our sensibilities, we censor it to whatever extent we choose. If as a society we run into hate speech, we should protect the group of people being attacked, understanding that more than just those directly involved are at risk. If it is a personal attack, then we handle it on an individual basis as best we can.

However, we get them mixed up and merely censor what is an attack against a group of people, we mistake a personal attack for a hate speech, we mistake hate speech for a personal attack. When we don’t understand what kind of offense has been given, as a society we can’t respond effectively.

Epistemic responsibility

I love, love, love the concept of “epistemic responsibility”, that we have responsibility for our beliefs. It is the understanding that our beliefs can have consequences both positives and negatives. We often feel that beliefs are private and personal. However, do we not share our beliefs? spread our beliefs? act upon our beliefs? If a person is a sexist, do they really go through life treating both men and women fairly and only think their sexist thoughts?

Different beliefs hold different weight. Our opinion about a beverage doesn’t hold the same weight as our belief in the treatment of other people. We don’t necessarily need to hold up every minor or trivial belief we have under a microscope. However, for those beliefs that are bigger, that do hold a very real impact for not only yourself, but those around you, consider what should matter:

-Should there be good intent?

-Should there be evidence?

-Should there be effort?

-Should there be self-reflection and criticism?

I would argue that whatever standards people use, there should be some standards. We should aspire to hold ourselves to a higher standard for those important beliefs, to accept their impact on our society, and to not take our beliefs for granted when truly we’re responsible for them.  

It’s not easy

I think one of the stereotypical visualizations we have of a philosopher is of very well educated people debating for hours on end highly complicated and subjective things like life, reality, free will, and so on without coming to a good conclusion. Yes. Even the most educated and wisest philosophers in history tripped and stumbled over questions. So will we. That’s okay.

Another thing that frustrates me in current political discourse is the myth of simplicity. Making decisions that can affect every American citizen, and potentially people all around the world, isn’t simple. Healthcare, the environment, justice reform, immigration, war, these are complicated matters that affect us all in different ways, and realistically no perfect answers exist. We must contend with which imperfect choice to make.

Just as philosophizing these issues should be difficult, so too should making the decision as aren’t our decisions based upon our own personal philosophy?

Why it’s so important to have more philosophy in our society and politics

When we cannot defend our rights intellectually, we open up the threat of having those rights taken away. When we believe that our politics is merely two sides, a group waving Nazi flags marching in Virginia can try to rationalize that “since we don’t belong to this half, we must belong to the other half!” If as a society we are unable to adequately communicate, “No, you belong to neither the Left nor the Right, but are a separate group altogether who has no valid claim to legitimacy”, then they very well may become a legitimate part of their chosen Party. If we cannot distinguish hate speech and its implications from other forms of speech, thinking it merely upsetting to our sensibilities or those specific individuals attacked, we will fail to protect the people who are now at risk. If we do not hold people morally responsible for their beliefs, we give a free pass to terrible bigotry as if there won’t be tangible actions that come of it.

If we can recognize the differences between truth and validity, strengthen and make more inclusive our identity, recognize and push for great personhood for more, I think we’ll be heading in a better direction. We just have to strive to be rational, consistent, and moral. It's not easy, but we as a society can do it.

***

ACTION!

Study up. I recommend the video link above, but failing that try to read up on the philosophical stances of what you care about. Try to think of sticky situations that might be an exception to your current beliefs, and figure out how you can rationalize it to where it is no longer an exception, or considering revising your beliefs if you cannot.

***

What’s Next?

Only thing on my list left is my thoughts on nostalgia, and how we can take it a bit too far. I’ll have to sit down and think on some other topics, perhaps look for recommendations.

A Reflection on Racism and Hate: What we can do better

A Reflection on Racism and Hate: What we can do better

Something has gone terribly wrong when Nazi flags are waved side-by-side with Confederate flags as they chant praise for the President and hate for minorities. Although there’s a part of me that feels absurd for stating what should be common sense, I have to remind myself that it isn’t actually common sense, at least not to everyone.

