The Importance of Integrity

U.S. Olympic cyclists are being criticized for wearing protective air filters on their faces upon arriving to the pollution-choked city of Beijing for supposedly "insulting" their Chinese hosts. They now have released an official and formal apologize for the very understandable crime of protecting their valuable lungs from airborne toxins and carcinogens.

This is representative of an ongoing and unbecoming hesitancy to say or do anything that may reflect poorly upon the communist People's Republic of China. Although most members of the "free world" have tacit reservations and silent condemnations of the nation's contemptible human rights record, I have seen too few who are willing to publicly express these reasonable criticisms. So afraid are people in political positions (elected or otherwise) to admit the moral repulsiveness of China's Maoist regime that they will now apologize for protecting their own health. Politicians, corporate sponsors, and olympians alike have turned a blind eye to China's well-documented and continuing infringement of citizens' life, liberty, and property.

Whether this widespread reticence in the matter is based in fears of economic disaster from an irrational and authoritarian retaliation is irrelevant. Economic clout does not change moral realities. Denial, even tacit denial, of China's human rights abuses is an egregious rejection of reality -- which, as author/philosopher Ayn Rand put it, is "anti-life". If lying is immoral, then surely such self-deception is just as condemnable. Integrity is the admirable quality of being resolutely firm in one's moral principles. No one with integrity would turn their back on crimes against humanity. No one with integrity would hold their tongue in the presence of such evil.

Those with integrity are often respected but rarely emulated. The moralist is burdened with the onerous task of integrity. But it is integrity that keeps human societies stable and (potentially) more rational. For the individual, rigid adherence to rational values and principles increases survival and enjoyment of life. Rejection of reality leads naturally to misery. Integrity may not always be the safe choice or the comfortable choice, but it is always the right choice.

Hysteria and Irrationality

The following is an example of how humans let their fears get to the best of them:

"If the most dire climate predictions come to pass, the Arctic ice cap will melt entirely, and polar bears could face extinction.

So why not pack a few off to Antarctica, where the sea ice will never run out?

It may seem like a preposterous question. But polar bears are just the tip of the "assisted colonization" iceberg. Other possibilities: moving African big game to the American Great Plains, or airlifting endangered species from one mountaintop to another as climate zones shrink.

"It's a showdown. The impacts of climate change on animals have become apparent. And it's time to decide whether we're going to do something," said Notre Dame ecologist Jessica Hellmann, co-author of an influential 2007 Conservation Biology paper (.pdf). "Reducing CO2 is vital, but we might have to step in and intervene."

Once dismissed as wrongheaded and dangerous, assisted colonization [emphasis mine] -- rescuing vanishing species by moving them someplace new -- is now being discussed by serious conservationists. And no wonder: Caught between climate change and human pressure, species are going extinct 100 times faster than at any point in human history." [Source: Wired]

The basic premise is that species transplantation is a necessary action in light of cataclysmic climate change. This could be for a number of reasons not mentioned explicitly in the article. I can think of two:

• Because climate change is anthropogenic (caused by human beings), humans have a responsibility to preserve species that they are indirectly killing. This implies that animals have some degree of "rights," moral limits on our behaviors due to them by virtue of their being alive.

• Certain species have an intrinsic value to mankind that warrants human action to preserve their existence. Whether this value goes beyond mere aesthetics is unclear, but the value is more than the millions (billions?) of dollars it would take to transport thousands of animals to the other side of the earth.

Of course, all of these premises follow from the dubious postulate that global warming will have rapid and disastrous effects on ecosystems and species, based on highly complex and highly arbitrary computer models of global climatic patterns. However, I don't wish to go into my doubts about the climate change disaster scenarios.

What I want to point out is that professional biologists are seriously calling for a forced migration of entire species to other regions of the planet to prevent their extinction. This process is not only costly but is unlikely to work. There are good reasons that "assisted colonization" was "once [and still is] dismissed as wrongheaded and dangerous," and these reasons have not changed. Experiences with the transplanting of species into non-indigenous ecosystems, both intentional and accidental, have often been marked by disaster. Entire food chains have been disrupted, and native species have gone extinct as they fail to compete with the foreign invaders. When it comes to assisted colonization, it is a real possibility that healthy ecosystems could be destroyed in an imprudent attempt to save dying ones.

