A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Archives for September 2020

Trump & the Proud Boys

by 10 Comments

Trump is routinely accused of tolerating and even supporting white supremacy. This is because he routinely tolerates and supports white supremacy. When Trump does this, his supporters have a mixed response. Some engaged in a rolling defense. The first line of defense is to deny Trump said the words he said. Since there is usually video or audio of his words, this defense tends to fall quickly. The second line of defense is to insist that Trump’s words were taken out of context. This line usually falls when Trumps words are given in full context. The third line of defense is for the supporters to insist they do not understand how language works and assert that the words Trump used did not mean what they mean. It is fascinating to watch people suddenly become philosophers of language engaged in a deconstruction of meaning that would arouse the most lethargic postmodernist.  This line is usually overrun but almost never abandoned: because Trump has yet to say the exact words “I support white supremacy” they can always insist that his words mean something other than what they mean. There is also often a side defense that involves accusing Trump’s opponents of being the real racists. This can be a risky technique since it implies that it is bad to be a racist; but it can be understood that the point of the defense is to attack the opponents and not condemn racism.  The final line of defense is that while Trump said what he said and it means what it means, he was just joking or trying to bait the libs or fake news. This can be a risky defense, since it undermines all the other defensive lines—although it is a thing of beauty to see a person run all these defenses at once and insist that all of them are true and work perfectly to defend Trump. Some of his supporters do not bother with these defenses—they are openly fine with Trump saying these

When Trump is directly asked to condemn white supremacists, he has various defenses to avoid doing this. One is to assert that he his prepared to do so. Another is to require that the person asking him the question provide a specific group for him to condemn, as if condemning white supremacy in general is not an option. The third is to blame the left, typically antifa, and accuse them of being the real racists. This should be a gift question—the easy and obvious answer is to just say “yes, I condemn white supremacy.” As an aside, it is interesting that he just doesn’t use his usual tactic and lie—he could simply say he condemns white supremacy and then blow the dog whistle a few times on Twitter to reassure certain supporters that he does not condemn it.

At the recent Presidential debate, the moderator directly asked Trump if he would condemn white supremacists and militia groups. To address the first two lines of defense, here is the full exchange in context:

WALLACE: You have repeatedly criticized the vice president for not specifically calling out antifa and other left-wing extremist groups. But are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we’ve seen in Portland? Are you prepared to specifically do that?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I would say almost everything I see is from the left wing, not from the right wing.

CHRIS WALLACE: So what are you…

TRUMP: If you look…

WALLACE: What are you saying…

TRUMP: I’m willing to do anything – I want to see peace.

WALLACE: Well, then do it, sir.

JOE BIDEN: Say it. Do it. Say it.

TRUMP: Do you want to call them – what do you want to call them? Give me a name. Give me a name. Go ahead…

WALLACE: White supremacists and right-wing militia.

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: Who would you like me to condemn?

BIDEN: The Proud Boys.

TRUMP: Who?

BIDEN: The Proud Boys.

TRUMP: The Proud Boys, stand back, and stand by. But I’ll tell you what. I’ll tell you what – somebody’s got to do something about antifa and the left because this is not a right-wing problem.

 

As the text shows, Trump followed his usually tactics when directly questioned—at least until Biden brought up the Proud Boys (a far right neo-fascist organization that promotes violence) and Trump responded. He tells them to “stand back and stand by” and then seems to imply that they are the somebody that must do something about Antifia and the left. As always, he blames the left for the violence, pretending to ignore the fact that right-wing groups present the greatest domestic terrorist threat in the United States.

Trump’s defenders could argue that Trump misspoke when he said, “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by.” That is, he was not telling them to stand back for now and stand by to, one might infer, go attack Antifa and the left. Rather, he meant to say “Proud Boys stand down” as Wallace requested. Trump’s difficulty with language is well known—so he could be defended on these grounds. There are, however, two problems with this defense. The first is that when Trump has a language failure, he attempts to quickly fix it in an awkward and obvious manner and he never did this during the debate. The second is that the Proud Boys seem to understand exactly what he meant.

