My Profile supplement: Virtue, Vice, the Transcendent, Women.

Virtues Admired:
Ability to laugh at oneself, admit own privileges, accept disagreement, explore different viewpoints, open one's own views to criticism, admit one is mistaken.
Vices Deplored:
Inability in foregoing, passive-aggressive remarks, self-righteousness, controlling/bullying, pretentious bafflegab, asserting one's own opinions in categorical, overbearing manner as though they are absolute truths (authoritative, superior, unquestionable insights not allowing for rival viewpoints). It's natural to think one's own view is more correct, reasonable, enlightened. However, it's courteous and logical to allow that views different from and opposed to one's own may also be reasonable and plausible. Expecting one view to be the definite truth, the correct one, is often inappropriate.

Special Interest:
Notion of the transcendent - mysticism - putative states of affairs which cannot be expressed in logical, factual language (non-conceptual thought?). Notion of forms of justification which do not need to conform to logic. Although I'm a poet and like Rilke and Blake, I'm sceptical of mysticism as a separate form of thought or knowing. I see my poetry as suggestive indefinite meaning hopefully expressed in pleasing language, not as a form of apprehension providing access to a separate realm of truth or deeper reality. ESP if it exists would still be subject to ordinary verifiability and falsifiability.

Afterlife:
Don't believe in personal afterlife; wish I could - chance to make amends to the dead. Like to imagine there is a force of goodness associated with higher human endeavour: intellect, art, equal opportunity, women's rights, emotional awareness of self and others, open critical thinking, regarding well-being of others as of similar value to one's own, moral development, kindness. Like to imagine this force is associated with Athena, Diotima, Hypatia, etc., and has healing, soothing, encouraging powers.

Monotheism:
Think standard Judaic/Christian/Islamic religion could be classed as mental illness. Am amazed (no saddened) that in 21st century people can still take seriously any religion which refuses the ordination of women. Notion of mental illness could be extended to social institutions and cultures.

Women Superior:
As an athletic 69 year old I'm still attracted to women under 50 but realise they are not attracted to me. Think women on the whole slightly superior to men spiritually and morally - women not quite so self-assertive, status-seeking, controlling, insistent that they are right, more nurturing.

The Meaning of Life

Standardly, when people talk about the meaning of life they are not particularly clear about what they mean – they don’t mean anything very definite or clear-cut. Rather, as usually happens with terms and concepts with a heavy philosophical weight, they have something rather woolly or nebulous in mind which nevertheless seems very important. Perceived philosophical depth is typically inversely proportional to clear-cut cognitive, factual content. Use of loose or opaque language is often a substitute for clear, testable thinking.

‘Meaning of life’ is semantically associated with finding a reasonable, somewhat objectively verifiable purpose in life which will bring a fairly lasting, resilient sense of fulfillment, validation, of your life being worthwhile. ‘Meaning of life’ is conceptually connected with self-validation, self-worth, and also with finding comfort and consolation. The question of ‘the meaning of life’ arises when your own life or contribution seems paltry given your talents and opportunities, you have made terrible mistakes, your own prospects for happiness seem rather hopeless, your present situation is not good, you have not accomplished anything like what you thought you would.

‘Meaning of life’ is semantically associated with finding a reason/justification for going on living even if your own prospects for fun, enjoyment, happiness, status, wealth, romance, health are not good. What sort of lasting inner fulfillment, satisfaction, contentment, peace of mind, together with making a contribution which others could reasonably judge as worthwhile, are still available to you even if you lack some of the common goods, benefits, and privileges? ‘Meaning of life’ as a psychological problem is not just academic, theoretical doubt that human achievement in general is significant in the cosmos. It is doubt that one’s own life has been or still is worthwhile.

If you are fairly happy, comfortable, enjoying life, healthy, with good prospects of continuing in this state the question of the meaning of life is not of great concern. You might admit that you are not contributing much to higher values and that the cosmos is indifferent to higher values but this does not disturb your equanimity. If you have money, health, status, and love it is fairly easy to laugh at life being ultimately rather pointless. Moreover, if you have money, health, status, and love it is easy to convince yourself you are making a good contribution (living a meaningful life) whether you are a civil servant, bank manager, sell cars or bottled water. It is easy to be the smug, amused, calm philosopher above material concerns when you have nearly a million dollars in assets and are in reasonable health. It is much easier to find happiness or meaning in life if you have money and good health.