In the fear of losing certain animals to a soon-to-be scorching climate, normally rational and level-headed scientists are advocating desperate and short-sighted solutions to an imagined apocalypse. Not only is there little reason to believe that global temperatures will increase to the point of melting the entire polar ice cap or desertifying the African savanna, but it is well-documented that assisted colonization is potentially disastrous to indigenous species.

There are thousands of examples of reasonable people being led to irrational decisions by exploited fears. In a way, this response is rational -- if you believe the end is near, then you'll do anything to prevent the end, even if you would normally dismiss the action. On the other hand, it is only through our reliance on reason that ultimately keeps us alive. Because of this, we must not allow our base emotions to override our rational faculties, as they are prone to do in times of stress or crisis.

Humans will maximize their survival when they use their emotions as a guide and not as a master. When fears begin to override reason, the only safety net we have is our faculties of observation. We must ask ourselves, "Do the data support our fears?" And, we must trust the conclusions that follow logically from the answer, even if our feelings disagree. It may be frightening to abandon our comfortable subjective reality to rely more directly on an indirect perception of external objective reality, but the results speak for themselves. Look no further than the obvious benefits of the Scientific Revolution. The more we trust in perception, the better off we are.

In this case, I believe the data speak against assisted colonization of elephants to Kansas.

The Folly of the Fatherland

na·tion·al·ism
–noun
1. national spirit or aspirations


Much of what is done wrong in the world today has its origins in bad philosophy. One of the most destructive examples of these is nationalism ("patriotism" if you prefer, but both amount to jingoistic chauvinism). Nationalism is the idea that a shared history among a given ethnic group or culture in some way unites individual humans in a meaningful political sense (Definition adapted from Wikipedia). Note that the unity here marks a disunity between this singular group and all other such groups. Although the following is hardly a proof, I will try to demonstrate the incoherence of the nationalist doctrine (though I make no promises that I myself will be coherent in doing so).

The Bond of Shared History

What constitutes a national entity, according to most nationalists, is the shared history that bonds an ethnicity together. For less racist versions of this doctrine, replace "ethnicity" with the foggier term "culture". The bond of culture is an extrapolation of the bond between siblings to the delusional world of borders and cultures. Siblings share a common history because they were raised in the same household by the same parents; this leads to certain commonalities in diet, dress, and behavior. Of course, there is no lack of variation among siblings just as there is no lack of variation among people of the same culture. However, there is some imagined bond between such people, certain expectations that may have no basis in reality. You have no more reason to love your country than you have reason to love your siblings. Love comes naturally to what is good; a good nation (insofar as a nation could be described as "good") is loved just as a good brother or sister is loved.

The logical relationship between a "shared history" and the existence, perpetuation, and support of nation-states is questionable at best. It is unclear how history is capable of being shared among people. The idea seems to stem from archaic ideas of ancestry and familial lineage, wherein a web of blood relationships constitute actual social bonds between otherwise unrelated people. The argument makes less sense when taken to the level of nationhood. "You and I are related because we have the same grandfather" becomes "You and I are related because George Washington crossed the Delaware in 1776." Those who live have no responsibility for the good or bad actions of those who lived and have died.

It could be countered that a shared history is only relevant insofar as it shaped the present culture that is shared among living constituents of a nation-state. However, it is unclear to what extent members of a culture share anything.

National Ghosts

In a relationship or process that is unbeknown to me, the commonalities among a people centered in a certain geographical region represent or create a "national spirit" that transcends the interests and aspirations of the individual people who constitute this "nation" or "culture". It is on this national spirit's behalf that state officials purportedly act, and it is this spirit to which they appeal when the interests of real people are trumped by state interests.

What are the metaphysical properties of the national spirit? Clearly it is not literally a sentiment shared universally among people said to be of the same culture; the existence of political factions contradicts this. It could mean simply those interests that are shared by all members of a given culture. However, if there are any such interests, it seems that they would be shared by all humans and not just the people of one culture. Wars are fought, it is said, to preserve life and liberty. Life and liberty are certainly both important things, but are they not just as important for, say, Americans as they are for Iraqis? Perhaps the definition should be loosened so that the national interest refers to the interests of most members of a culture instead of all. Ignoring how problematic such a change is methodologically, it still seems unclear what interests are meant to separate cultures in such important ways. If taken as separate entities, the "national interest" of each developed nation seems to be more or less the same in that they all wish to secure peaceful trade and inexpensive natural resources. Would these shared interests not justify the creation of a global state to dominate a world culture, according to nationalism?

