In effect BCMCA 10 year starting gaps of 6 minutes for 60s after 70s down to 3 minutes for 30s after 40s incorporate group riding age standards but only for exact multiples of 10 year differences in age. I offer the following comprehensive individual age standards for group starts to supplement the BCMCA Australian pursuit (or even mass starts). The Australian pursuit age format remains the main competition. However, yearly age standard times (as well as actual times) are also given to each finisher to add incentive and interest.
In the present unsupplemented age handicapping in group races the rider who is at the top age (oldest) of his starting group is at a disadvantage compared with the rider who is at the bottom age (youngest) of the same or another group (particularly for 10 year or more starting groups).
Examples:
A 59 year old finishes 4 seconds behind a 51 year old.
A 49 year old finishes 4 seconds behind a 50 year old (in actual time the 49 year old is 3-56 faster the 50s having a 4 minute start over the 40s).
A 59 year old finishes 4 seconds behind a 41 year old.
In examples like these it is reasonable to hold that the rider who finishes 4 seconds behind has beaten the other on age standard.
To supplement the basic system:
Take the hypothetical average 35 year old male rider who does a 25 mile tt in 1-04-00. Assume he will do a 64 k Australian pursuit starting with other 30 year olds (some faster some slower than he ) on a somewhat hilly course in 1-46-00. Our start gaps imply a similar 45 year old male will take 1-49-00, a 55 year old 1-53-00, a 65 year old 1-58-00, and a 75 year old 2-04-00.
Now use the base times for 35, 45, 55, and 65 year old male riders to generate standards for all ages male and female. The following conditions should be met. Yearly increments should increase with age yet remain the same within the same age start group. The gaps between the top of one age group and the bottom of the next oldest age group should increase with age. Yearly increments should be about 35% (for 40s) of those for individual time trial of same length, 40% (for 60s), up to 60% for 70s and 80s – benefit of drafting offset by somewhat hillier course, drafting benefit decreases for slower, older riders. When the age difference between rider in one 10 year start group and rider in adjacent start group is greater than 10 (can be up to 19) then difference on standard should be greater than start gap between the two groups. When the age difference between rider in one 10 year start group and rider in adjacent start group is less than 10 (can be down to 1) then difference on standard should be less than the start gap between the two groups.
The following chart is about the only one which plausibly meets the conditions.
For moderately hilly circuits of about 64 k (40 miles). Males.
30. 1-45-30
31. 1-45-32
32. 1-45-36
33. 1-45-42
34. 1-45-50
35. 1-46-00
36. 1-46-12
37. 1-46-24
38. 1-46-36
39. 1-46-48
35-39 increments 12 seconds. Gap between 39 and 40 is 57 seconds.
40. 1-47-45
41. 1-48-00
42. 1-48-15
43. 1-48-30
44. 1-48-45
45. 1-49-00
46. 1-49-15
47. 1-49-30
48. 1-49-45
49. 1-50-00.
40-49 increments 15 seconds. Gap between 49 and 50 is 1-30.
50. 1-51-30
51. 1-51-48
52. 1-52-06
53. 1-52-24
54. 1-52-42
55. 1-53-00
56. 1-53-18
57. 1-53-36
58. 1-53-54
59. 1-54-12.
Gap between 59 and 60 is 1-58. 50-59 increments are 18 seconds.
60. 1-56-10
61. 1-56-32
62. 1-56-54
63. 1-57-16
64. 1-57-38
65. 1-58-00
66. 1-58-22
67. 1-58-44
68. 1-59-06
69. 1-59-28.
Gap between 69 and 70 is 2-52. 60-69 increments are 22 seconds.
70. 2-2-20
71. 2-2-52
72. 2-3-24
73. 2-3-56
74. 2-4-28
75. 2-5-00
76. 2-5-32
77. 2-6-04
78. 2-6-36
79. 2-7-08.
Gap between 79 and 80 is 3-22. 70-79 increments are 32 seconds.
80. 2-10-30
81. 2-11-12
82. 2-11-54
83. 2-12-36
84. 2-13-18
85. 2-14-00
86. 2-14-42
87. 2-15-24
88. 2-16-06
89. 2-16-48.
Gap between 89 and 90 is 3-52. 80-89 increments are 42 seconds.
90. 2-20-40
91. 2-21-32
92. 2-22-24
93. 2-23-16
94. 2-24-08
95. 2-25-00
96. 2-25-52
97. 2-26-44
98. 2-27-36
99. 2-28-28.
Gap between 99 and 100 about 4-30. 90-99 increments are 52 seconds.
Notice I have increased the age allowance for 70s and older. This is because even good 70s riders like Eric Rayson, Dave Emery, and John Smith have been unable to get into the top 10 Australian pursuit. If 70s improve we could revert to the original gaps, i.e. a 75 standard of 2-04-00, and an 85 standard of 2-11-00.
This Velociraptor group riding age standard chart could be adjusted for courses which are significantly different in length and time from the 64 k (40 mile) standard. For example add 10% to all age standards for the Langley Phoenix Velo Thunderbird race. The chart is easily modified to accommodate massed start (non-Australian pursuit) – start with the same base of 1-46-00 for the hypothetical average 35 year old male, and make the gap between 39 and 40 the same as the 40s yearly increments, the gap between 49 and 50 the same as the 50s yearly increments, etc. This would enable us to have massed start hill climbs with age standard results. For instance a massed start Shawnigan hill climb would be 25% of the massed start 64 k age standards, Penticton hill climb would be 33%. Incidentally, hill climbs with riders setting off individually can easily be fitted into present age standards – simply incorporate the time trial standards from a time trial of similar duration.
The Velociraptor group riding age standard for a woman is that of a male 15 years her senior.
The Velociraptor group riding age standard chart can easily be modified for courses where the age group start gaps are different from our standard ones – e.g. an Australian pursuit Shawnigan hill climb.
At 67 I feel the decline setting in and so I am more motivated to come up with comprehensive age standards to give me something to race for even though I don’t have a hope of keeping up with guys 30 years younger.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
Circuit of Lake Quamichan (Maple Bay) Sunday May 2nd 2010
There is an English pub name which captures the flavour of Australian pursuit cycle road races – ‘The Hare and Hounds’. The thrill of the chase. Often there is more uncertainty, excitement, and drama in Australian pursuit than in regular road racing. Many races within the race. How many of the faster chasing groups will catch me? Will I be caught by just a few from the faster groups or by most of a group? Will voracious chasers get me in their sights with only 5 k to go? How long can I hold out or hold on?
In the Circuit of Lake Quamichan new sexagenarian Derek Tripp again set a lung bursting pace from the start, riding away from Ray Morrison and David Mercer, leaving them gasping, legs buckling, on the first lap main climb after about 10k. However, for the next 2 laps Morrison and Mercer had the incentive of seeing Derek in the distance until he vanished over the horizon like dreams of youthful vigour.
The fast men of the 30s, 40s, and 50s groups were holding together and pushing well but none could absorb the leaders of the group in front. Yet the lead five of the 50s were within 19 seconds of scooping up all but Derek Tripp at the finish. Also, powerful 40s duo Bob Cameron and Steve Bachop were only 30 seconds behind the 50s leaders. Another 5k and the race would have had quite a different ending.
The most exciting sub race was in the 50s. Martin Willock got a gap a few times in the closing kilometers before awing his fellows with an audacious jump on the last corner with 500 m still to go. As at Langley 50s riders had praise for Ray Wagner’s work in leading the chase – another fittingly Wagnerian performance.
Good to see track stalwarts Malcolm Faulkner and James Holtz adding colour to the road race taking on uncongenial terrain. Watch out when Jim breaks down and buys a carbon bike to replace his steel one to celebrate moving up to the 60s. Thanks to Dave Steen on the first corner for shouting out clear time checks.
Again gracious Duane Martindale, photo maestro, added pep to the 50s group before dropping out nonchalantly to assist better half Helen with the finish. The finish was also expertly handled by Lynda Bowden and Glenda Harling along with Nanaimo uber organizer and commissaire Peter McCaffery.
The gleaming, sculpted legal legs of Bob Cameron were on display to complement the prime exhibit of scenic Lake Quamichan in post-race Moose Rd. Lodge. 30s Shane Savage, Lois Watson, and Dan Larche looked like a trio of Titans yet could pull back only 1’ 22” on the scorching 40s twosome. Lone 70s lean but jovial John Smith fittingly teamed up with sole woman, charming Alix Reid who made a welcome return to racing only last year. Former hockey player John Guthrie 52 in only his second season of cycle racing has now moved up to elite class after excellent back to back 6th places.
Best performance went to Derek Tripp who riding in effect entirely alone gave up only 3’ 20’’ to a numerous and formidable 50s chasing group.
Photo pick: (Duane’s site) Page 4 50s sprint. Page 6 30s sprint.
Velociraptors Scratch Points.
1. Louis Watson 1 40’ 32’’ (actual time) 10 points
2. Shane Savage 1 40’ 32” 9 points
3.Dan Larche same time 8 points 4. Bob Cameron 1 41’ 54” 7
5. Steve Bachop same time 6
6. Jason Eagles 1 44’ 50” 5
7. Martin Willock 1 45’ 24” 4
8. Steve Crowley same time 3
9. John Guthrie same time 2
10. Mike Sevcov same time 1 point.
Velociraptors Age Standard Points
See Group Ride Age Standards blog for details.