‘Meaning of life’ is in part about how to be happy if you lack some of the common aids to happiness. But it is also about questioning the importance given to common aids to happiness. Sure, money and status – recognition, appreciation from others for one’s achievements, efforts, contribution – are important, but should these be the main goals in life or society? Is the main point in life to have ever-increasing economic growth, material standard of living, while ensuring that the poorest have the basics?

Examining the meaning of life even questions whether happiness itself – maximizing one’s own happiness and allowing others to do the same – is the sole intrinsic good, the only real worthwhile-making feature of life. Isn’t there more to a full, enriching, meaningful life than just the pursuit of happiness (let alone just the pursuit of wealth, fame, and pleasures)? Where do art, literature, philosophy, intellectual attainment, promotion of justice, kindness, and animal rights fit in? Is it better that everyone be satisfied consumers or that there be some dissatisfied Socrates?

Finding a meaning to life seems to have two components. On the one hand finding inner happiness, contentment. On the other a justifiable belief that you are making a significant contribution to higher values – that you are doing something worthwhile. The two are empirically, causally, psychologically connected. You are likely to have a lasting inner happiness if and only if you have a reasonably well-founded belief that you are making a significant contribution to higher values. If you find a lasting inner happiness you are likely to find life has sufficient meaning – your contribution is good enough.

Human beings have remarkable capacities for self-deception, rationalization, denial, delusion, obsession, fantasy, repression, suppression, idealizing, demonizing, etc. – protective, coping, psychological defence mechanisms. Thus, it is possible for an intelligent, well-informed person to be mistaken that she is making a significant contribution to higher values (or the best contribution she could make given her circumstances). Consider a woman who gives up a promising career as a musician and music teacher to a) watch tv soap operas; b) be a housewife; c) strive for a manicured lawn and spotless, neat household; d) play golf; d) run a marathon in under 3 hours; e) care for a severely brain damaged child; f) run a cat’s home; g) join a fundamentalist religious cult. Virginia Woolf and Sylvia Plath may have been mistaken in thinking that their lives were no longer worthwhile and that suicide was their best option.

People do make serious mistakes about what will make them happy. They may be mistaken about the source of their happiness/unhappiness. Perhaps you can even be mistaken about the extent to which you are happy/unhappy. There are layers of feelings, desires, thoughts, misgivings, doubts, hopes, regrets, anxieties, disappointments, conflicts, etc. and one can focus on the good or the bad.

Many assume that the meaning of life must consist in some overarching purpose we can ascribe to the cosmos, life, or human life in particular (apart from common biological drives and processes). This could be the conscious intent or desires of a creator God, or the inexorable development towards some higher goal of an underlying divine power, life force, or historical process. But if there is no overarching pre-ordained goal to human life it does not follow that life is meaningless, that objective meaning cannot be given to human life in general and your life in particular, that there are not some states or activities (available even to those who are relatively poor, in poor health, aging, or disadvantaged) which fairly objectively make life meaningful, worth living. To ask ‘Why are we here, what is life for?’ in the sense of what is the overarching, embedded purpose apart from biological drives is the fallacy of the false question like ‘Have you stopped beating your wife yet?’

It might be there is no ultimate purpose to the cosmos or the emergence of higher consciousness or higher values. This just happened. Perhaps, too, there is no inevitable cosmic progress or evolution towards full realization of goodness (or reabsorption into a godhead). Again, thirdly, it may be that pursuit of higher values does not lead eventually, after death or rebirths perhaps, to some kind of personal reward – heaven or more abstractly nirvana. Even without these religious props, though, it is possible objectively to find meaning in life which does not consist simply in having as much personal pleasure, fun, enjoyment, or even happiness as possible.