After observing the results of the debate, Trump has now asserted that he did mean to say “stand down” and has engaged in another one of his tactics: he claims to have no idea who the Proud Boys are. While it is certainly plausible for Trump to claim ignorance, it is still a bizarre defense for the President. Or anyone with 3o seconds and access to Wikipedia. When pressed again about white supremacists, Trump resorted to his usual approach, talking about law and order, and pointedly refusing to condemn white supremacists. I cannot tell whether his supporters are victims or accomplices of Trump in this matter.

While some of his supporters are clearly accomplices to Trump, I am not sure if any of them are victims—that is, they honestly believe Trump and sincerely believe that he does not tolerate and support white supremacists. Put roughly, I’m divided between seeing them as epistemically or morally defective.

In closing, what Trump says does not really matter in terms of the election. His supporters either do not know what he is or are fine with it and there seems to be nothing that would cause them to not vote for him. His opponents are also committed. There are, somehow, some undecided voters—but I have no idea what would push them one way or another at this point. What could they be waiting to learn about Trump or Biden?

Note: The blog has been edited slightly from the original to make it clearer that Biden brought up the Proud Boys and then Trump responded. Since Trump did not bring up the Proud Boys it cannot be claimed that he knew about them because he brought them up. Given Trump’s general ignorance it is not implausible that he has as much knowledge of the Proud Boys as he does about other political entities.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Winning an Argument

by Leave a Comment

Since I teach philosophy, I am sometimes asked about how to win an argument. Being a philosopher, I always engage in a philosophical discussion rather than providing tips on how to destroy with “facts” and “logic.”

In philosophy, an argument is a set of claims. There are two types of claims in an argument: one conclusion and one or more premises.  The conclusion is the claim that is supposed to be supported by the premises. A premise is a claim given as evidence or a reason for accepting the conclusion.  As such, to make an argument requires making a point (conclusion) and backing it up with evidence or reasons (premises).

When assessing an argument there are two main factors to consider: the quality of the premises and the quality of the reasoning. When assessing the quality of reasoning, the question is: Do the premises logically support the conclusion? If the premises do not logically support the conclusion, then the argument is flawed, and the conclusion should not be accepted based on the premises provided. The conclusion may be true, but a flawed argument gives you no logical reason to believe the conclusion because of that argument. If the premises do logically support the conclusion, then you would have a good reason to accept the conclusion, on the assumption that the premises are true or at least plausible.

When assessing the quality of the premises, the question to ask is: are the premises true (or at least plausible)?  While the testing of premises can be a rather extensive matter, it is reasonable to accept a premise as plausible if it meets three conditions. First, the premise is consistent with your own observations. Second, the premise is consistent with your background beliefs and experience. Third, the premise is consistent with credible sources, such as experts, standard references, and textbooks.

In terms of winning, the constructing of a philosophical argument in isolation is like playing solitaire—winning is not beating someone else. A solitaire win would be constructing a good argument with plausible premises. But this is certainly not the sort of winning that people are interested in—what they want is the victory conditions for an argument against another person or persons.

In the case of arguing philosophically, the contest would be settled in favor of the best argument(s).  As such, winning is a matter of having better logic and more plausible premises than the opposition. In the ideal, the result would be to find something (likely to be) true. Such contests must also be conducted in good faith and in accord with the philosophical principle of charity. This does not mean that the two sides cannot be engaged in an intense dispute in which claims and logic are called into question. To use an analogy, competing in such an argument is analogous to competing in good faith in a fair athletic event: one abides by the agreed upon rules and does not cheat. And of course, victory goes to the one who earns it by making the better arguments. Obviously enough, this is not the sort of winning that people tend to have in mind when they think of winning an argument.  What people tend to think of is something Ben Shapiro is YouTube (in)famous for: his guide to winning arguments against leftists. The underlying view of winning is not unique to Ben Shapiro and one can easily trace this notion back to the Sophists of ancient Greece—and no doubt even further into the shadows of time.

In this context you win if the audience believes you and rejects your opponent—whether what you are claiming is true or not. While philosophical arguments can be used to persuade people, they tend (as Aristotle noted) to be the weakest means of persuasion. As such, if you want to win an argument, then good logic is probably your worst choice of tools. Fallacies (errors in reasoning) are far more effective than good arguments as tools of persuasion. Rhetorical devices, which rely on emotive force, are also effective at persuading people and thus are better weapons of victory than good arguments. While a fallacy can have a true conclusion and rhetoric can be used to dress up the truth, these tools do not reliably lead to the truth. Used well, however, they can reliably persuade.