Actual Time Age Standard Points
1. David Mercer 67 1-50-09 + 8-35 10
2. Mike Sevcov 57 1-45-24 + 8-12 9
3. Bill Yearwood 58 1-45-54 + 8-00 8
4. Martin Willock 56 1-45-24 + 7-54 7
5. Derek Tripp 60 1-48-44 + 7-26 6
6. Bob Cameron 45 1-41-54 + 7-06 5
7. Steve Bachop 45 1-41-54 + 7-06 4
8. John Guthrie 52 1-45-54 + 6-42 3
8. Michael Stoehr 55 1-46-18 + 6-42 3
10. Ray Morrison 61 1-50-05 + 6-27 1
11. Ray Wagner 51 1-45-24 + 6-24
12. Steve Crowley 50 1-45-24 + 6-06
13. Dan Larche 38 1-40-32 + 6-04
14. Steve Munro 50 1-45-41 + 5-49
15. Shane Savage 35 1-40-32 + 5-28
16. Louis Watson 33 1-40-32 + 5-10
Note: first 16 Australian Pursuit spread 3-48.
First 16 Velociraptors Age Standard spread 3-25
Velociraptors Regular/Non-Elite Points.
1. Lionel Gaudet 10 points
2. Ron Shick 9
3. James Holtz 8
4. Barton Bourassa 7
5. John Smith 6
6. Harry Balke 5 points
7. Ian Birch 4
8. Malcom Faulkner 3
9. Ian Harper 2
10. Wayne Shtybel 1
Womens Velociraptors Points
Alix Reid gets maximum 10 points in all three Velociraptors Points Competitions.
Please let me know of errors in times, age, etc. and if you think you are allocated to wrong Elite/Regular category. As a rough guide I am taking a 50 year old who does a 10 mile tt at over 40 kph to be Elite.
In the Circuit of Lake Quamichan new sexagenarian Derek Tripp again set a lung bursting pace from the start, riding away from Ray Morrison and David Mercer, leaving them gasping, legs buckling, on the first lap main climb after about 10k. However, for the next 2 laps Morrison and Mercer had the incentive of seeing Derek in the distance until he vanished over the horizon like dreams of youthful vigour.
The fast men of the 30s, 40s, and 50s groups were holding together and pushing well but none could absorb the leaders of the group in front. Yet the lead five of the 50s were within 19 seconds of scooping up all but Derek Tripp at the finish. Also, powerful 40s duo Bob Cameron and Steve Bachop were only 30 seconds behind the 50s leaders. Another 5k and the race would have had quite a different ending.
The most exciting sub race was in the 50s. Martin Willock got a gap a few times in the closing kilometers before awing his fellows with an audacious jump on the last corner with 500 m still to go. As at Langley 50s riders had praise for Ray Wagner’s work in leading the chase – another fittingly Wagnerian performance.
Good to see track stalwarts Malcolm Faulkner and James Holtz adding colour to the road race taking on uncongenial terrain. Watch out when Jim breaks down and buys a carbon bike to replace his steel one to celebrate moving up to the 60s. Thanks to Dave Steen on the first corner for shouting out clear time checks.
Again gracious Duane Martindale, photo maestro, added pep to the 50s group before dropping out nonchalantly to assist better half Helen with the finish. The finish was also expertly handled by Lynda Bowden and Glenda Harling along with Nanaimo uber organizer and commissaire Peter McCaffery.
The gleaming, sculpted legal legs of Bob Cameron were on display to complement the prime exhibit of scenic Lake Quamichan in post-race Moose Rd. Lodge. 30s Shane Savage, Lois Watson, and Dan Larche looked like a trio of Titans yet could pull back only 1’ 22” on the scorching 40s twosome. Lone 70s lean but jovial John Smith fittingly teamed up with sole woman, charming Alix Reid who made a welcome return to racing only last year. Former hockey player John Guthrie 52 in only his second season of cycle racing has now moved up to elite class after excellent back to back 6th places.
Best performance went to Derek Tripp who riding in effect entirely alone gave up only 3’ 20’’ to a numerous and formidable 50s chasing group.
Photo pick: (Duane’s site) Page 4 50s sprint. Page 6 30s sprint.
Velociraptors Scratch Points.
1. Louis Watson 1 40’ 32’’ (actual time) 10 points
2. Shane Savage 1 40’ 32” 9 points
3.Dan Larche same time 8 points 4. Bob Cameron 1 41’ 54” 7
5. Steve Bachop same time 6
6. Jason Eagles 1 44’ 50” 5
7. Martin Willock 1 45’ 24” 4
8. Steve Crowley same time 3
9. John Guthrie same time 2
10. Mike Sevcov same time 1 point.
Velociraptors Age Standard Points
See Group Ride Age Standards blog for details.
Actual Time Age Standard Points
1. David Mercer 67 1-50-09 + 8-35 10
2. Mike Sevcov 57 1-45-24 + 8-12 9
3. Bill Yearwood 58 1-45-54 + 8-00 8
4. Martin Willock 56 1-45-24 + 7-54 7
5. Derek Tripp 60 1-48-44 + 7-26 6
6. Bob Cameron 45 1-41-54 + 7-06 5
7. Steve Bachop 45 1-41-54 + 7-06 4
8. John Guthrie 52 1-45-54 + 6-42 3
8. Michael Stoehr 55 1-46-18 + 6-42 3
10. Ray Morrison 61 1-50-05 + 6-27 1
11. Ray Wagner 51 1-45-24 + 6-24
12. Steve Crowley 50 1-45-24 + 6-06
13. Dan Larche 38 1-40-32 + 6-04
14. Steve Munro 50 1-45-41 + 5-49
15. Shane Savage 35 1-40-32 + 5-28
16. Louis Watson 33 1-40-32 + 5-10
Note: first 16 Australian Pursuit spread 3-48.
First 16 Velociraptors Age Standard spread 3-25
Velociraptors Regular/Non-Elite Points.
1. Lionel Gaudet 10 points
2. Ron Shick 9
3. James Holtz 8
4. Barton Bourassa 7
5. John Smith 6
6. Harry Balke 5 points
7. Ian Birch 4
8. Malcom Faulkner 3
9. Ian Harper 2
10. Wayne Shtybel 1
Womens Velociraptors Points
Alix Reid gets maximum 10 points in all three Velociraptors Points Competitions.
Please let me know of errors in times, age, etc. and if you think you are allocated to wrong Elite/Regular category. As a rough guide I am taking a 50 year old who does a 10 mile tt at over 40 kph to be Elite.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Happiness: Analysis of.
Happiness in the sense of something generally considered intrinsically desirable may be semantically/conceptually analysed as follows:
A fairly generalized, well-established, longer-term feeling, attitude, state of mind, mindset, outlook, way of being in the world characterized by a sense of satisfaction, peace of mind, contentment with oneself and one’s situation in the world, and enjoyment of life.
Happiness is semantically/conceptually (not just empirically/causally) associated with:
Being hopeful, optimistic, glad, cheerful, lighthearted, buoyant, joie de vivre, joy, serenity, tranquility, calm, inner fulfillment, satisfaction, sense of self-worth, feeling resilient, competent, capable, meaning in life, equanimity, acceptance, reconciliation, sensuous or even sensual delight, being able to relax, have fun, laugh.
Psychic states which, when longer-term or chronic, are opposed (semantically, not just empirically) to happiness are:
Anxiety, fear, depression, grief, ruminating, obsessing, brooding, gloom, hopelessness, apathy, boredom, anger, hatred, self-annoyance, shame, guilt, jealousy, envy, bitterness, resentment, feeling deprived, mistreated, unappreciated, unloved, put down, humiliated, oppressed, insecure, frustrated, being reactive, rigid, narrow, pain, hunger, tiredness.
‘Happiness’ has some semantic association with uses of ‘happy’ signifying felicitous, lucky, apt.
Happiness in children is a kind of spontaneous, carefree pleasure in life shielded from the harsher realities. In adults happiness is achieved despite acquaintance with, and personal experience of, misfortune, mistreatment and the responsibility of earning a living.
The notions of happiness associated with belief in heaven or paradise (or even nirvana) largely fit with the analysis given, but assume a more intense, unbroken, never-ending state surpassing earthly happiness. Heavenly or paradise happiness offers great beauty, joy, peace, brotherly love, reunion with (or at least merging with) loved ones, lack of all pain, conflict, deviousness, injustice, having innocent delight, sensuous even sensual delight – at least for men (Islam – houris). This idealized view of happiness, though consoling to many, may actually be a barrier to attainment of earthly happiness. Religious or ideological consolation, though a crutch, defence mechanism, support, and some comfort, offering hope, does not always bring happiness – there is still psychological turmoil, bitterness, anger, etc. – not mellowness and love in the heart for all. The notion of heavenly, paradise, or utopian happiness may reflect an immature desire for a mythical happy childhood where you are always loved and everyone thinks you are wonderful and special. Focus on attaining a perfect lover/partner (or Jesus, God, Buddha, Muhammad, Marxist utopia) may block you from appreciating valuing and embracing the real human lover/partner who is available to you but has flaws and deficiencies not fitting your ideal or fantasy.