God is very much a human construct rooted in human psychology good and bad. There may be healthier, albeit more challenging, ways of finding meaning in life than through religion. The standard God is a Jekyll and Hyde creature. On the one hand benevolent, loving, merciful, forgiving – perhaps goodness and justice conceived as a transcendent, supernatural power independent of human activity. On the other an omnipotent, omniscient, creator law giver judge demanding absolute submission and obedience, who is vindictive, jealous, sexist, patriarchal, homophobic, anti-pleasure, anti- open critical thinking, petty, obsessed with rituals of behaviour, clothing, and diet. This second aspect of the traditional God reminds one of the worst kind of husband, father, schoolmaster, priest, or political leader – not a nice chap. Indeed the concept of God as absolute lawgiver is probably in large part a projection of primal ugly features of the male ego and id – a sexually insecure control freak wanting power over others, not tolerating disagreement. Men (and women) can regard this God monster/tyrant as great precisely because it is a fundamental part of their own natures (what they aspire to, or are familiar with). It is no psychological accident that psychopathic, megalomaniac dictators and religious leaders receive the same mass following and adulation as the traditional lawgiver God. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Khomeini, Kim Jong Il, Khadafy, Robert Mugabe, et al, not Jesus, are the incarnation of the traditional Godfather, the God of Abraham and Muhammad.

God devotees claim we cannot, with our puny minds, grasp the how and why of God (though they have no trouble themselves making all sorts of dogmatic pronouncements about what God wants!!) – ‘where did God come from?’ God just is eternally. But then why not suppose matter/energy just is eternally, or that it somehow popped out of nothingness? The appeal to a creator God supplies a familiar anthropomorphic model of creation and purpose but then arbitrarily forbids further inquiry. Likewise, the appeal to God as the ground of Being, or as Being in itself is a pseudo-explanation. God as Being does not explain why there is something rather than nothing, but rather affirms that things do exist and that there is a mysterious foundation, ‘support’, or sufficient reason for this but one can’t say what it is. When you want an explanation but can’t find one, just call it God (or Fate). Back this up with a powerful institution based on supposed divine revelation. Add that to question the purported divine revelation (blasphemy – blaming or slandering the Almighty) is to challenge the Divine Lawmaker and Goodness itself and hence must be severely punished.

God is not necessary philosophically, scientifically, morally, spiritually, or aesthetically. Rather God is a psychologically necessary prop for most human beings given traditional systems of education and upbringing. Religious claims (including those of quasi-religions such as Marxism, Jungianism, astrology, or Deconstruction) are questionable even when (or especially when) they hide behind supposed incorrigible insight or revelation. Similarly, it is a reasonable question whether religion in general is a force for good or rather evil. If I am not allowed to criticize religions why should the religious be allowed to criticize my atheism, humanism, or pantheism? If criticism of religion is forbidden why not ban criticism of someone’s artistic, literary, or political beliefs or tastes, or cultural practices? Is it healthy to suppress questioning or calm, reasoned criticism on the grounds that it offends or supposedly might lead to prejudice towards some allegedly disadvantaged group?

We can revere goodness without grounding it in the edicts of a supernatural Deity. We don’t need the sanction of Divine command or threat of Divine punishment to pursue goodness. Citing God’s commands to justify being moral is basically an appeal to force (and personal reward) rather than to the inherent nature of good for its own sake. Even if there is no God (at a minimum a quasi-eternal force of goodness existing independently of human activities – see my blog posting Minimalist God ) goodness still exists or can be cultivated, e.g. equality of opportunity; equitable distribution of wealth; open critical thinking, reduction of suffering; right of women to higher education and birth control; providing all with the basics; kindness; courtesy; empathy; personal responsibility. With or without belief in God there will always be room for disagreement about what policies or practices are good and just, and what goodness and justice consist in.