Philosophers are often critical of this concept of winning for reasons like why honest athletes are critical of cheating. To use an analogy, consider winning a marathon. One way to win the marathon is to train hard, complete the competition fairly, and earn the first-place finish. But there are other ways to win the first-place prize. One option is to compete unfairly by using pharmaceuticals or blood doping. Another option is to secretly cut the course. One could even bribe officials. There are many ways to “win” and get the prize without competing in good faith. An argument can be “won” using fallacies, rhetoric and lies—that is, one can be crowned the winner in the same way as the marathon cheat gets their laurels.

It could be countered that in argumentation what really matters is winning. So if a politician or YouTuber can expand their base and profit by persuading people to accept their views through fallacies, rhetoric and lies then they have beaten their opponents—even (or especially) if their opponents are making true claims. The obvious counter is to draw the analogy to sports: winning matters but winning must be earned through an honest path to victory. Otherwise one is stealing the laurels. Having the trophy does not make one the best. “Winning” does not make one right.

 

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Are Some Philosophical Ideas Too Harmful to Propose?

by 3 Comments

The question of whether some philosophical ideas are too harmful to even be proposed was raised in a philosophy teaching group on Facebook. This essay is the result of that question, though this could easily be the subject of an entire book. As such, this is more of a quick ramble of thoughts about the matter than a complete theory of harmful ideas.

When addressing this question, a good starting place is sorting out the matter of harm: determining who would be harmed and the nature of the harm. From the perspective of those (who see themselves as) harmed, the answer is likely to be “yes.” But this leads to the matter of whether this (perceived) harm objectively warrants not proposing an idea—if such objectivity is possible.

The easy and obvious way to approach this morally is to use utilitarianism: if proposing a philosophical idea would generate more harm (negative value) than benefit (positive value) for the morally relevant beings, then it would be too harmful to propose. Ideas would need to be assessed on a case by case basis using a plausible account of value, a plausible system of weighing these values, and a plausible account of who is morally relevant. As would be expected, different people can rationally and reasonably come up with vastly different assessments—not to mention all the irrational and unreasonable assessments about dangerous ideas. The obvious counters to this utilitarian approach would be arguments in favor of other moral systems, such as a deontological theory of ethics.

The discussion of harmful ideas would also require setting some guidelines about the sort of ideas and harms that should be given serious consideration. For example, it is easy to make up a horror story case of a philosophical idea such that understanding the idea would lead to madness, catatonia or even death. Fortunately, these fictional cases are easy to address: these ideas would obviously be too harmful to propose. The moral justification would be analogous to arguments one might use to show that handing out poisoned food to people would be wrong. While such ideas might be possible, this seems to be an utterly theoretical concern: fun for horror stories but as worrisome as the possibility of being mauled by werewolves. That said,  there is the science-fiction case of Roko’s basilisk that some might use as an example of an idea that is too harmful to propose. But these seems to be no evidence for any meaningful harmed caused by this idea. As such, it would seem wise to focus on ideas that could cause actual harm.

Real philosophical ideas do cause harm. Obvious examples range from ideas that create mild discomfort in students to philosophical ideas that have been used to justify brutally oppressive governments. These ideas are already out in the wild but can be used as the starting point for discussions about general categories of new ideas. We should, of course, not make public an example of an idea we suspect might be too harmful to propose—at least if we have a working conscience.

One general category of ideas would be those that would cause psychological distress in those that hear them, perhaps because these ideas are about those people. To use a real example, a philosophical idea that gender is set by Platonic universals and is thus an objective feature of reality could cause some dismay and distress to some people—especially people for whom a choice of gender is critically important. To use another real example, the philosophical ideas used to argue for atheism (such as the problem of evil) can be very distressing to people of faith. This sort of matter would fall under existing concerns about ideas that cause similar distress—especially in the classroom. That is, these new ideas could be assessed in the context of how we already handle existing ideas.