Conclusion

As convenient as it is to categorize regions geographically and people ethnically, it is important to note that our borders between nations and differences between people are largely imagined. Nationalism's far-reaching conclusions concerning human societies and the relationships between them have resulted in the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of millions of people through wars and genocide. Now that we humans* have created nuclear weapons capable of destroying the entirety of our species, it would behoove us to discard the faulty philosophies of our recent past and move cautiously into the future.

A more cosmopolitan society must be created to ensure the preservation of the human race. Putting the bellicose tendencies of our forefathers aside, we must depend on our own modern ingenuity and not tradition to keep us alive. If there is a meaningful shared history, it is between all humans, and we will rise to meet the circumstances of this monumental period in human history, or we could see the downfall of all humans, forever.

________

* I feel justified in uniting humans under one heading, despite the preceding emphases on the differences among us, because there are real and meaningful similarities between all humans. Our biological needs are the same, our brains are structured in similar ways, etc.

Petroleum and Anti-Capitalism

Introduction: The Common Enemy

From politicians and pundits to working men and women, one thing on which all Americans can agree is that oil companies are to blame for most, if not all, of the troubles facing modern civilization. Rather than a rational concern, this near universal contempt for profit-seeking oil conglomerates is based in a social theory that in nearly any other context is recognized as a malignant and problematic philosophy. At the core of the anti-corporate hysteria that plagues contemporary political discussion is an antiquated anti-capitalist ideology that is more likely rooted in outdated political philosophy than in reason and truth.

The argument is as follows: oil companies are making an "unnecessary" and "excessive" profit, and so this profit should be taxed and the oil industry regulated to ensure a greater degree of social justice. Implicit in this argument are the following premises, without which the entire argument falls flat:

1. Social justice is dependent on economic equality.
2. Profits are "earned" only at the expense of everyday consumers.
3. Possession of wealth beyond a certain limit is immoral.
4. Socially irresponsible agents should be corrected through force.

Through examination, all of these premises are questionable at best and plainly false at worst. At the root of their failures are the rotted remnants of 19th century political philosophers that have been forced to fit modern society. At the heart of contemporary anti-capitalism are Marxist and populist outcroppings of a flawed social contract theory. The historical roots of this destructive philosophy are early 20th century socialism and an ongoing popular ignorance of basic economic theory.

1. Social justice is dependent on economic equality.

This idea stems from the camp that conceives of justice as fairness, and fairness as equality. This seems intuitive enough -- justice is certainly fair. However, in order for oil companies to be considered incontrovertibly unjust, one must prove that social justice exists only where economic equality exists. This conjures images of the Soviet world and leads one to wonder the consequences of such a philosophy consistently followed. For this theory to be falsified, one need only think of a world in which one agent justly possesses or otherwise has available more resources than another agent. Even assuming social contract theory and its consequent social obligations on an individual, an individual can accumulate greater wealth than another individual without exploiting or harming anyone. So long as the society permits the individual some sort of disposable wealth, this can happen (Note that wealth in this case is not limited to a salary but could include something as simple as labor or free time that is not restricted by any social obligation). The individual could make an investment, sacrificing current disposable wealth in the hope for increased future wealth. This could be as complicated as stock or bond trading or as simple as planting seeds to grow a beautiful and functional garden or styling one's hair to add aesthetic value to oneself. In any society that permits personal property (and the most successful ones do), one can offset the balance of wealth with prudent decision-making and a willingness to make short-term sacrifices to make long-term gains. A society devoid of property rights is befitting only of a small tribe and not of a burgeoning civilization.

2. Profits are "earned" only at the expense of everyday consumers.

Technically, this is true. Profit, and indeed all revenue, is gained only through consumers exchanging a portion of their own wealth for a product or service they value greater than the wealth they give up. However, in the voluntary exchanges that occur within a capitalist economy, no agent (neither the producer nor the consumer) is harmed in the transaction. A producer offers a product or service to the market, perhaps even advertising its existence to consumers, who then seek out these products and services and exchange their abstract (currency) or concrete (bartered goods) wealth for the concrete wealth they desire. This is an exchange of value for value, and there is no coercion in the exchange. Consumers may become dependent on certain goods to achieve their standard of living, but they are not threatened or abused into purchasing the products. The anti-capitalist idea is that consumers are being exploited in some way by this exchange, and that the profits are too high and a) prices should be lowered to benefit consumers or b) profits should be more evenly distributed among those involved in production and who do not normally share in the profits (e.g. wage "slaves"). Accusations often center around the difference between a product's price and its cost of production or difference between a manager's salary and the lowest worker's wage. Both of these disparities can be put into perspective through a proper economic analysis.