It is probably psychologically more challenging to find meaning in life without the solace of traditional religious belief. If there is no personal afterlife or rebirth there is diminished capacity for making amends for one’s own grievous errors, making it up to someone you hurt. At some point, too, there is little chance for further personal happiness. No more chances – this is it mate. For instance, when you are 60 years old you realize you love someone deeply (someone you mistreated and did not appreciate), that she/he is a wonderful person just right for you. Before you can tell her and enrich her life and yours she is killed or dies prematurely. You will never meet again. You will likely never have another soul mate. Again, if there is no arbiter God or karmic law then there is no guaranteed tangible personal reward for your efforts towards goodness - all the suffering, deprivation, and striving you may go through. The possibility of simply greater inner peace may seem insufficient reward. Also, without an arbiter God or karmic law, it is harder to bear the unfairness of life – sometimes good things happen to bad people and vice versa. Even in a just society some people will have a better chance at happiness than others – some have better genes and parenting than others.

There are several different paths by which people commonly seek meaning in life (consciously or unconsciously). Many seek meaning through individual personal achievement and distinction. This could be artistic, intellectual, athletic, physical feats, career, business, profession, or in politics. Others are oriented more towards the goal of personal pleasure or happiness as supplying the meaning of life – romantic love, material standard of living, financial security, sex, thrills, eventual reward in paradise. Third, some find meaning in the pursuit of virtue, community service, good works, being a good person for its own sake. Fourth, some people find meaning in life largely through supposed spiritual development – cultivating compassion, letting go of anger, resentment, material desires, the ego, being more aware of the putative transcendent, deep, consoling mystical states, qualities, and apprehensions which allegedly go beyond ordinary, utilitarian, logical language. Fifthly, people can find meaning in life by pursuing knowledge, greater understanding or clarification largely for its own sake (or artistic creativity for its own sake). Sixthly, some people in effect get their meaning in life largely by merging with or identifying themselves with some cause or group. This could be a religion, ideology, ethnic group, sports team, pop star, or literary celebrity. Submitting oneself unquestioningly to the supposed will of God might be included in this sixth path.

There is a seventh route to meaning in life which is unduly neglected. This is the path of emotional development – being more aware of one’s own feelings and emotional processes including triggers, investments, and those of others. Being more able to admit one’s own biases, privileges, and flaws. Being curious about one’s own emotional processes, and those of others. Exploring, imagining, what it would be like to be of a different gender, sexual preference, ethnicity, religion, class, philosophical or political outlook, have different aesthetic preferences.

This elucidation, analysis, and exploration of the meaning of life has several implications. One: it may be a mistake to look for some one all-encompassing meaning or comfort in life whether through Jesus, Allah, Virgin Mary, Jung, Marx, or Dalai Lama. Two: it may be a mistake to look for some fairly straightforward foolproof recipe for finding meaning (or happiness) in life which fits people of all temperaments, abilities, and interests.

Nonetheless one can point to some general aids to finding meaning (and happiness). First, pay attention to basic biological and psychological needs. Second, allow time for fun, enjoyment, and relaxation. Third, develop the whole person – intellectual, athletic, artistic, emotional, social, spiritual, and moral. Fourth, stop thinking mainly or solely of your own well-being, welfare, just treatment, or interest (wealth, health, security, opportunities, rights) or that of your family, tribe, or ethnic group. Have regard for the well-being and happiness of those outside your group. Fifth, switch your energy and focus to simple goods which are available even if you don’t have money, good health, or romantic partner e.g. kindness, friendship, beauty, literature, art, music. Sixth, remember there are others who have gone through similar suffering who would be sympathetic to you. Seventh, remind yourself there will always be some unfairness and mistakes in life – others have suffered far greater misfortune and injustice, and made worse mistakes than I. Eighth, let go of having to be right. Instead focus on developing tentative views which are plausible and reasonable

The meaning of life is that there is no definite, demonstrable, certain meaning to life. You have to make it up, work something out for yourself, as you go along. Some ways of finding meaning harm others or yourself. You can be mistaken about what is worthwhile even for yourself. Learn to live with doubt, uncertainty, disagreement, mistakes, disappointment, rejection, sexual frustration, loneliness, unfairness. Develop flexible mechanisms for coping with life’s inevitable setbacks. Life is messy and frustrating. Accept your weaknesses and strengths.