Happiness means you are better able to withstand the inevitable misfortunes, mistreatment, lack of appreciation, rejection. It is unrealistic, though, to suppose that a happy person will not be distressed by setbacks even severe ones. A religious fanatic might happily die a martyr’s death for his cause yet even he might be devastated by learning his wife is unfaithful or that his child rejects his political/religious beliefs. Some calamities are enough to disrupt the happiness of almost all mortals: Being tortured or maimed, having a child murdered, learning at a fairly young age you have a terminal illness, becoming seriously disabled, the partner you love deserts you for someone younger, better looking, with more money or status (who is not, however, more talented, qualified, or with a better character), being continually ridiculed, humiliated, bullied, or denied basic rights.
Happiness (earthly) does not mean being immune from pain and unpleasant feelings. Rather it means being able to recover more quickly from grief, anger, anxiety, fear, jealousy, disappointment, and not be completely demoralized, undermined, devastated. When we say a couple are happily married it does not mean they never experience conflict or irritation with one another, are never attracted to someone else. Likewise, an unhappy, depressed person can still experience some pleasures, e.g. eating chocolate, making love, listening to music. A person can be happy despite having a lifelong painful affliction, e.g. periodic gut ache, migraine, but the pain is still disruptive, distracting, frustrating, immobilizing, unpleasant when it occurs. Even when the pain is severe, though, the happy person finds some comfort and consolation to hang onto.
Because of differences in genes, childhood training, acquired desires, temperament, disposition, personality, and traits there are different levels of happiness/unhappiness among people in very similar circumstances. Some are psychologically better equipped than others to cope with setbacks or distress. People do not all experience the same level of distress within the same setback or adverse situation. Nevertheless, even those who have a physical or mental disability, come from a relatively disadvantaged background, and are not particularly good looking or talented can work at cultivating happiness.
It is dishonest and hypocritical, however, to pretend that happiness depends mostly on your own inner character, own efforts, activities, mental training, positive attitude, and will power, and does not/should not depend on ‘external’, sometimes material conditions. Of course money does to some extent buy you happiness otherwise why do so many intelligent, well-read, sensitive people pursue it and once obtained hang onto it? Again, if money/wealth were merely a ‘convenience’ as some affluent people claim and not an important factor in their happiness, why would they object to giving up some of their ‘conveniences’ (luxuries? privileges?) so that others, far worse off yet deserving, could have the basics? Why complain about the greed of the rich if poverty is no barrier to happiness?
‘External’ factors influencing happiness are contrasted with the agent’s own mental and physical efforts. They include: Safe clean place to live; pleasant surroundings; leisure time; access to health care; appreciation for one’s efforts and achievements; social status; security of income, accommodation, and food; reasonable health; reasonable appearance; supportive, sympathetic friends and family; romantic partner with whom there is mutual attraction, sympathy, and understanding; a job which is meaningful, worthwhile, and in keeping with one’s qualifications and training.
Clearly, a certain level of wealth or income is important in securing some of these basic ‘external’ conditions conducive to happiness. Inner satisfaction produced by one’s own intellectual, artistic, moral, and spiritual efforts will not be sufficient to generate happiness. Even monks and nuns who have taken vows of poverty enjoy some of these ‘external’ conditions for happiness by virtue of the wealth and standing of their order and the community which gives them food, shelter, respect, and tax relief. In Canada in 2009 if you do not own your own accommodation or have it provided for you (and have no assets nor expectation of receiving some in the near future, e.g. inheritance) it would be very difficult to be happy on an income of less than $1,000 per month even if you are in reasonable health, of reasonable appearance, are not materialistic, do creative or intellectual work, practice meditation, empathetic connexion with others, etc.
Why then does the dogma or myth persist, especially among the affluent, that money is not important for happiness, and that you shouldn’t need appreciation, recognition, support from others in your efforts to be happy – the truly enlightened person will be above such material considerations?
First, it is hard for some to admit that they are relatively privileged, that not everyone could have their level of wealth and privilege, and that they enjoy these benefits largely by good fortune or accident of birth, rather than because of their own hard efforts, strength of character, special talent, etc.
Second, people like to see themselves as noble and not materialistic, independent and not reliant on approval from others. Hence, it disturbs their self-image to admit their happiness is largely dependent on being well-off, living in a good neighborhood, etc.
Third, it is upsetting to those who believe in the personal development movement that success in life or happiness doesn’t just depend on your own individual effort and attitude – that we are to some extent at the mercy of external forces.
Fourth, pretending money is not important to happiness is an excellent way of rationalizing not giving up a surplus to those less fortunate.
Among the poor there is some support for the myth that money doesn’t matter for happiness because of a sour grapes mentality – ‘I don’t have much chance of getting money and I’m scared to make the effort to get it so I’ll pretend it’s not important.’
Commonsense and an honest look at human nature and one’s own suggest that some money, material and external support are necessary for happiness. However, far less is required than people commonly suppose.
A fairly generalized, well-established, longer-term feeling, attitude, state of mind, mindset, outlook, way of being in the world characterized by a sense of satisfaction, peace of mind, contentment with oneself and one’s situation in the world, and enjoyment of life.
Happiness is semantically/conceptually (not just empirically/causally) associated with:
Being hopeful, optimistic, glad, cheerful, lighthearted, buoyant, joie de vivre, joy, serenity, tranquility, calm, inner fulfillment, satisfaction, sense of self-worth, feeling resilient, competent, capable, meaning in life, equanimity, acceptance, reconciliation, sensuous or even sensual delight, being able to relax, have fun, laugh.
Psychic states which, when longer-term or chronic, are opposed (semantically, not just empirically) to happiness are:
Anxiety, fear, depression, grief, ruminating, obsessing, brooding, gloom, hopelessness, apathy, boredom, anger, hatred, self-annoyance, shame, guilt, jealousy, envy, bitterness, resentment, feeling deprived, mistreated, unappreciated, unloved, put down, humiliated, oppressed, insecure, frustrated, being reactive, rigid, narrow, pain, hunger, tiredness.
‘Happiness’ has some semantic association with uses of ‘happy’ signifying felicitous, lucky, apt.
Happiness in children is a kind of spontaneous, carefree pleasure in life shielded from the harsher realities. In adults happiness is achieved despite acquaintance with, and personal experience of, misfortune, mistreatment and the responsibility of earning a living.
The notions of happiness associated with belief in heaven or paradise (or even nirvana) largely fit with the analysis given, but assume a more intense, unbroken, never-ending state surpassing earthly happiness. Heavenly or paradise happiness offers great beauty, joy, peace, brotherly love, reunion with (or at least merging with) loved ones, lack of all pain, conflict, deviousness, injustice, having innocent delight, sensuous even sensual delight – at least for men (Islam – houris). This idealized view of happiness, though consoling to many, may actually be a barrier to attainment of earthly happiness. Religious or ideological consolation, though a crutch, defence mechanism, support, and some comfort, offering hope, does not always bring happiness – there is still psychological turmoil, bitterness, anger, etc. – not mellowness and love in the heart for all. The notion of heavenly, paradise, or utopian happiness may reflect an immature desire for a mythical happy childhood where you are always loved and everyone thinks you are wonderful and special. Focus on attaining a perfect lover/partner (or Jesus, God, Buddha, Muhammad, Marxist utopia) may block you from appreciating valuing and embracing the real human lover/partner who is available to you but has flaws and deficiencies not fitting your ideal or fantasy.
Happiness means you are better able to withstand the inevitable misfortunes, mistreatment, lack of appreciation, rejection. It is unrealistic, though, to suppose that a happy person will not be distressed by setbacks even severe ones. A religious fanatic might happily die a martyr’s death for his cause yet even he might be devastated by learning his wife is unfaithful or that his child rejects his political/religious beliefs. Some calamities are enough to disrupt the happiness of almost all mortals: Being tortured or maimed, having a child murdered, learning at a fairly young age you have a terminal illness, becoming seriously disabled, the partner you love deserts you for someone younger, better looking, with more money or status (who is not, however, more talented, qualified, or with a better character), being continually ridiculed, humiliated, bullied, or denied basic rights.
Happiness (earthly) does not mean being immune from pain and unpleasant feelings. Rather it means being able to recover more quickly from grief, anger, anxiety, fear, jealousy, disappointment, and not be completely demoralized, undermined, devastated. When we say a couple are happily married it does not mean they never experience conflict or irritation with one another, are never attracted to someone else. Likewise, an unhappy, depressed person can still experience some pleasures, e.g. eating chocolate, making love, listening to music. A person can be happy despite having a lifelong painful affliction, e.g. periodic gut ache, migraine, but the pain is still disruptive, distracting, frustrating, immobilizing, unpleasant when it occurs. Even when the pain is severe, though, the happy person finds some comfort and consolation to hang onto.
Because of differences in genes, childhood training, acquired desires, temperament, disposition, personality, and traits there are different levels of happiness/unhappiness among people in very similar circumstances. Some are psychologically better equipped than others to cope with setbacks or distress. People do not all experience the same level of distress within the same setback or adverse situation. Nevertheless, even those who have a physical or mental disability, come from a relatively disadvantaged background, and are not particularly good looking or talented can work at cultivating happiness.