A product's price is not a function of the cost of production but of the relationship between a producer's supply and the consumers' demand for that product. The cost of production does not determine a product's price but merely the quantity produced. If the consumers had it their way, all products would have an infinitely high supply and an infinitely low price. However, in a world with limited resources, this is impossible. Producers aim to supply exactly the amount that consumers demand but are bound by their own costs of production. The cost per unit of production increases with quantity while the price decreases; in the same way that consumers seek to maximize utility, producers seek to maximize profit and will not produce more than a certain amount if that increase in production will bring a loss in profit. It is no less just for a producer to maximize profit by ceasing production than it is for a consumer to maximize utility by shopping around for the best price.

Workers, the true producers and owners of production according to Marxists, seek to maximize income. It is not surprising that they would like a larger share in the profits of their employers. However, is it really unjust for an employer to take a greater share of the company's profits than the employee? Does the wage worker have any just claim to the profits earned through the sale of the products of their labor? The answer to both of these, I think, is plainly "no." Unless a person is the owner of the company (sole proprietor, partner, or shareholder), one is an employee of that company. Employees do not own any of the resources in the company except for their own labor, which they contract out to the employer in exchange for material wealth. When viewed this way, it is plain that employees have no claim on the company's profits, which is the wealth received from the exchange of company property. They are paid only for their labor, which has a certain value to the company. The price of labor depends on the type of labor, so it is no surprise that some employees enjoy higher salaries than others. Workers often complain that they are paid just enough for them to not quit, but it is precisely that amount of money that their labor is worth.

The net profit for a company's owners, then, is the resulting wealth from the sale (exchange for currency) of their property, minus the cost of production. It is no less just than the resulting wealth you gain from selling or bartering your own property at a bake sale. Profits, then, are exactly where they should be in any well-managed business. If profits are more or less than they should be, the market responds to correct the situation. When profits are high, more firms enter the industry, increasing the supply and lowering prices and profits. When profits are low, firms leave the industry, decreasing the supply and increasing the prices and profits. Profits are all about equilibrium and not exploitation.

3. Possession of wealth beyond a certain limit is immoral.

This proposition holds that it is unjust for one person to own more than is necessary to provide for oneself and one's dependents. Under this view, it is a travesty that some members of society are bloated millionaires while others are homeless and hungry. This third premise can be seen as an extension of the first premise, which has been shown to be as groundless as it is impossible. However, in modern society, there is a peculiar situation -- the most wealthy members of society are not the most politically powerful. This, combined with democratic forms of governance, leads to a situation in which politicians can rally political support from the more common and less wealthy voter by committing theft and other injustices against the less common and wealthier members of society without fear of retribution. The result is the proliferation of progressive tax systems that steal more and more money from an individual as he or she generates more and more wealth. The basis for such action is discussed along with the fourth faulty premise.

4. Socially irresponsible agents should be corrected through force.

This premise suggests that all members of society have a responsibility to act in such a way as to benefit society as a whole. This is the consequence of a social contract theory, and it is the justification for the tribal equalization measures taken by politicians, discussed above. This is problematic for at least three reasons:

First, social contract theories, which is the typical justification for this premise, are problematic in their own right. The theoretical formation and regulation of social contracts does not match up with the actual history of the modern nation-state, which is riddled with violence and coercion and not intellectual discussions and skilled societal planning. Even when taken as a metaphor for how one should view the relationship between citizen and state, the social contract falls short, as we shall see.

Second, the premise assumes the existence of a singular and definite public will that can be harmed or helped by certain actions. In practice, all political decisions have winners and losers. Are the losers not members of society? In democracies, a plurality of political participants (voters) is often taken as defining the public will. However, no sane person honestly argues that a plurality of participants is what defines justice; most people believe in some kind of objective ideal of justice, but this is utterly incompatible with plurality decision-making. In reality, society does not exist; it is merely a linguistic expression that refers to a group of individuals who are organized in a certain way. Beneficiaries of policy decisions exist in networks within this aggregate of individuals amidst the [often more common] losers. A more efficient society would not assume a monolithic public will but would cater to the various needs and interests of competing groups within a society. In practice, government attempts to do this (and fails more often than not). Social contract theory cannot explain this phenomenon, and the reality of the situation makes nonsense of premise 4.

Third, in the absence of a social contract (a dubitable theory), the use of coercion becomes unjustified. If there exist no obligations for the individual to act to benefit the singular social will, then forcing that individual to act for that non-existent will's benefit becomes criminally abusive. Without a social contract, the individual is bound only by consensual agreements with other individuals. In a just world, socially irresponsible agents would not be forced into compliance with a singular will, but would be influenced by a conglomerate of competing wills to act a certain way. This conception of society may be more chaotic, but it is closer to reality.

Conclusion

The popular criticism of oil giants is unjustified and socially dangerous. There is no sound justification for the systematic bullying of successful businesses. The anti-capitalist rantings of today are merely ventings of a common frustration with the economy and government of modern America, and they represent a resurfacing of the populist resentments that so marked the early 20th century. If sensible Americans are not careful, this neosocialist sentiment could result in a full-fledged political movement that will cripple the nation for decades to come.

The high profits enjoyed by oil companies are necessary for the further development of fuel technology. ExxonMobil and other businesses will begin drilling in higher capacity and in more places. Considering alternative energy sources are not yet economically viable -- many are still in technological infancy -- the short term solution to the explosion in crude oil prices will be to let the market work its magic. Political measures like a "windfall profits" tax on "excessive" profits will do nothing but harm the oil industry and result in supply shortages for the American public. Regulation of the oil industry is the cause and not the solution for the high gasoline prices of today; environmental concerns for years have barred fuel conglomerates from drilling for more oil or building more refineries. However, it is this increase in supply that could alleviate ever-increasing fuel prices.

Although the new breed of populism is today centered on the oil industry, it is not the only area affected. Universal health care programs are a popular idea among most Americans, and citizens are increasingly reliant on their government for jobs, income, and services. Such a centralized system is inefficient, unreliable, and fundamentally unjust. A new philosophy is needed to counteract the socialist specters within the political and intellectual landscape, one that is based in science, reality, and truth and not in the impassioned anger of ill-informed voters.

Environmentalism as Hope

The rapidly growing popularity of "green" thinking is a striking example of how philosophy can save the world.

For all the growth and prosperity Western thought has brought humanity, one weakness within that tradition is the idea (originating in religion, unsurprisingly) that mankind has an inherent privilege, an absolute dominion over the environment.  Christianity teaches us that God created the Earth and all of its plants and animals for the pleasure of man.  As flattering as that thought might be, it has proven to be a reckless long-term strategy in the face of unprecedented growth in human populations.  This dominion theory, as it shall be henceforth referred, has brought our species to the brink of disaster.  It has covered our cities in a choking smog, it has disrupted the fragile ecosystems we depend upon, it has punched a hole in our very atmosphere.

Thankfully natural selection has gifted homo sapiens with an unwavering desire to continue breathing, and people have started to think rationally about the position of mankind in his habitat, over which we have very quickly found ourselves in great control.  This new thought transcends national borders, social class, and politics.  The mainstream is in a transition from the dominion theory to a stewardship theory.  Under this view, mankind has a duty, or at least an incentive, to take the role of steward over the planet.  Humanity must protect its environment from itself; it must do this, or it will cease to exist.  And this is not a happy thought.

The stewardship theory is undoubtedly the superior philosophy, if humans are to continue to thrive.  The rapid development of industry has allowed the species the increase its numbers exponentially in a short time span of a few centuries.  These industries, for all the good they do, are also capable of pulling the carpet from underneath themselves.  The carpet is our food supply; it is the air we breathe.  What is underneath us (all around us, in fact) is a lifeless vacuum.  With this new perspective, human beings can potentially maintain and even expand its numbers while creating a new sustainable equilibrium with their environment, just as they had done for thousands of years and as their ancestors had done for aeons.

It is unlikely that this new line of reasoning is a passing thought, a trend for the urban chic that will be replaced within the decade.  The stewardship theory is not just in line with buying trends; it is in line with the survival imperative that keeps organisms alive.  The green movement does not value environmentalism in itself, as many old school environmentalists are prone to do.  It recognizes that sustainable living is necessary if we are to continue to flourish as a culture and as a species.  The newly popular philosophy of stewardship may save Western civilization.