You are just one amongst billions of humans, and one amongst billions upon billions of sentient beings. Yes you are unique but so is every snowflake, blade of grass, leaf, or bacterium. You are part of the flow of life and so are those you dislike or who dislike you. You (and those you dislike) are more wonderful and intricate than a butterfly or sparrow. You have a capacity for nobility lacking in an eagle, lion, or killer whale. The nobility you attain depends on you. If you are lucky you will have a lover and best friend who challenges, encourages, and treasures you. If you are unlucky you can be an unsung, unknown treasure. There will always be some conflict and flaws. Heaven is when you realize there is no heaven.

Dr. Velociraptor Personal

One man’s attempt to package his personality, hopes, values, and outlook in less than 1000 words.

Seeking : Friendship with some degree of mutual physical attraction (‘yes I would like to kiss this person’) with slim woman 5 ft. + , any race/nationality, non-smoker, age 52 – 60 (older women usually find my vigour and drive a bit daunting), who enjoys cycling and shares some of my interests. Would appreciate, but not counting on, romantic, soul mate, monogamous, lifelong partnership.

Myself : 5’ 9’’, 152 lbs, brown eyes, grey hair, glasses just for reading, clean shaven, Caucasian, grew up in UK, turn 68 in 2011. Very athletic – racing cyclist, intellectual (former university philosophy teacher), guitarist/singer, writer. Practise meditation, Tai Chi. Don’t have a tv. Don’t take a newspaper or magazine. Rarely drink. Don’t eat much meat. Simple, modest lifestyle. Low income, not wealthy by N. American standards. Don’t buy lottery tickets or gamble. No debts. Able to travel.
Not a gardener or pet lover. Home Victoria BC. Lived on the prairies for 8 years – Calgary, Red Deer, Regina.

2 adult sons. One university math teacher Eastern U.S. Other pharmaceutical research Switzerland. One grandchild – 1year old girl.

Founded unique cycling and philosophy group : Velociraptors Cycling Association.
Have cycling and philosophy blog : Dr. Velociraptor.
Ran a philosophy discussion/reading group in Victoria, BC : Diotima.

Good genes : dad lived to 92. Mum to 86. Both active and independent until last few days.

Photos available soon. Not got a camera yet. Computer skills limited.

Qualities I admire : Ability to laugh at oneself; explore different viewpoints; admit own privileges and good fortune; admit own flaws and less noble desires; admit own biases and emotional investment; kindness; courtesy; question and elucidate underlying presuppositions; clarify nebulous core concepts; look at evidence for and against.

Support for equal opportunity; right of women everywhere to higher education and birth control; acceptance of some personal responsibility – not just blaming government, society, big business, politicians, the rich; support for freedom to criticise views of left or right, ruling ideologies; acceptance of disagreement, conflict, compromise, (stress, rejection, loss, etc.) as part of life.

Revered writers : Shakespeare, Keats, some of Wordsworth, Blake, D.H. Lawrence despite his being over the top. Favourite religious quotation: Matthew 7.3.

Dislikes : Self-opinionated, overbearing people - presumption of being morally superior (holier than thou attitude) or more enlightened; bullying; cruelty; snobbery; pretentious woolly language; wanting ever more financial security; knee-jerk ‘motherhood’ sentimentalism; desire to amass wealth for one’s grandchildren; tribalism; cult of celebrity/personality; dogmatism – clichés of right or left; assumption that bottled water is superior to municipal tap water; concern with style, image, being cool/fashionable – glamourisation of people on tv and in movies; glib 30 seconds packaging in media; overuse of intercontinental travel and tourism; overuse of motor homes, motor boats, snowmobiles, car cult; presumption that religion is good; presumption of having religious truth; romanticizing/idealizing ethnic, aboriginal, non-Western cultures; disparate treatment of marijuana, etc. compared with alcohol and tobacco.

Outlook : Sceptic, open critical thinker with an interest in the notion of the transcendent – supposed non-logical mode of apprehension, thinking , or justification.

Not an adherent of any religion or quasi-religion including : monotheisms, Marx, Jung, political correctness, postmodernism, or astrology.

Somewhat sympathetic to philosophical Taoism and Buddhism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, Spinoza, pantheism, and Platonism.