Another general category of ideas would be those that could cause social, economic, or political harm if they were proposed and acted upon. As a real example, the philosophical underpinnings of fascism and racism (such as they are) have a role in the terrible harms done by these views. As another real example, those who possess great wealth and power would contend they have been harmed by the philosophical ideas underlying socialism, social justice, anarchism, and other views inimical to such concentrated wealth and power.

These ideas should be assessed in a manner to how one would assess a new technology: what harms could it generate directly and what are likely scenarios in which in can be misused? While people often overestimate and underestimate the harms and benefits, engaging in an assessment is still preferable to simply letting it loose in the wild and hoping for the best. We would also need to keep in mind the obvious: what is harmful to some can be beneficial to others. To illustrate with a sci-fi example, if a philosopher has an idea that would effectively undermine capitalism and create a Star Trek style world, then this would be perceived as extremely harmful to the ruling classes and their supporters, yet would seem to be objectively beneficial to humanity as a whole. The rulers would, one assumes, see this idea as too harmful to propose.

In closing, there can be ideas too harmful to propose—but we lack a well-developed account of such ideas. This would make an excellent subject for a book.

 

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Florida’s Proposed War on Protest

by Leave a Comment

While the protests in Florida have generally been peaceful, Governor DeSantis is making proposals that are clearly aimed at intimidating protestors and allowing the legal suppression of constitutional rights. One key part of the proposal is that crimes most commonly committed by protestors be increased from misdemeanors to felonies. These include obstructing traffic during an unpermitted protest and participating in a protest that involved property damage or “harassment.” Felony convictions are not only far more serious but can also impose life-long penalties on citizens. There are also specific proposals that seem to run counter to basic rights and proportionality in sentencing: throwing an object at a police officer would result in a minimum six months in jail, people arrested at a protest would be denied bail and would effectively be presumed guilty until they could prove they were not a danger. There are two proposals that are even more worrisome.

One is a proposal that a motorist  would be indemnified if they caused “death to a person who obstructs or interferes with the regular flow of vehicular traffic.” The fact that drivers  hit protesters 66 times between May 27 and July 9 2020 and at least 19 may have been malicious. There have been cases in which drivers have hit and killed protestors and have been charged with homicide. This law would not, of course, apply to sports fans or other folks obstructing or interfering with the regular flow of vehicle traffic—it specifically singles out protestors. A such, it seems clear this is designed to intimate protestors by effectively legalizing violence against them.

Another proposal is that racketeering laws could be used against protestors. One concern is that this would allow the state of Florida to charge everyone involved with a protest for being part of a criminal conspiracy. With this in place as a law, a few people who acted violently could suddenly transform peaceful protestors around them into criminals. This law would also provide a clear and seductive incentive for people to infiltrate a protest to engage in violence or destruction of property, thus providing an excuse to arrest peaceful protestors. As would be expected, there is no comparable proposals to, for example, charge sports fans with a criminal conspiracy if some of their number started acting violently or destructively. They would, as would be just and correct, be dealt with as individual law breakers. This proposal is clearly designed to intimidate protestors and allow unjust mass arrests.

While the protestors and the left will obviously oppose these laws, folks to the right of center should also oppose them—at least if they are consistent. Conservatives speak often of the importance of Constitutional rights and zealously defend the Second Amendment. Consistency and love the Constitution should provide them with excellent reasons to oppose these proposals. Conservatives also rail against big government, excessive laws, and government overreach. These are paradigm cases of what they profess to hate. After all, existing laws suffice unless one’s goal is to intimidate people so they will not exercise their First Amendment rights and to unjustly punish those who bravely do so. To illustrate, if someone kills a person with their car in a way that is blameless, then they already face no charges. If an individual protestor engages in violence or destruction of property, they are already committing a crime. Conservatives should also consider that while the use of these laws against BLM and liberals might be delightful, laws are rather like weapons—they can easily be wielded by someone else in a manner you might not like. Imagine, if you will, that Biden wins in 2020 and that eventually the Democrats come to power here in Florida.  In that future, it is easy to imagine conservatives are out in the streets protesting the left—but the left would now have these oppressive laws to use against them. Good law making requires thinking from both ends of the law and considering future consequences.