When I consider what I can say to someone who carries a Nazi flag proudly I come up with nothing. I cannot try to convince someone the realities of privilege when they feel they need more privileges, more rights than others. I cannot use strategies in negotiating and reaching across the table when across that table is the belief in genocide. Self-reflection is a personal choice, and cannot be forced upon those who refuse it.

And so instead I focus on those of us who know better. This blog post is focused for those of us, myself included, who understand that bigotry is wrong, but how we as a collective society have failed to not only end it, but to keep it from rising again. Whereas my last post was more on a personal level, this post is looking at broader aspects in our society.

We want to believe in a better world, one that understands better

I believe that optimism has hurt the cause of tolerance. I want to believe in a world that’s progressing, one that’s becoming more understanding. I want to believe that the Civil Rights Act was enough. At times, I have believed these things. However, this optimism makes it too easy to assume that things will work out, that people will be reasonable and eventually come together. History disagrees with this, current affairs disagree with it, but the idea of each generation doing a little bit better than the last is a narrative that’s hard to let go of.

I make the argument that the world is not necessarily better just because it naturally gets better, that understanding won’t be found unless we actively push for it and it will get worse if we don’t. Society is made up by people, and thus for society to improve, it requires people to do it.

We damn racism, but without nuance or often explanation

I grew up being taught that racism and bigotry were wrong. It causes a lot of pain and suffering. The end.

In hindsight, that wasn’t enough.

Once again, I feel weird for saying that we need to explain why racism is wrong, why treating people as less than a person based off skin color is terrible. However, without providing an explanation, it makes it too easy to rationalize how maybe racism isn’t so bad, or to define racism in convenient ways that doesn’t require us to change any aspect of our lives. I’ve heard the idea that humans aren’t born racist, they must learn it. I don’t necessarily disagree, but if there are aspects of society teaching racism, then we should push back and teach against it. Systematic racism, intersectionality, these are concepts I only discovered and learned about later in life. How much more equipped would our young people be if they understood the nuances, the different kinds of bigotry, the motivations, the scientific evidence against it? I think it would make a big impact if we treated being a good citizen, such as not being a member or sympathizer of hate groups, as a part of our education. More people deal with issues of acceptance than deal with trigonometry in their daily lives.

We aren’t great at utilizing diversity

In mainstream media we have terms like the “token” character or “diversity points”. I think there’s validity to it. Characters are often brought on a show, movie, game, or something else in a way that’s not genuine, and it’s easy to spot. It’s not necessarily ill-intended, but if we see diversity in a forced, lackluster way it won’t really show us what different groups have to offer. Worst, it can be mistaken for legitimate diversity.

On a more personal level, mediation, facilitation, and communication are skills that for many of us are optional to learn. These skills among others can help us bridge gaps, better understand different perspectives, but are treated as specializations or soft skills. We try to instill in people a sense that there’s two sides of a story (or often more than just two), but I had to seek out my own opportunities to better learn how to actually handle and accept those other sides.

We assume acceptance is easy

It’s not. Three years in the Peace Corps, meeting hundreds of other volunteers, every single one had their low moments. Every single volunteer at one point let the differences in culture and values frustrate them, anger them. Most volunteers could then step back, reflect, and grow. However, it took effort and mindfulness.

Accepting other people is not a passive action for me despite that’s what I more of less grew up believing. I believe now that it’s active, it’s something we need to do deliberately and intentionally. So long as we assume it’ll just happen, we risk acceptance not coming at all.

We’re failing to recognize the draws of racism

Hitler was a terrible, monstrous human being. He is probably the single most publicly denounced figure in the modern age, and for good reason. Yet the problem I see is we don’t really discuss why he came to power in a way that can be related to our own lives, to our own politics. I think there’s a fear that if we discuss Nazis in terms that define them as humans, we’ll somehow legitimize them. We feel compelled to dehumanize them in strongest terms to separate ourselves from them, and pretend that only the most disturbed could be attracted to their brand of bigotry.