Critical of the notion of sacred, supposed infallible texts whether based on alleged divine revelation or proclaimed deep insight or intuition. ‘Why is your divine revelation or poetic insight superior to mine?’

Think all standard political parties avoid the main social/global problems, viz.: human overpopulation; ever-increasing material expectations; desire for high return on savings/investment; consumerism/materialism; false sense of entitlement and unrealistic expectations; unacknowledged greed of the average person – hypocrisy concerning one’s own greed, desire for status and control; not acknowledging roots of social/global problems in basic human psychology including one’s own; not shifting the tax burden to all those earning more than $50, 000 per year; belief in ever increasing economic growth; belief that jobs/services/production are good no matter what is being produced/bought and sold; restriction of free expression and association and women’s rights in much of the non-Western world.

Fun, Enjoyment : Nature walks, reading, outdoor swimming, road and off-road bike rides, exploring BC. Companionship of cycling and cycle racing fraternity (although they do tend to be loners and sometimes narrow-focused!). Some live theatre, occasional foreign language movie, intelligent comedy (e.g. Tom Stoppard, Michael Frayn, David Lodge, Augusten Burroughs). Occasional Beethoven, Mahler, opera, ballet. CBC radio – some Tonic, Tempo, Q, The Current, Quirks and Quarks, Day 6, White Coat Black Art, The Persuaders, Sparks. Occasional restaurant with a great view.

Important Qualities in Relationship : Mutual comfort, sympathy, encouragement, appreciation, support, respect, tenderness. Sharing fears, hopes, dreams, disappointments, personal histories. Sharing cooking, shopping, domestic chores.

Willingness to compromise. Doing something because my partner would appreciate it even if it’s not my first preference.

Never forgetting the wonder of this other human being who has chosen to share her life with you. Being intimate lovers and best friends.

Expectations : Don’t expect a rush to my door. Not out to win a popularity contest. Hope to appeal to a discerning, talented few who are outside the norm.

Even if you are alone there is always beauty, goodness, love within you and around you to help you be calm and find enjoyment amidst life’s inevitable setbacks.

Ground Zero Islamic Centre?

On a pragmatic note: who gave planning approval for the project? Surely New York City administrators could see this project was ill-advised politically even if morally justifiable.

Liberals and the politically correct stridently drive a wedge between Islam and terrorists who usurp and pervert Islam. But is a sharp distinction between mainstream Islam and fundamentalist, militant Islam fully justified? Some imams in the West have condemned terrorism and suicide bombings as unIslamic. However, worldwide there are clearly millions who see themselves as devout Muslims yet are sympathetic to, and supportive of militant Islam - violence in the name and cause of Islam. If the terrorists did not have widespread support from coreligionists how could they be so formidable? Has there yet emerged/evolved a mainstream Islamic denomination which officially and categorically renounces and denounces violence in the cause of Islam. What are ‘Al Qaeda’ and ‘Taliban’ but names for those Muslims who endorse or commit violence in order to, as they see it, promote the cause of Islam and hence the will of God? Have these Muslims been branded as heretics and excommunicated from mainstream Islam? Christian and Buddhist pacifism are well-known but is there yet an Islamic movement of ahimsa or non-violence?

We have to cut through the rhetoric and emotional bias and investment (on both sides) and acknowledge differences between cultures, societies, values, ideologies, and religions. Difference and disagreement, even at a deep level, need not be bad or frightening. We have to look at actual practice as well as what people preach.

Religion is still a sacred cow (!) even in the secular, democratic West. Someone who criticizes religion (or advocates serious upper limits on wealth, income, or inheritance, or parental power) is unlikely to be elected to political or public office. Religion is widely seen as the foundation for morality, and the gateway to an underlying spiritual reality. Religions are wealthy, powerful institutions offering group solidarity and a feeling of superiority to those who are not members of one’s own religion.