There are also obvious moral concerns with these proposals. In the case of the vehicle proposal, this will encourage people to escalate what is already occurring—attacking protestors with cars. I do understand that protestors can be annoying as can anybody else who blocks the flow of traffic. I live near Florida State and have found that it is wisest to just stay home on football game days. But this hardly justified hitting a person with a car. Also, as noted above, if the collision with a pedestrian is a real accident, then that is already not a crime. It is also already not a crime to injure someone in legitimate self-defense.  This proposed law, at its core, exists to serve as a vehicular version of Florida’s stand your ground laws. That is, it legalizes hurting or killing people provided that the driver can convincingly claim that the victim was obstructing traffic or seen as a threat. This proposal would make it much easier for people to commit and get away with vehicular assault and murder—which seems to be the intention. From a moral standpoint state intimidation of its citizens and its effectively sanctioning violence is horrific—the exact opposite of what states are supposed to do, namely protect the lives and liberties of its citizens. I do suspect that some folks are not worried about this proposal because they think it only benefits the right—the left generally does not drive cars into right-wing protests. If they did, I wonder if this proposal would be made.

The racketeering proposal is also morally awful. It is aimed at intimidating citizens into not exercising their rights and provides a perfect tool for people hostile to the protest to get the state to arrest everyone associated with the protest. Presumably, DeSantis believes that the left is unlikely to use this tactic against conservative protests or he thinks it is worth the risk. There are, of course, the usual moral concerns about guilt by association. We do not, for example, think that all the football fans are accountable for the actions of the few who engage in violence—even if they are all fans of the same team. Only those engaging in the misdeeds are accountable. The same holds true for protestors—only those who engage in violence should be accountable for that violence.

These proposals are morally awful and, if enacted, will cause considerable harm to the liberties and lives of the citizens of Florida. That is, they will most likely work exactly as intended.

 

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

RBG’s Replacement

by Leave a Comment

After Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, Republicans claimed Obama did not have the right to appoint a replacement and this should be left to the next President.  The justified their view by asserting that because Scalia died in early February 2016 Obama had slightly less than one year left in office. Since the Republicans held the senate, they were able to refuse to hold hearings and President Trump filled the vacancy.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg died on 9/18/2020. President Trump immediately said he wanted the new judge sworn in “without delay” and Senator Mitch McConnel, who blocked Obama’s efforts to appoint a replacement for Scalia, said he would act on any nomination. The Democrats, in general, think that the replacement should be made by whoever wins the 2020 election. As would be expected, people are using the Republican arguments from 2016 against them. The Republicans are, obviously enough, not accepting their own arguments.

Their failure to accept the arguments now that they made then does not prove that their arguments were bad then or good now. To think that because they reject the arguments now, the arguments were not good when they were made would be fall into the inconsistency ad hominem. One version of this fallacy occurs when it is concluded that a person is wrong now because what they claim now is inconsistent with what they claimed before. While inconsistent claims cannot both be true (though they can both be false) showing inconsistency does not show which claim is false. So, the Republicans could have been wrong then and right now. Or vice versa. But they cannot be right then and wrong now—unless there is a relevant difference that would justify the difference.

The obvious “relevant” difference is that in 2016 delaying the nomination was advantageous to the Republicans while in 2020 it is advantageous to rush the nomination. While this provides a pragmatic difference, it is not a principled difference. While I have many obvious flaws, I do strive to be consistent in my principles and only change them when doing so is justified. For example, in my youth I went through an anarchist phase—but learning more political philosophy resulted in a principled shift in my views. So, what was my position in 2016?

My position was that the Constitution should be applied consistently, and I did the obvious thing: I looked at the Law as Written.

 

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

 

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

 

While I was an am not a constitutional scholar, I could and can read English well enough to see what the Constitution specifies about this matter. The president unambiguously has the power to nominate Judges of the Supreme Court. When Obama was the President, he had the constitutional right to make the nomination. Now that Trump is President, he has this power. But the opening is only there because the Republicans refused to even hold hearings on Obama’s nominee and this would indicate that they accept that the senate has the power to do just that. This view is based on what the text says about the role of the senate.