Whether it’s finding a scapegoat, having someone to feel “better” than, to avoid the guilt of one’s advantages in life, there are real draws to either accepting racism or ignoring it and acting as a bystander. Even if we assume racists are somehow different than normal people, their minds work differently, there still must be some sort of draw, some sort of lure to make people get behind racial superiority.

I feel that only be being able to point out and identify that causes of racism, can we hope to find the cures. To do that, we have to be willing to look into what those causes are, however uncomfortable it may be.

We stereotype racists

It’s with no small amount of irony that I reflect back and see how racists were stereotyped for me. There are two versions I saw. One was of disgusting slobs (often from the South) who were dumb, ignorant, and pathetic. The second variety was the person who seemed normal at first (often a well-to-do businessman), but once confronted, we’d see them transform into the monster they truly were. Any good qualities were just a false front.

Just as with many things, I don’t think there’s a clear line between bigot and not-a-bigot. It comes in different forms, different degrees, and from different people. It’s not comfortable thinking about how friends, family, and neighbors can be intolerant (or even consider what biases we ourselves have). Just as entertainment and other public venues can do better to reflect minorities in a more full, less token way, so too can we better show the different ways racism happens and the real people behind those beliefs. More people might take racism seriously if they’re portrayed as more than a stereotype.

We’re not in control of the “rules” of the debate

Going back to my earlier post on 10 Strategies in Engaging Political and Social Topics, Rule Eight was about “not losing control of the rules”. I can’t think of a current debate where this strategy has been lost as much as in the debate on racism. So long as this is a debate of Free Speech, little progress is going to be made. Hate speech, for good or ill, is protected and has even been recently and unanimously protected by the Supreme Court.

Though the First Amendment does protect hate speech, an exception has been made for speech that causes immediate danger. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is the quintessential example, you’re at fault if you caused an unnecessary panic that led people to trample each other. So yes, a hate rally is protected by free speech unless it directly leads to immediate violence, which isn’t unreasonable to expect.

Moving beyond free speech, racism in America today has very real and tangible actions. However, they’re in many ways treated as anecdotal cases. This celebrity had their house vandalized, this individual was found innocent after years when someone took notice and saw they weren’t given a fair trial. Although attempts have been made to reflect on the overall trends, that these aren’t isolated cases, it’s still an uphill struggle to make it the generally accepted narrative.

And the other aspect of racism, and many of these recent hate groups is the core beliefs. I’ve seen a comparison between hate groups and  Black Lives Matters. Here’s an article from 2015 listing the policy goals of the BLM movement in regards to police reform: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34023751. Whether you agree or not, whether you believe in the methods of BLM or not, these are legitimate positions to take. They call for reforms, not violence. They offer specific objectives, not broad and vague generalities. The same can’t be said for hate groups, who at the core of their own policy goals lead towards preventing minorities from having equal rights, or far, far worse.

However, so long as we’re stuck on the free speech debate, it will be hard to fit in how hate groups push against the legal allowances of free speech, their actions that go beyond speech, and the core values of hate groups compared to other movements isn't the same.

In sum…

I’m thirty years old, and I only feel like I’m starting to scratch the surface on the realities of racism and bigotry, never having to deal with it personally growing up. It’s something I hope to be able to instill in others, especially future generations, so that we can do better, and future generations can do better.

***

ACTION!

Gosh, wish I knew a good source of action this time. I think the best form of action I can think of in regards to this post is to inform ourselves. Whether it’s better understanding the realities of racism in our country or better understanding the faults in media and the news in portraying both the perpetrators and victims of bigotry, we can inform ourselves. The more we know, the better we’ll know how to take action.

***

What’s Next?

I’ll be making a post on the importance of philosophy. Also will probably do a write up on some of the issues I see with nostalgia in current society. I’ve written most of what first compelled me to start this blog, and thus will move onto other topics as they come to me.