It is dishonest and hypocritical, however, to pretend that happiness depends mostly on your own inner character, own efforts, activities, mental training, positive attitude, and will power, and does not/should not depend on ‘external’, sometimes material conditions. Of course money does to some extent buy you happiness otherwise why do so many intelligent, well-read, sensitive people pursue it and once obtained hang onto it? Again, if money/wealth were merely a ‘convenience’ as some affluent people claim and not an important factor in their happiness, why would they object to giving up some of their ‘conveniences’ (luxuries? privileges?) so that others, far worse off yet deserving, could have the basics? Why complain about the greed of the rich if poverty is no barrier to happiness?
‘External’ factors influencing happiness are contrasted with the agent’s own mental and physical efforts. They include: Safe clean place to live; pleasant surroundings; leisure time; access to health care; appreciation for one’s efforts and achievements; social status; security of income, accommodation, and food; reasonable health; reasonable appearance; supportive, sympathetic friends and family; romantic partner with whom there is mutual attraction, sympathy, and understanding; a job which is meaningful, worthwhile, and in keeping with one’s qualifications and training.
Clearly, a certain level of wealth or income is important in securing some of these basic ‘external’ conditions conducive to happiness. Inner satisfaction produced by one’s own intellectual, artistic, moral, and spiritual efforts will not be sufficient to generate happiness. Even monks and nuns who have taken vows of poverty enjoy some of these ‘external’ conditions for happiness by virtue of the wealth and standing of their order and the community which gives them food, shelter, respect, and tax relief. In Canada in 2009 if you do not own your own accommodation or have it provided for you (and have no assets nor expectation of receiving some in the near future, e.g. inheritance) it would be very difficult to be happy on an income of less than $1,000 per month even if you are in reasonable health, of reasonable appearance, are not materialistic, do creative or intellectual work, practice meditation, empathetic connexion with others, etc.
Why then does the dogma or myth persist, especially among the affluent, that money is not important for happiness, and that you shouldn’t need appreciation, recognition, support from others in your efforts to be happy – the truly enlightened person will be above such material considerations?
First, it is hard for some to admit that they are relatively privileged, that not everyone could have their level of wealth and privilege, and that they enjoy these benefits largely by good fortune or accident of birth, rather than because of their own hard efforts, strength of character, special talent, etc.
Second, people like to see themselves as noble and not materialistic, independent and not reliant on approval from others. Hence, it disturbs their self-image to admit their happiness is largely dependent on being well-off, living in a good neighborhood, etc.
Third, it is upsetting to those who believe in the personal development movement that success in life or happiness doesn’t just depend on your own individual effort and attitude – that we are to some extent at the mercy of external forces.
Fourth, pretending money is not important to happiness is an excellent way of rationalizing not giving up a surplus to those less fortunate.
Among the poor there is some support for the myth that money doesn’t matter for happiness because of a sour grapes mentality – ‘I don’t have much chance of getting money and I’m scared to make the effort to get it so I’ll pretend it’s not important.’
Commonsense and an honest look at human nature and one’s own suggest that some money, material and external support are necessary for happiness. However, far less is required than people commonly suppose.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Greed: Analysis of
‘Greed’ is partly evaluative. Cf. ‘I want a living wage’, ‘You want more than an average share’, ‘He is greedy’. The concept ‘greed’ (avarice/cupidity rather than gluttony) may be analysed as follows :
Wanting and trying to obtain or maintain a share of some benefit (e.g. income, sick leave, housing, job security, inheritance) for oneself (or family, professional association, or class) which is unfair and unnecessary for leading a good life (when looked at fairly reasonably, dispassionately, objectively).
Willingness to disregard or downplay the legitimate claims of others in order to gain or maintain the excessive share.
Willingness to use power (e.g. coercion, political influence, strikes, restrictive practices, not necessarily physical violence) and misrepresentation (not necessarily illegal or criminal acts) to gain or maintain the excessive share.
‘Ann wants an unfair, excessive share but is not greedy’* verges on the contradictory.
According to this analysis there is a selfish/self-centred/self-seeking aspect to greed. ‘Andrew is greedy but not selfish’* is semantically odd. There is also a materialistic aspect to greed. ‘Alice is greedy but not particularly interested in wealth, income, luxuries, her own pleasure or status, material comforts, or possessions’* is also semantically odd. Conceivably, all members of a community might pursue material wealth excessively yet share fairly equitably (not the same as equally) and safeguard the environment and animal rights. We might still call such a community greedy rather than just materialistic. Usually, though, greed is semantically (cf. merely empirically/causally) associated with seeking to gain or maintain an undue share for oneself (own family, class, etc.) at the expense of others. Greed may be characterized as excessive materialism combined with disregard for the material well-being of others. Think of situations where we tell children, ‘Don’t be greedy’.
It is sometimes claimed there is a kind of ‘greed’ which enriches others rather than deprives them. Thus, suppose an entrepreneur introduces a technological innovation which helps raise the standard of living of the whole community. The entrepreneur may take for himself a large,excessive portion of the increase in wealth yet still the others are significantly better off than before. But although the entrepreneur may be entitled to a larger share than average it does not follow that he is entitled to take most of the increase for himself. For one thing, others are involved in the production of increased wealth – the inventor, factory manager, factory workers, etc. For another, the average hard-working member of the society may still be short of some basics. Think of a sports or movie star getting $1m for promoting a product while factory workers who make the product are better off by 50 cents an hour.
Sometimes a greedy person knows he is taking an unfair, excessive share but he doesn’t care. He may excuse himself by saying, ‘It’s a dog-eat-dog world…the weak go to the wall… you have to look out for number one…’ etc. Sometimes a person may be unaware that he is being greedy – he takes his excessive, unfair share for granted, and being pampered or spoiled doesn’t see that it is unfair and beyond what is needful. Often, though, a person has some awareness that he is being greedy but he suppresses or represses this awareness because he accepts that greed is an ignoble, undesirable quality and finds it threatening to his view of himself and the world to admit that this mean quality is present in himself and those he likes and admires.
Greed is typically directed at obtaining or maintaining more income, wealth, pleasure, material goods, luxuries for oneself or family – a better house, car, restaurants, holidays, travel, fancy clothes, boat, better health care and education for the kids, etc. However, the motive for, or even the focus of, greed may not be financial gain, wealth, and all the comforts, pleasures, luxuries, treats, conveniences, and security that money can buy. Rather, the underlying greed may be for status, recognition, power, or control. Thus we speak of the lust for power, and of expensive items as status symbols.
How to unpack the evaluative notions of ‘unfair’ and ‘excessive’ involved in the analysis of greed? A sufficient condition for a share being unfair and excessive may be:
A share which is more than 8 times the Canadian 2009 per capita average (median or mean) or 20 times the global per capita average, and more than 4 times what is needed for a healthy, enriched (sic) lifestyle (shelter, sanitation, health care, food, leisure, some savings, education, security of person and property, opportunities for artistic, intellectual, spiritual, moral, athletic development).
According to the analysis of greed it is not just business executives who are greedy. Entertainment and sports stars, royalty, dictators, celebrities, heiresses, many lawyers, doctors, dentists, architects, professors, senior administrators, successful writers and artists, and lottery winners also qualify as greedy. In 2009 trying to acquire or retain a $3m home, yacht, several luxury holidays per year, etc. counts as greed. ‘Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous’ could be re-titled ‘Lifestyles of the Greedy’. In 2009 anyone earning more than $150,000 US per year or having assets totaling more than $3m without giving away the surplus to worthy causes (e.g. arts/sports foundations, scholarships for the poor, medical research) is greedy.
Most ordinary people are greedy in the sense that they aspire to an unfair, excessive share of wealth, and try to gain such a share given the chance. How many of us if we won $5m in a lottery would give away half to very worthy causes? Probably most people think they deserve more than the average. Most would like to have more than what they know in their hearts to be a fair share and one sufficient for a good life. Being greedy is compatible with having a sincere desire to help the poor and disadvantaged, protect the environment, support charities and the arts, being courteous, promoting liberal causes, even being a Marxist or socialist, and so on. Greed is distinct from criminal flaws – theft, torture, murder, assault. It fits in with more widespread, ordinary human failings – envy, anger, gluttony, decadence, debauchery, deceit, self-deception, hypocrisy, rationalization, selfishness, snobbery, lust, sloth, complacency, arrogance, dogmatism, bigotry, miserliness.
Does this mean that we should simply accept that greed is inevitable and an important factor in motivating artistic, intellectual, and business achievement, and bringing about a high standard of living and quality of life? No. Although we are to some extent biologically programmed to be greedy (also envious, violent, selfish, dogmatic, etc.), we are also programmed to be sharing, nurturing, considerate. We can raise children to think more of the well-being of others, and inner artistic, spiritual, intellectual development and attainment, rather than focus on success as becoming rich or famous and having a glamorous partner. This would be beneficial for individuals and society. We don’t need to achieve meaning and validation by being rich or famous (or having lots of kids, or asserting our own religion/ideology/lifestyle as supreme – the definite truth).
If you reflect calmly and dispassionately (engage in open critical thinking) on the notion of greed and human behaviour you come to some conclusions which most people will find upsetting/disturbing/threatening to underlying beliefs they have evolved as coping, defence mechanisms to make their world and themselves seem more congenial. Almost all human beings are potentially greedy, and the top 40% in affluent countries like Canada in 2009 are actually greedy. It is healthier to acknowledge unpleasant aspects of human nature (particularly one’s own nature) than to be in denial.
Wanting and trying to obtain or maintain a share of some benefit (e.g. income, sick leave, housing, job security, inheritance) for oneself (or family, professional association, or class) which is unfair and unnecessary for leading a good life (when looked at fairly reasonably, dispassionately, objectively).
Willingness to disregard or downplay the legitimate claims of others in order to gain or maintain the excessive share.
Willingness to use power (e.g. coercion, political influence, strikes, restrictive practices, not necessarily physical violence) and misrepresentation (not necessarily illegal or criminal acts) to gain or maintain the excessive share.
‘Ann wants an unfair, excessive share but is not greedy’* verges on the contradictory.
According to this analysis there is a selfish/self-centred/self-seeking aspect to greed. ‘Andrew is greedy but not selfish’* is semantically odd. There is also a materialistic aspect to greed. ‘Alice is greedy but not particularly interested in wealth, income, luxuries, her own pleasure or status, material comforts, or possessions’* is also semantically odd. Conceivably, all members of a community might pursue material wealth excessively yet share fairly equitably (not the same as equally) and safeguard the environment and animal rights. We might still call such a community greedy rather than just materialistic. Usually, though, greed is semantically (cf. merely empirically/causally) associated with seeking to gain or maintain an undue share for oneself (own family, class, etc.) at the expense of others. Greed may be characterized as excessive materialism combined with disregard for the material well-being of others. Think of situations where we tell children, ‘Don’t be greedy’.
It is sometimes claimed there is a kind of ‘greed’ which enriches others rather than deprives them. Thus, suppose an entrepreneur introduces a technological innovation which helps raise the standard of living of the whole community. The entrepreneur may take for himself a large,excessive portion of the increase in wealth yet still the others are significantly better off than before. But although the entrepreneur may be entitled to a larger share than average it does not follow that he is entitled to take most of the increase for himself. For one thing, others are involved in the production of increased wealth – the inventor, factory manager, factory workers, etc. For another, the average hard-working member of the society may still be short of some basics. Think of a sports or movie star getting $1m for promoting a product while factory workers who make the product are better off by 50 cents an hour.
Sometimes a greedy person knows he is taking an unfair, excessive share but he doesn’t care. He may excuse himself by saying, ‘It’s a dog-eat-dog world…the weak go to the wall… you have to look out for number one…’ etc. Sometimes a person may be unaware that he is being greedy – he takes his excessive, unfair share for granted, and being pampered or spoiled doesn’t see that it is unfair and beyond what is needful. Often, though, a person has some awareness that he is being greedy but he suppresses or represses this awareness because he accepts that greed is an ignoble, undesirable quality and finds it threatening to his view of himself and the world to admit that this mean quality is present in himself and those he likes and admires.
Greed is typically directed at obtaining or maintaining more income, wealth, pleasure, material goods, luxuries for oneself or family – a better house, car, restaurants, holidays, travel, fancy clothes, boat, better health care and education for the kids, etc. However, the motive for, or even the focus of, greed may not be financial gain, wealth, and all the comforts, pleasures, luxuries, treats, conveniences, and security that money can buy. Rather, the underlying greed may be for status, recognition, power, or control. Thus we speak of the lust for power, and of expensive items as status symbols.
How to unpack the evaluative notions of ‘unfair’ and ‘excessive’ involved in the analysis of greed? A sufficient condition for a share being unfair and excessive may be:
A share which is more than 8 times the Canadian 2009 per capita average (median or mean) or 20 times the global per capita average, and more than 4 times what is needed for a healthy, enriched (sic) lifestyle (shelter, sanitation, health care, food, leisure, some savings, education, security of person and property, opportunities for artistic, intellectual, spiritual, moral, athletic development).
According to the analysis of greed it is not just business executives who are greedy. Entertainment and sports stars, royalty, dictators, celebrities, heiresses, many lawyers, doctors, dentists, architects, professors, senior administrators, successful writers and artists, and lottery winners also qualify as greedy. In 2009 trying to acquire or retain a $3m home, yacht, several luxury holidays per year, etc. counts as greed. ‘Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous’ could be re-titled ‘Lifestyles of the Greedy’. In 2009 anyone earning more than $150,000 US per year or having assets totaling more than $3m without giving away the surplus to worthy causes (e.g. arts/sports foundations, scholarships for the poor, medical research) is greedy.
Most ordinary people are greedy in the sense that they aspire to an unfair, excessive share of wealth, and try to gain such a share given the chance. How many of us if we won $5m in a lottery would give away half to very worthy causes? Probably most people think they deserve more than the average. Most would like to have more than what they know in their hearts to be a fair share and one sufficient for a good life. Being greedy is compatible with having a sincere desire to help the poor and disadvantaged, protect the environment, support charities and the arts, being courteous, promoting liberal causes, even being a Marxist or socialist, and so on. Greed is distinct from criminal flaws – theft, torture, murder, assault. It fits in with more widespread, ordinary human failings – envy, anger, gluttony, decadence, debauchery, deceit, self-deception, hypocrisy, rationalization, selfishness, snobbery, lust, sloth, complacency, arrogance, dogmatism, bigotry, miserliness.
Does this mean that we should simply accept that greed is inevitable and an important factor in motivating artistic, intellectual, and business achievement, and bringing about a high standard of living and quality of life? No. Although we are to some extent biologically programmed to be greedy (also envious, violent, selfish, dogmatic, etc.), we are also programmed to be sharing, nurturing, considerate. We can raise children to think more of the well-being of others, and inner artistic, spiritual, intellectual development and attainment, rather than focus on success as becoming rich or famous and having a glamorous partner. This would be beneficial for individuals and society. We don’t need to achieve meaning and validation by being rich or famous (or having lots of kids, or asserting our own religion/ideology/lifestyle as supreme – the definite truth).
If you reflect calmly and dispassionately (engage in open critical thinking) on the notion of greed and human behaviour you come to some conclusions which most people will find upsetting/disturbing/threatening to underlying beliefs they have evolved as coping, defence mechanisms to make their world and themselves seem more congenial. Almost all human beings are potentially greedy, and the top 40% in affluent countries like Canada in 2009 are actually greedy. It is healthier to acknowledge unpleasant aspects of human nature (particularly one’s own nature) than to be in denial.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Democracy
Being democratic is widely regarded as a desirable, good quality in government, organizations, making rules, deciding goals and policies. Because of this ‘democracy’ and ‘democratic’ have come to have an approbative, commendatory quality as part of their meaning. They are conventionally partly used to express or indicate approval, to commend or praise. ‘Undemocratic’ conventionally is often derogatory, pejorative, expressing or indicating disapproval. It is used in part to deprecate, censure, denigrate, disparage, chide, put down, etc. ‘That’s not democratic’ is often like saying ‘That’s not fair’. ‘Democratic’ is perhaps not so evaluative in meaning as ‘dictatorial’, ‘fascist’, ‘repressive’, ‘elitist’, ‘brutal’, etc.
The descriptive meaning of ‘democracy’ and its cognates, though, is (like that of many terms in philosophy, social theory, politics, art, literary theory, religion, etc.) rather woolly or nebulous in common (and often specialist!) use. In ordinary, standard use ‘democracy’ is not used to pick out (not clearly, closely tied to) a specific set of clearly definable (in principle intersubjectively verifiable and falsifiable) characteristics or features. (Cf. ‘20th wedding anniversary party’, “university’, ‘by-election’.) Rather ‘democracy’ is used to loosely indicate a feature (or features) in a certain range which is not clearly specified. It seems that speakers/writers do not have some specific, definite property or kind of thing clearly in mind when they (albeit correctly) use ‘democracy’. Speakers/users are unable to pick out confidently what would be democratic and what not, or to specify what are verifiable democratic-making characteristics – criteria, truth/application conditions.
Descriptive meaning of ‘democracy’. The underlying, loose idea behind ‘democratic’ is something like : a government, business, corporation, movement, non-profit society, community association etc. such that ordinary people/all members have a real say in running the organization as opposed to its being run by an elite or privileged group, and /or such that it is run for the real benefit of ordinary/all members not for the benefit of an elite or privileged group. Democracy is contrasted with government by church (theocracy), hereditary monarch or chief, aristocracy, big business, the military, dictatorship, the upper classes.
Sharpening the meaning. Specific criteria might be listed to give clearer, sharper definition to ‘democracy’.
Freedom to form different, opposing, rival political parties which the government may deem are not in the best public interest (even some which seek to abolish certain freedoms or rights).
Freedom to publicly criticize the government and laws.
Some media not directly controlled by the government.
Toleration of different values, belief systems, disagreement about priorities.
Freedom of access to information about government spending and policies.
Freedom to vote and run for office (political, judicial, police, military, civil service) regardless of class, religion, political affiliation, ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation.