The text is clear that the appointment of the Judges of the Supreme Court requires the “advice and consent” of the Senate. Since the constitution does not actually specify the process, the Senate has created its own confirmation rules. In general, the approval process has been relatively rapid in the past—so there was no good argument based on there not  being enough time to conduct the process. There have been other appointments made in the last year of a President’s term before—so an appointment by Obama would have been consistent with past precedent.

But the Senate makes its rules and they have every right to do what they wish within the limits of the Constitution. This would certainly open the door to running out the clock on hearings or even refusing to hold them. However, the Republican refusal to hold a hearing was problematic. The text certainly indicates the Senate is to provide its advice and give or withhold its consent. The text does not specify and option for refusing to consider a nominee or blocking them endlessly. This, as some would argue, would seem to be simply refusing to do their job.

However, it could be claimed that the refusal to hold hearings for Obama’s nominee was withholding consent, and thus was within their power. Following the precedent set by the Republicans, the Democrats would be just as justified in delaying proceedings. After all, if the Senate has the right to block or delay nominations, then it has that right regardless of whether it is the Democrats or the Republicans engaged in obstruction.

My view then and now is that since the President has the right to nominate and the Senate has the role of advice and consent (or refusal of consent), the Senate is obligated to consider the nomination made by the president. Refusing to do so or running out the clock would be a failure of their specified duty.  As long as the president is president, they have the right to exercise the powers of their office and that includes nominating a supreme court justice. As such, Trump has the right to make his nomination and the senate is obligated to provide its advice and consent. That was my position in 2016 and it is my position now.

The obvious objection to my view is to point out that the Republicans blocked Obama in 2016 and thus set the standard for how nominations are to be conducted. As such, the same should apply in 2020: the nomination should belong to whoever is elected in 2020.

I believe that principles should be maintained even (or perhaps especially) when others act in unprincipled ways. Two wrongs, as they say, do not make a right. There is, however, an obvious problem here. Those who act in accord with principle and are consistent would seem to be at huge disadvantage relative to the unprincipled, especially when the unprincipled face no consequences for their actions.

To use a low-stakes example, think of someone who changes the rules of a game you play with them, so they always have an advantage. When you try to play by the changed rules, they change them back when it suits them. When you complain and try to get the other players to insist on consistency, they just give you a smug smile and say, “nothing you can do about it.” The only reason for them to play fair would be from ethics; but they do not seem to have those. The sensible thing to do would be to refuse to play with someone so unprincipled. Unfortunately, politics is a game one cannot choose not to play—at best, you can try to choose your role.

One could hope that in the long run principle will win out and the unprincipled will reap the consequences of their misdeeds. But this is not something to count on. One could play the game as the current Republicans play it (and some Democrats as well): abandon consistency and ethics in order to “win.” This makes “profit the measure of right” and would take us back into the state of nature—something that consistent laws is intended to avoid.

In closing, my principled view is that Trump has just as much right as Obama had for his nominee to have a proper hearing. But I am concerned that the Republicans might provide a compelling moral reason to shift my principles. If I were forced to play a game in which the other player cheats without consequence, then it might become right to change how I play the game. But I would want to win only to be able to make the game as consistent and ethical as possible.

 

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Rethink the Police

by 4 Comments

Image Credit

There has been a call to defund the police, which has triggered various responses. Some take issue with the choice of “defund” since it allows the folks on the right to create a plausible seeming straw person. A straw person is a fallacy in which a distorted or exaggerated version is put in place of the actual claim, argument, or position. The straw version is attacked, thus “refuting” the real version. This straw person is that everyone who calls for defunding the police is calling for the complete abolition of law enforcement. This is not true—while there is disagreement over the exact meaning of the term, the general view is that the police should have their funding reduced to fund chronically underfunded community services, such as mental health care. There are some who believe that this should eventually lead to abolishing the police as they now exist with the intention of addressing systematic problems in the current system of policing, such as excessive use of force, policing used as a means of revenue and other problems.