It is easy to assert that Islam (Catholicism, Baptism, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Jungianism, aboriginal culture, etc.) preaches love, tolerance, peace, respect, spirituality, a sense of connexion with one’s fellow humans and nature, and so on. Such motherhood, apple pie slogans sound lovely though gaseous – they give a warm, comforting glow. But what does the factual content of such claims amount to? How do they translate into specific positions on fundamental social issues such as the following?
Abortion, contraception, right of women to education, to hold political, religious, judicial, or administrative office, to wear rational dress, move freely and independently in public;
Separation of Church and State, laws based on open debate not on religious authority, the right to run for office as an alternative party – freedom of political affiliation;
Freedom of expression – including freedom to criticize religion or ideology or the ruling party, freedom to give offence to some (even members of a so-called disadvantaged group);
Punishment of criminals, the death penalty, conscientious objectors, gun control;
Assisted euthanasia, legalization with regulation of recreational drugs, censorship; Prostitution, animal rights, apostasy or conversion to a non-established religion.

It is fatuous, deceitful, and hypocritical to ignore that, at present, mainstream Islam (and conservative Catholicism, Hinduism, Judaism, and Baptism) is opposed to many values which are basic to the vision of liberal, democratic society – values which may be elicited by considering liberal positions on the aforementioned social issues, and are articulated by people like John Stuart Mill, Bertrand Russell, etc. Equally, it is ludicrous to maintain that Islam and Christianity (or Judaism) assert essentially the same Word of God (doctrines) except that for the former this Truth was channeled through Muhammad and for the latter through Jesus, and that both are essentially benign and simply preach love, brotherhood of man, social justice, peace, forgiveness, avoidance of greed, materialism, and selfishness, etc. If this were the case, why so much friction and bloodshed between the religions and various denominations over the centuries and which continue still? It’s no use trying to pass off the violence and hate as simply due to politics since without religious backing the political disagreements would not get such a ferocious grip. (Can one separate political from religious differences and disagreements anyway?)

It is not clear for instance that Islam agrees with some basic Christian moral doctrines. This is not to say that the Christian doctrines are superior (Nietzsche would say that they are inferior.) For example, is there anything in the Qur’an equivalent to the New Testament teachings of turning the other cheek, loving your enemy, doing good to him who hurts you, forgiving 70 times 7, not stoning the woman taken in adultery. Not for nothing do some Muslim scholars call Christianity the Buddhism of the West. Whereas there is a well-established Pacifist Christian movement and pacifism seems to be at the core of Buddhism ‘Pacifist Muslim’ may be as yet something of an oxymoron. Again, note I am not saying that pacifism is correct or superior.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Executive compensation and motivation

1. Two sub-claims. Some people claim the very high compensation given executives of large corporations is a necessary evil. Evil because there is something inherently unjust, grotesque, perverse, harmful about giving luxury purchasing power far beyond what anyone needs for a wonderful, fulfilled life to a few while hundreds of millions are not allowed enough for clean water, food, basic medical care, hygiene, and education. Necessary because without a system in which top executives receive astronomical salaries and bonuses : a) Productivity and hence average standard of living will be lower b) Basic freedoms will be curtailed. Vast inequities in wealth are the price you have to pay for a free society; better poverty and starvation than red. In this feuilleton I just look at sub-claim a).

2. The assumption behind a) is that extremely high compensation is a necessary condition of attracting capable people to top executive positions in large corporations. The golden carrot hypothesis. There has to be exceptionally high remuneration otherwise talented people won't take on the training for, and responsibility and hard work of, executive positions. As with many underlying assumptions behind views or positions in which people are emotionally invested as soon as you try to state the hypothesis clearly its absurdity becomes apparent. Does anyone seriously believe that most top university graduates would rather clean toilets, work on an assembly line, drive a cab, be a shop assistant, on welfare than help run a hospital, airline, automobile factory, bank, crown corporation, government ministry, or university? Can it be maintained that running a large corporation well requires esoteric expertise as difficult to acquire as brain surgery, being a concert pianist, and flying a jumbo jet combined? As Peter Cook implied in a 'Beyond the Fringe' satire : which would you rather - be a judge or work in a coal mine?

3. Sub-claim a) only seems to make sense because of a confusion between two different points about human motivation and money. The first point is that high material rewards are a powerful motivator. The second but different point is that once people get used to a high reward they may require an even higher one to remain motivated. Thus, a person receiving high compensation may be inclined to move for an even higher reward if he/she can get it. In other words, many human beings have an almost insatiable capacity for greed (or power, status, sex).
This second point about motivation and money, though, does not entail the need for extremely high compensation for top executives or anyone else (sports or entertainment stars, concert violinists, politicians, judges, doctors, lawyers, etc.) This is because there is an almost endless supply of talented capable people who are very motivated by high though not astronomical remuneration. $200,000 a year, say, may not seem that high when you have been making it for a few years. So what?! There is a wealth (sic) of people with exceptional ability and expertise to whom that $200,000 represents a fantastic inducement. If a Canadian administrator/executive/entrepreneur can double his $200,000 a year by moving to the USA, let him(her) go, and good riddance. There are lots of others not noticeably in any way inferior in qualifications, ability, expertise, enterprise, initiative, humanity, people skills, sensitivity, understanding who will gladly take his(her) place.

4. The argument for extremely high executive compensation may still seem to retain some strength because of a further confusion between being de facto top of an organisation and being the best in or for that organisation. These two are quite different. There are many documented instances of people in top positions in organisations - corporations, government, universities, banks, the military - being inefficient, incompetent, unbalanced, lackling in people skills, emotional awareness, etc. (being selfish, greedy, corrupt, tyrannical, psychopathic is another matter). Incompetent or mediocre people can get to the top because of nepotism, favoritism, religion, getting in when times were easier, being a sycophant, backstabber, etc.

5. Here those arguing in favour of, or the need for, very high executive compensation may fall back on the survival of the fittest argument. Those at the very top of an organisation must, it is said, be the best (and deserving of all they can get) because they rose to the top in open competition. The flaw in this argument is that the notion of capitalist free market open competition is a myth. The point of having power in society is to prevent open competition, to exclude others who may be smarter, more talented, shrewd, far-sighted, incisive, with deeper understanding than you from doing your job better and for less money. People who have power - the executive class, lawyers, economist/technocrats, professional associations, trade unions - continually erect artificial barriers to prevent others competing with them and bringing down their income. People fight to protect their own privileges and give their friends and family members an unfair advantage.

6. 'The bigger the reward the more the incentive.' This sounds plausible only if you think of one individual and a limitless supply of reward. But we are dealing with providing incentives/inducement/motivation for thousands of people at a time to help bring about a more prosperous, efficient, beneficent organisation (and the total reward on offer is necessarily limited). Another weakness, then, in the golden carrot hypothesis favouring colossal remuneration for executives is that it assumes a winner takes all reward provides better incentive overall than spreading the rewards around. This is highly dubious. Most talented people know it is highly unlikely they will be in the top few no matter how hard they work (you need luck, etc.) They would be more motivated by providing instead of a handful of astronomical rewards a much greater number of moderately high rewards for being in the top 10%.

7. A related weakness in the golden carrot hypothesis is the equally implausible view that the prosperity, efficiency, well-being of an organisation (corporation, society) depends wholly or mainly on having a few brilliant (perhaps ruthless) people in the top few positions.

8. In summary : even if you assume financial greed is the greatest motivator for human beings the argument for extremely high executive compensation fails. Of course the existence of great artists, writers, composers, scientists, thinkers, moral teachers, etc. shows that it is false that financial greed is the only strong human motivator.

9. Psychological basis for unreasonable beliefs. As with most social, philosophical, political, religious, moral, or aesthetic positions the basis for the view that huge executive compensation is somehow warranted, necessary, or unavoidable is emotional not rational. You can't make someone give up an unreasonable position just by appealing to logic and evidence. Perhaps those who support or condone astronomical compensation for executives of large corporations (and are not themselves executives or super rich!) do not like to admit that they are being ripped off by, are dupes of, the executive class. Many still cling to the fantasy that everyone (all 6 billion of us!) can be a millionaire. As though the planet could sustain everyone living at the level of the top 10 0r 20% of Canadians. Maybe many fear that if the compensation for top executives is limited they may be next. Someone might point out that their compensation or wealth too is unfairly and unnecessarily high (especially by world standards).