Safeguards for keeping patronage appointments, nepotism, favoritism, and pork barreling to a minimum, e.g. strict rules for government tendering, and for hiring in the civil service and schools and universities; membership of some boards determined by lot rather than appointment.
Mechanism to allow for peaceful change of government.
The ultimate basis of political power lies in the expressed consent of the majority of citizens.
Minorities have certain rights.
Opportunities for the disadvantaged (females, poor, ethnic minorities) to have higher education and rise to office and good jobs in the professions, academia, etc.
There is something semantically odd about saying ‘A is a democracy’, or the equivalent in another language, where A lacks 2 or more of the preceding characteristics.
Some communist and totalitarian countries calling themselves democratic are not democratic according to the analysis given. We might speak of communist, Marxist, totalitarian, or religious democracy versus liberal democracy (without the sneer word ‘bourgeois’). A communist (or religious) supposed democratic ideology holds that there are two classes of people : those who have seen the definite truth about God’s law, social reality, ultimate reality, or the historical process and those who have not. Those who do not accept the truth represented by the ‘correct’ religious/political party are corrupt, unenlightened and should be excluded from political power and input. (Notice the similarity here between totalitarian democrats and some politically correct liberal democrats.) Those to be excluded may be peasants, landlords, capitalists, bourgeois liberals, western decadents, atheists, non-members of the ‘correct’ party, or those who make remarks deemed to be damaging or offensive to the disadvantaged or minorities. Furthermore, on this view, dictatorship of the ruling party, proletariat, or religion is not undemocratic because it in fact represents the true underlying free will of each individual in so far as this is not perverted.
Democracy is associated with egalitarianism : the idea that people are in some way of equal value or worth and should have equal opportunity even though there are differences in ability and character.
In a democratic association all members have input into what qualifications are required for membership and for holding a particular rank. In this respect many professional associations and trade unions are democratic whereas the Catholic Church is not. In a democratic country it might be that all people with relevant skills and expertise, not just association members, should have input into criteria for membership in an association or union and pay scales in so far as these have a monopoly on certain jobs (frequently paid for by the general taxpayer).
Democracy (either liberal or totalitarian) is compatible with distinctions of rank and with some degree of meritocracy. Thus, to impose a test for voting or holding office of basic literacy, cultural, historical, and political knowledge might be deemed ‘undemocratic’ in a loose sense but it is not so according to the more precise analysis given. What matters for democracy in the precise sense is equality of opportunity, open critical thinking, concern for the well-being and development of others especially those with a poor start in life, and respect for individual liberty/autonomy – allowing for disagreement, differences of opinion. Democracy in the precise sense does not entail a philosophy of idealizing or sentimentalizing the poor, non-achievers, criminals, drug addicts, etc.
The descriptive meaning of ‘democracy’ and its cognates, though, is (like that of many terms in philosophy, social theory, politics, art, literary theory, religion, etc.) rather woolly or nebulous in common (and often specialist!) use. In ordinary, standard use ‘democracy’ is not used to pick out (not clearly, closely tied to) a specific set of clearly definable (in principle intersubjectively verifiable and falsifiable) characteristics or features. (Cf. ‘20th wedding anniversary party’, “university’, ‘by-election’.) Rather ‘democracy’ is used to loosely indicate a feature (or features) in a certain range which is not clearly specified. It seems that speakers/writers do not have some specific, definite property or kind of thing clearly in mind when they (albeit correctly) use ‘democracy’. Speakers/users are unable to pick out confidently what would be democratic and what not, or to specify what are verifiable democratic-making characteristics – criteria, truth/application conditions.
Descriptive meaning of ‘democracy’. The underlying, loose idea behind ‘democratic’ is something like : a government, business, corporation, movement, non-profit society, community association etc. such that ordinary people/all members have a real say in running the organization as opposed to its being run by an elite or privileged group, and /or such that it is run for the real benefit of ordinary/all members not for the benefit of an elite or privileged group. Democracy is contrasted with government by church (theocracy), hereditary monarch or chief, aristocracy, big business, the military, dictatorship, the upper classes.
Sharpening the meaning. Specific criteria might be listed to give clearer, sharper definition to ‘democracy’.
Freedom to form different, opposing, rival political parties which the government may deem are not in the best public interest (even some which seek to abolish certain freedoms or rights).
Freedom to publicly criticize the government and laws.
Some media not directly controlled by the government.
Toleration of different values, belief systems, disagreement about priorities.
Freedom of access to information about government spending and policies.
Freedom to vote and run for office (political, judicial, police, military, civil service) regardless of class, religion, political affiliation, ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation.
Safeguards for keeping patronage appointments, nepotism, favoritism, and pork barreling to a minimum, e.g. strict rules for government tendering, and for hiring in the civil service and schools and universities; membership of some boards determined by lot rather than appointment.
Mechanism to allow for peaceful change of government.
The ultimate basis of political power lies in the expressed consent of the majority of citizens.
Minorities have certain rights.
Opportunities for the disadvantaged (females, poor, ethnic minorities) to have higher education and rise to office and good jobs in the professions, academia, etc.
There is something semantically odd about saying ‘A is a democracy’, or the equivalent in another language, where A lacks 2 or more of the preceding characteristics.
Some communist and totalitarian countries calling themselves democratic are not democratic according to the analysis given. We might speak of communist, Marxist, totalitarian, or religious democracy versus liberal democracy (without the sneer word ‘bourgeois’). A communist (or religious) supposed democratic ideology holds that there are two classes of people : those who have seen the definite truth about God’s law, social reality, ultimate reality, or the historical process and those who have not. Those who do not accept the truth represented by the ‘correct’ religious/political party are corrupt, unenlightened and should be excluded from political power and input. (Notice the similarity here between totalitarian democrats and some politically correct liberal democrats.) Those to be excluded may be peasants, landlords, capitalists, bourgeois liberals, western decadents, atheists, non-members of the ‘correct’ party, or those who make remarks deemed to be damaging or offensive to the disadvantaged or minorities. Furthermore, on this view, dictatorship of the ruling party, proletariat, or religion is not undemocratic because it in fact represents the true underlying free will of each individual in so far as this is not perverted.
Democracy is associated with egalitarianism : the idea that people are in some way of equal value or worth and should have equal opportunity even though there are differences in ability and character.
In a democratic association all members have input into what qualifications are required for membership and for holding a particular rank. In this respect many professional associations and trade unions are democratic whereas the Catholic Church is not. In a democratic country it might be that all people with relevant skills and expertise, not just association members, should have input into criteria for membership in an association or union and pay scales in so far as these have a monopoly on certain jobs (frequently paid for by the general taxpayer).
Democracy (either liberal or totalitarian) is compatible with distinctions of rank and with some degree of meritocracy. Thus, to impose a test for voting or holding office of basic literacy, cultural, historical, and political knowledge might be deemed ‘undemocratic’ in a loose sense but it is not so according to the more precise analysis given. What matters for democracy in the precise sense is equality of opportunity, open critical thinking, concern for the well-being and development of others especially those with a poor start in life, and respect for individual liberty/autonomy – allowing for disagreement, differences of opinion. Democracy in the precise sense does not entail a philosophy of idealizing or sentimentalizing the poor, non-achievers, criminals, drug addicts, etc.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Rule of Law
It is difficult for a community (or social group, e.g., non-profit society, religious group, school, sports club, housing co-op) of only 100 fairly homogeneous people to function without rules and regulations. Sometimes there will be unanimous support for a rule. Sometimes an individual member who supports the rule will break it when he thinks following the rule in a particular case is unduly detrimental to his benefit. (Sincerely supporting a rule means being willing to follow it even when so doing involves some inconvenience or loss of benefit.) Sometimes an individual will follow a rule because it has been adopted by the community (or social group) of which he is a member even though he personally finds the rule not the most fair or reasonable of alternatives. The notion of a community rule implies some sort of penalty for those who violate it, e.g., a fine, loss of privileges, suspension, expulsion, being assigned to unpleasant chores.
Each rule may require specific assent by all members (or a majority) of the community, or (some) rules may be decided by a ruling body (and perhaps be put to the general membership for ratification). Again, penalties for infringement of rules may be decided by all (or a majority) of the community or by a ruling body.
Where a state, country, nation, or whole society is concerned we speak of laws rather than rules. When a community has over 1000 members it becomes impractical to require unanimous consent of all members (consensus) for each rule or penalty. With communities over 50,000 it becomes impractical to require specific assent of the majority to each and every rule and related penalty. In large, complex societies rule, i.e., law (and policy) making becomes invested in a small portion of members, i.e., a ruling body, legislature, or government. (The membership may change but the ruling institutions stay the same.) Sometimes the law-making body is at arm’s length from the executive or government. Along with a legislature or government there is usually a somewhat separate judiciary for examining alleged violations of laws, and a police force for enforcing the laws.
Important questions arise. When does a law-making body have the moral and rational right to impose laws and penalties? When is its law-making status legitimate, reasonable, justifiable? Are there kinds of activity which it is unfair or unreasonable to legislate? Under what conditions, if any, is it fair or reasonable for a citizen to not abide by the law – is a citizen sometimes morally or rationally justified in disobeying a law made by a de jure government or legislature?
In a large, post-industrial, pluralistic, multicultural society there are many areas where some fairly loyal, law-abiding citizens feel strongly that existing or proposed legislation by a more or less legitimate government and legislature is not morally or rationally justifiable, e.g., gun control, same sex marriage, recreational drugs, prostitution, euthanasia, immigration, capital punishment, abortion, upper limits on income, wealth, and inheritance, disincentives to procreate, discouragement of the private automobile. Part of living and maturity is learning to accept some difference and disagreement in basic values, priorities, and beliefs (and to yield to the wishes of the majority). You can’t expect everyone else or the majority to share your particular convictions; what is meaningful, enlightened, profound, God’s truth to you may not be so to someone else; someone is not necessarily stupid, ignorant, or corrupt because he doesn’t agree with you; others have their blocks, hang-ups, emotional investment, blind spots, triggers, dark side but then so do you; your convictions may be just as much the product of your flawed, human psychology (projections, fears, defence mechanisms, rationalizations, prejudices, unquestioned, unexamined presuppositions) as others’ convictions seem to you the product of their flawed nature. No use claiming your convictions come direct from God. How do you know this claim is not itself a warped belief (perhaps sent by the Devil!) Also, others make the same claim about their different convictions.
Is the government/legislature legitimate? Some considerations. Can citizens of different religions, political affiliation, class, gender, race, ethnicity (except minors and perhaps those serving time for basic crimes, e.g. robbery, assault, fraud, of which they were convicted with due process) run for political office? Can they become members of the judiciary, police force, army, civil service? Can all citizens (except perhaps minors and certain criminals) vote? Is public criticism of the government/legislature, laws and legal system allowed? Is there a peaceful mechanism for changing the government/legislature? Is citizenship (voting) open to all contributing long-term residents, e.g. those working and paying taxes in the country for 2 years or more?
Are there activities beyond the legitimate scope of legislation (criminal as opposed to regulatory)? Those between consenting adults in private which do not harm a minor?
When might civil disobedience be justified? Breaking a law to save a life or prevent serious injury? Willingness to pay some penalty for breaking the law. Not concealing your violation. That you strongly and consistently disagree with the law (perhaps believing it is against the higher law of God) is not sufficient, e.g. someone who is opposed to photo radar, speed limits, or gun control, not just for himself but in general.
Imposing laws on those who do not want them. Some individuals are opposed to legislation imposing speed limits, gun control, banning spousal or child assault or abuse, or offering sex education or comparative religious studies in school. The belief is that these areas should be left to individual discretion (or the family) not subject to state interference or control. However, society (the state) has an obligation to protect the innocent and to ensure that liberties for certain individuals do not negate the basic liberties of others. Interestingly, many who oppose state encroachment on individual liberty in some areas are strongly in favour of it in others, e.g. recreational drugs, prostitution, homosexuality, assisted euthanasia.
Imposing taxes for services on those who do not want the service, e.g. health care, schools, social assistance, parks, sports facilities, hospitals, social services, roads, military, police force, judiciary, prison system, old age pension, drug and alcohol control, food inspection, welfare, unemployment benefits, water, sewers, garbage collection, recycling, fire department, public transit. Again, society has an obligation to ensure that all children have opportunities for education, care, a decent quality of life, and access to good jobs. A child’s chance in life should not depend largely on parents’ or grandparents’ wealth whether acquired through good luck, connexions, hard work, or shady dealings. A child should not be unduly penalized for having negligent, abusive, or thriftless parents. Notice that the justification for imposing taxes for a community service does not of itself entail that the service should have a public rather than private provider.
Society is morally and rationally entitled to take from the rich (without their explicit consent) in order to help the children of the poor. Parents naturally try to secure an unfair advantage for their own children. This does not mean they have a moral right to do so.
Ideally, perhaps, those independent, self-sufficient individuals who never use a public benefit should get a tax refund. In practice, it is difficult to say that an individual does not benefit from some public amenities, e.g. military, police force, parks, roads, customs, transportation inspection.
Romantic individualism – childish sense of entitlement, unrealistic expectations, an exaggerated sense of the superiority of one’s own talents, insights, opinions, tastes, values, and beliefs – must be tempered by the recognition that there are billions of us on a planet with finite resources. I am not more wonderful, hard working, ill-treated, highly qualified, talented, or deserving than millions of others. There is no reason why my community, country, or the world should adopt my opinions or give me special recognition or status. Indeed, in world terms perhaps I already receive more than a fair share.
Each rule may require specific assent by all members (or a majority) of the community, or (some) rules may be decided by a ruling body (and perhaps be put to the general membership for ratification). Again, penalties for infringement of rules may be decided by all (or a majority) of the community or by a ruling body.
Where a state, country, nation, or whole society is concerned we speak of laws rather than rules. When a community has over 1000 members it becomes impractical to require unanimous consent of all members (consensus) for each rule or penalty. With communities over 50,000 it becomes impractical to require specific assent of the majority to each and every rule and related penalty. In large, complex societies rule, i.e., law (and policy) making becomes invested in a small portion of members, i.e., a ruling body, legislature, or government. (The membership may change but the ruling institutions stay the same.) Sometimes the law-making body is at arm’s length from the executive or government. Along with a legislature or government there is usually a somewhat separate judiciary for examining alleged violations of laws, and a police force for enforcing the laws.
Important questions arise. When does a law-making body have the moral and rational right to impose laws and penalties? When is its law-making status legitimate, reasonable, justifiable? Are there kinds of activity which it is unfair or unreasonable to legislate? Under what conditions, if any, is it fair or reasonable for a citizen to not abide by the law – is a citizen sometimes morally or rationally justified in disobeying a law made by a de jure government or legislature?
In a large, post-industrial, pluralistic, multicultural society there are many areas where some fairly loyal, law-abiding citizens feel strongly that existing or proposed legislation by a more or less legitimate government and legislature is not morally or rationally justifiable, e.g., gun control, same sex marriage, recreational drugs, prostitution, euthanasia, immigration, capital punishment, abortion, upper limits on income, wealth, and inheritance, disincentives to procreate, discouragement of the private automobile. Part of living and maturity is learning to accept some difference and disagreement in basic values, priorities, and beliefs (and to yield to the wishes of the majority). You can’t expect everyone else or the majority to share your particular convictions; what is meaningful, enlightened, profound, God’s truth to you may not be so to someone else; someone is not necessarily stupid, ignorant, or corrupt because he doesn’t agree with you; others have their blocks, hang-ups, emotional investment, blind spots, triggers, dark side but then so do you; your convictions may be just as much the product of your flawed, human psychology (projections, fears, defence mechanisms, rationalizations, prejudices, unquestioned, unexamined presuppositions) as others’ convictions seem to you the product of their flawed nature. No use claiming your convictions come direct from God. How do you know this claim is not itself a warped belief (perhaps sent by the Devil!) Also, others make the same claim about their different convictions.
Is the government/legislature legitimate? Some considerations. Can citizens of different religions, political affiliation, class, gender, race, ethnicity (except minors and perhaps those serving time for basic crimes, e.g. robbery, assault, fraud, of which they were convicted with due process) run for political office? Can they become members of the judiciary, police force, army, civil service? Can all citizens (except perhaps minors and certain criminals) vote? Is public criticism of the government/legislature, laws and legal system allowed? Is there a peaceful mechanism for changing the government/legislature? Is citizenship (voting) open to all contributing long-term residents, e.g. those working and paying taxes in the country for 2 years or more?
Are there activities beyond the legitimate scope of legislation (criminal as opposed to regulatory)? Those between consenting adults in private which do not harm a minor?
When might civil disobedience be justified? Breaking a law to save a life or prevent serious injury? Willingness to pay some penalty for breaking the law. Not concealing your violation. That you strongly and consistently disagree with the law (perhaps believing it is against the higher law of God) is not sufficient, e.g. someone who is opposed to photo radar, speed limits, or gun control, not just for himself but in general.
Imposing laws on those who do not want them. Some individuals are opposed to legislation imposing speed limits, gun control, banning spousal or child assault or abuse, or offering sex education or comparative religious studies in school. The belief is that these areas should be left to individual discretion (or the family) not subject to state interference or control. However, society (the state) has an obligation to protect the innocent and to ensure that liberties for certain individuals do not negate the basic liberties of others. Interestingly, many who oppose state encroachment on individual liberty in some areas are strongly in favour of it in others, e.g. recreational drugs, prostitution, homosexuality, assisted euthanasia.
Imposing taxes for services on those who do not want the service, e.g. health care, schools, social assistance, parks, sports facilities, hospitals, social services, roads, military, police force, judiciary, prison system, old age pension, drug and alcohol control, food inspection, welfare, unemployment benefits, water, sewers, garbage collection, recycling, fire department, public transit. Again, society has an obligation to ensure that all children have opportunities for education, care, a decent quality of life, and access to good jobs. A child’s chance in life should not depend largely on parents’ or grandparents’ wealth whether acquired through good luck, connexions, hard work, or shady dealings. A child should not be unduly penalized for having negligent, abusive, or thriftless parents. Notice that the justification for imposing taxes for a community service does not of itself entail that the service should have a public rather than private provider.
Society is morally and rationally entitled to take from the rich (without their explicit consent) in order to help the children of the poor. Parents naturally try to secure an unfair advantage for their own children. This does not mean they have a moral right to do so.
Ideally, perhaps, those independent, self-sufficient individuals who never use a public benefit should get a tax refund. In practice, it is difficult to say that an individual does not benefit from some public amenities, e.g. military, police force, parks, roads, customs, transportation inspection.
Romantic individualism – childish sense of entitlement, unrealistic expectations, an exaggerated sense of the superiority of one’s own talents, insights, opinions, tastes, values, and beliefs – must be tempered by the recognition that there are billions of us on a planet with finite resources. I am not more wonderful, hard working, ill-treated, highly qualified, talented, or deserving than millions of others. There is no reason why my community, country, or the world should adopt my opinions or give me special recognition or status. Indeed, in world terms perhaps I already receive more than a fair share.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Nature and Extent of Individual Responsibility
1.
Is there Freewill? We call some people and acts responsible and others irresponsible. We say people are responsible for certain tasks because of their job or position e.g. being a parent. Again, we blame people for certain acts or omissions, hold them accountable, culpable. But, it might be claimed, a person’s choices, acts, temperament, personality are the natural outcome of his genes, parental, peer, and social influences, and possibly trauma and pathogens – illness. The human mind in its choices and will cannot transcend causality concerning natural phenomena.
Individuals make choices and perform acts which seem free in that they are voluntary (not the result of external or internal compulsion, or accident) and made with awareness. But perhaps choices (and acts) which seem free because voluntary and done with awareness are at a deeper physiological, psychological (or psychoanalytic) brain/mind level not free because they are fully accounted for by scientific natural laws concerning brain or psychic processes and prior brain or psychic states. That is, the human will is not free because it is entirely part of nature and entirely governed by natural laws. There is no mysterious entity – the mind or soul – standing outside natural causal processes which directs or informs the will (choices).
The more we know about the brain and psychology the less plausible it seems that voluntary, aware choices and acts are directed and controlled by a self which stands outside the causal chain. (That the causal chain is ultimately quantum mechanistic rather than Newtonian/Cartesian does not matter.) The notion of the self as uncaused, not naturally determined, controlling agent seems to dissolve under scientific scrutiny of choices and actions. Choices, sensations, desires, beliefs, feelings, values are just as much part of the natural causal world as electromagnetism, chemical reactions, sunsets, rainbows, coal, cheese, flowers, birds, insects, reptiles, bacteria, and cancer cells. That humans have (or do not have) freewill seems to be an empirical claim (though somewhat nebulous/woolly) and the evidence seems against it.
2
Is there individual responsibility without freewill? Even if freewill is an illusion (when we act voluntarily with awareness we don’t feel compelled) is there still some sense in which an individual bears some responsibility for his own choices, actions, behavior, and hence his own situation? It is difficult to see how society could function if we didn’t hold people in some degree responsible for their voluntary, aware (though perhaps not fully aware) choices and actions, e.g. ‘It’s not my fault I went to the pub instead of staying home and doing my chores and assignments’. But isn’t individual, personal responsibility more than a convenient or necessary fiction or myth? Can one legitimately, reasonably just blame parents, genes, society, big business, Western imperialism, etc. for one’s choices and actions or one’s poor situation or bad behaviour (even if one was to some extent disadvantaged, abused, or neglected)?
Is it justifiable for an individual to blame his situation, poor choices, lack of self-discipline, selfishness, lack of concern for others, greed, neuroses, fixations, etc. on his genes, parenting, society, or relatively poor start in life? When should excuses for one’s bad behaviour or blaming others for one’s relatively poor situation stop? When does blaming others for one’s own (or one’s group’s) relative poverty, lack of achievement, negative behaviours become unreasonable/unjustifiable. At what point do false sense of entitlement, unrealistic expectations, cult of victimhood, scapegoating, or even laziness come into play? When is your start in life or social situation so bad that you don’t really have a chance? When is belonging to a so-called visible minority or disadvantaged group or past injustices no longer an excuse? To what extent do poorer cultures or societies bear responsibility for their condition?
How much is the average individual responsible for environmental destruction, war, social injustice rather than say government, big business, capitalism, Western imperialism? How much is the dark, greedy, selfish side in each of us not just the system?
3
Psychological determinants of choice and behaviour. To what extent can an individual modify his own behaviours, responses, emotions, desires? What determines whether an individual will try to modify his behaviors, etc. and persist in the effort? Why do some people become stuck in self or other harming or unproductive, limiting behaviours? Why do some not bother to take advantage of opportunities which do exist for self-improvement and advancement? Why do some people turn to drugs, alcohol, television, or gambling rather than activities which bring inner enrichment and satisfaction such as art, music, literature, dance, athletics, sport, meditation, communing with nature, learning another language, community service? Why do even some artists, writers, or athletes turn to drugs or alcohol, or commit suicide? Is it : genes ; inadequate training in interpersonal skills, self-discipline, organization, realistic expectations, accepting unpleasantness and unfairness as part of life, dealing with upsetting feelings ; lack of love, neglect, or abuse ; poverty?
Is there Freewill? We call some people and acts responsible and others irresponsible. We say people are responsible for certain tasks because of their job or position e.g. being a parent. Again, we blame people for certain acts or omissions, hold them accountable, culpable. But, it might be claimed, a person’s choices, acts, temperament, personality are the natural outcome of his genes, parental, peer, and social influences, and possibly trauma and pathogens – illness. The human mind in its choices and will cannot transcend causality concerning natural phenomena.
Individuals make choices and perform acts which seem free in that they are voluntary (not the result of external or internal compulsion, or accident) and made with awareness. But perhaps choices (and acts) which seem free because voluntary and done with awareness are at a deeper physiological, psychological (or psychoanalytic) brain/mind level not free because they are fully accounted for by scientific natural laws concerning brain or psychic processes and prior brain or psychic states. That is, the human will is not free because it is entirely part of nature and entirely governed by natural laws. There is no mysterious entity – the mind or soul – standing outside natural causal processes which directs or informs the will (choices).
The more we know about the brain and psychology the less plausible it seems that voluntary, aware choices and acts are directed and controlled by a self which stands outside the causal chain. (That the causal chain is ultimately quantum mechanistic rather than Newtonian/Cartesian does not matter.) The notion of the self as uncaused, not naturally determined, controlling agent seems to dissolve under scientific scrutiny of choices and actions. Choices, sensations, desires, beliefs, feelings, values are just as much part of the natural causal world as electromagnetism, chemical reactions, sunsets, rainbows, coal, cheese, flowers, birds, insects, reptiles, bacteria, and cancer cells. That humans have (or do not have) freewill seems to be an empirical claim (though somewhat nebulous/woolly) and the evidence seems against it.
2
Is there individual responsibility without freewill? Even if freewill is an illusion (when we act voluntarily with awareness we don’t feel compelled) is there still some sense in which an individual bears some responsibility for his own choices, actions, behavior, and hence his own situation? It is difficult to see how society could function if we didn’t hold people in some degree responsible for their voluntary, aware (though perhaps not fully aware) choices and actions, e.g. ‘It’s not my fault I went to the pub instead of staying home and doing my chores and assignments’. But isn’t individual, personal responsibility more than a convenient or necessary fiction or myth? Can one legitimately, reasonably just blame parents, genes, society, big business, Western imperialism, etc. for one’s choices and actions or one’s poor situation or bad behaviour (even if one was to some extent disadvantaged, abused, or neglected)?
Is it justifiable for an individual to blame his situation, poor choices, lack of self-discipline, selfishness, lack of concern for others, greed, neuroses, fixations, etc. on his genes, parenting, society, or relatively poor start in life? When should excuses for one’s bad behaviour or blaming others for one’s relatively poor situation stop? When does blaming others for one’s own (or one’s group’s) relative poverty, lack of achievement, negative behaviours become unreasonable/unjustifiable. At what point do false sense of entitlement, unrealistic expectations, cult of victimhood, scapegoating, or even laziness come into play? When is your start in life or social situation so bad that you don’t really have a chance? When is belonging to a so-called visible minority or disadvantaged group or past injustices no longer an excuse? To what extent do poorer cultures or societies bear responsibility for their condition?
How much is the average individual responsible for environmental destruction, war, social injustice rather than say government, big business, capitalism, Western imperialism? How much is the dark, greedy, selfish side in each of us not just the system?
3
Psychological determinants of choice and behaviour. To what extent can an individual modify his own behaviours, responses, emotions, desires? What determines whether an individual will try to modify his behaviors, etc. and persist in the effort? Why do some people become stuck in self or other harming or unproductive, limiting behaviours? Why do some not bother to take advantage of opportunities which do exist for self-improvement and advancement? Why do some people turn to drugs, alcohol, television, or gambling rather than activities which bring inner enrichment and satisfaction such as art, music, literature, dance, athletics, sport, meditation, communing with nature, learning another language, community service? Why do even some artists, writers, or athletes turn to drugs or alcohol, or commit suicide? Is it : genes ; inadequate training in interpersonal skills, self-discipline, organization, realistic expectations, accepting unpleasantness and unfairness as part of life, dealing with upsetting feelings ; lack of love, neglect, or abuse ; poverty?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)