On the right the straw person often leads, as one would expect, to a slippery slope fallacy. This is a fallacy in which it is claimed that something (usually terrible) will inevitably follow from something else. The fallacy occurs when the connection between the two is not adequately supported. Slippery slope fallacies often involve hyperbole—extravagant exaggeration of the alleged consequences. In the case of defunding the police, the straw person slippery slope used by some on the right is that defunding the police will lead to utter chaos. This also involves the use of scare tactics—a fallacy in which the “support” offered for the claim is something intended to frighten the target. As would also be expected, there are often racist dog-whistles (or open racism) employed to craft these nightmare scenarios.

It could, of course, be argued that that there are radical anarchists who want to get rid of the state and there are people who do desire a world free of police so they can commit violence, assault and theft. It is certainly true that there are such people but to take them as defining what it means to defund the police would be like using the Westboro Baptist Church to define Christians or Neo-Nazis to define the Republican party. Consistency requires not using the most extreme members of the group to define the entire group—be they on the left or the right.  While there are many excellent moral arguments for defunding the police, I will focus on a very practical moral argument involving effective use of community resources.

For a variety of reasons, the United States has seen a marked militarization of the police. Police training has also shifted, with a very lucrative industry arising that trains police to be warriors. This would make sense if the United States had been experiencing a significant rise in violent crime and criminals were commonly up-arming to military grade weapons. However, violent crime has been consistently decreasing over time. While criminals sometimes use assault rifles and there have been a few cases of them using body armor, most crimes are not committed with guns and the most common guns used are handguns. I do recognize the value of weapon superiority but the militarization of the police vastly exceeds the threat to a degree that is almost ludicrous. Also, SWAT teams exist for a reason—to handle those rare cases in which they are needed.

One problem with the combination of militarization and warrior training is that it creates a bias towards the use of force. One aspect of defunding the police involve demilitarizing them—making them less threatening to the public and, some hope, reducing the bias towards violence. There is also the obvious image problem: militarized police marching the streets of America, violently attacking protestors makes us look like a repressive authoritarian state. Or, as some would day, makes us a repressive authoritarian state. Another problem with a militarized warrior police is that they are equipped and trained for violence but dealing with violent crime is but a fraction of their job.

While cities in the United States vary in the time officers spend on various activities, addressing violent crime takes up about 4% of a typical shift. Over 30% of an officer’s time is spent responding to noncriminal calls. The rest of the time is spent on traffic, other crimes, property crime and proactive activity. Between 6 and 9% are medical calls. Even it is incorrectly assumed that the violent crimes call for a militarized warrior response, that means that only 4% of police activity is responsible for the huge cost of militarizing the police and maintaining a warrior force. As various incidents involving people with mental health issues, autism, and other medical matters the warrior police are generally poorly equipped and trained to address these matters—even if they have the best intentions.

From a utilitarian standpoint, the right thing to do is to use the community resources in a way that produces the best results. From a practical standpoint, the right thing to do is to use the community resources in a way that matches the need and to use the most effective methods, equipment, and training to address community problems. Since violent crime makes up such a tiny fraction of police work, it makes moral and practical sense to shift funding and change the way policing works in the United States to make it both more ethical and more rational in terms of resource use.

While this might seem like a crazy socialist notion to some or a utopian dream, some American communities have implemented such changes. An excellent example is the CAHOOTS program in Eugene, Oregon.  The gist of this program is that medics and mental health counselors are sent to respond to appropriate 911 calls. Because the United States has an ever-growing problem with homelessness, drug addiction and mental illness there is a corresponding need for professional response. Starting with Reagan, the United States decided to dump many social and health issues onto the police; programs like CAHOOTS aim at reversing this. This program has proven successful and other cities are adopting similar programs. Defunding the police has been going on for 30 years in Oregon and is spreading. This is a good thing.

While having medical professionals respond to relevant calls would be a major improvement, this does not address the underlying problems. In many ways, it is rather like policing: controlling the symptoms of social ills while leaving the causes in place. Ethically and effectively defunding the police would require using resources to fix the social ills that require policing in all its forms. It would also, obviously, require radical political and economic changes to address poverty, homelessness, and such ills as the opioid epidemic that was inflicted by the pharmaceutical companies with governments as their accomplices.  Defunding the police in an ethical and rational manner would make for a better America for most people—so it is the right thing to do.

 

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

%d bloggers like this: