A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Obama

Two Sides Problem: Presidential Responsibility

by 7 Comments

Baghdadi, the ISIS leader who proclaimed a short-lived caliphate, was recently killed by American forces. While the ISIS brand will continue to be a threat, this killing was a significant accomplishment. As would be expected, comparisons were immediately drawn between Obama’s announcement of the killing of bin Laden. Both leaders made the announcement in their usual styles. Obama was calm, serious and sober. Trump put on his usual performance including wild rambling, praising himself (for his internet skills), and focusing on how he might profit (in this case by grabbing Syrian oil). While their speeches differed, they both raised the same question: to what extent is the President responsible for such actions in terms of praise and blame?

Image Credit

When bin Laden was killed, Trump argued that Obama did not deserve credit for the death. One excellent point Trump made was that the decision options were very limited, essentially boiling down to keep trying to kill him or stopping. As Trump noted, not killing bin Laden was not an option, so the decision was easy. Trump also asserted, correctly, that the Seals rather than Obama killed bin Laden. Obama was obviously not on the ground to make the killing shot—he was safely in the White House. As such, Trump draws a reasonable conclusion: Obama does not deserve credit for the killing of bin Laden.

To use a non-violent analogy, imagine a CEO of a corporation you work for who decides to keep a project going you have been working on for years. Suppose your project proves to be a great success. While the CEO will certainly take credit for your work, they do not deserve it—they simply allowed you to keep doing what you were doing.

Not surprisingly, supporters of Obama took issue with Trump’s remarks and Obama is lauded by them for the death of bin Laden. The situation is now reversed: those who dislike Trump are probably tempted to refuse to give him credit, while his supporters are praising him for his great accomplishment. This yet another example of the Two Sides Problems. Trump, who argued that Obama did not deserve credit for bin Laden, does not make those same arguments against himself. Trump’s supporters, as one would expect, do not bring up these arguments—while his opponents revel in bringing them up.

Trump’s foes might be tempted by the following:

Premise 1. Trump claimed that Obama did not deserve credit for the military killing bin Laden.

Conclusion: Trump does not deserve credit for the military killing Baghdadi.

This is bad logics and to think otherwise would be to fall victim to the Tu Quoque Fallacy. One version of this fallacy is committed when one infers that a person is wrong now because they previously held a view that is inconsistent with their current view. While it is fair point out when a person is applying their (alleged) principles inconsistently (by Trump’s argument neither he nor Obama deserve credit—yet he is taking credit), this inconsistency does not establish that a claim is true (or false).

Obviously enough, if Trump’s argument against Obama hold, then they also apply to him: neither deserve credit. If his argument does not hold against Obama, then they would seem to both deserve credit. Naturally, there are facts that would be relevant to the discussion of the extent of credit. If Obama was very active in keeping the hunt for bin Laden a focus and took an active hand in the matter, then he would deserve credit to that degree. If Trump left everything to his subordinates and focused on Twitter, golf, and enriching himself, then he would deserve credit to that degree. And, of course, if Obama was slacking and Trump a magnificent engine of vengeance, then the reverse would hold.

This manifestation of the Two Sides Problem shows, once again, how easy it is for principles to be applied and then rejected based on whether they advantage one’s side or the other. To do this, of course, is to be lacking in principles.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

The Ethics of Fuel Efficiency

by 13 Comments

According to common sense, Americans buying vehicles consider gas mileage when gas prices are high and largely ignore it when gas prices are low. As this is being written, gas prices are relatively low and hence gas mileage concerns are probably low on the list of most drivers. As such, it is not surprising that the Trump administration has decided to lower the mileage standards negotiated by the Obama administration and accepted by the vehicle manufacturers. This is also consistent with the Trump administration’s approach of trying to undo what Obama did, primarily because it was done by Obama.

The Trump administration has defended its decision by contending that the standards are “wrong” and by claiming that the standards were set as a matter of politics. One reason in favor of undoing the plan to increase fuel efficiency in cars and light trucks is that the more efficient vehicles would, it is estimated, cost $1,000-$2,000 more. While this is a relatively small percentage of the cost of a new vehicle, for most Americans that is a significant amount of money. As such, there is an economic argument to be made against these standards. This economic argument can be retooled into a moral argument: saving consumers money is the right thing to do.

Embed from Getty Images

Of course, there is far more to the cost of a vehicle than the cost of purchase and the most obvious is the cost of fuel. The 2012 estimate was that the increased efficiency would save roughly $8,000 over the life of the vehicle. Based on the lower 2016 prices, this saving would average out to about $4,000. While gas prices can vary greatly, it is very likely that increased fuel efficiency would more than offset increased vehicle costs. As such, the long-term economic argument favors keeping the Obama administration’s target. As before, this can be retooled into a moral argument that saving Americans money is a good thing.

Fuel efficiency does, however, have the potential of decreasing the profits of the fuel industry. To illustrate, if an efficient vehicle saves me $4,000 over its life, then that is $4,000 that does not go into the industry coffers. While few would shed tears over lost profits for the industry executives, the impact on the average people working in the industry must also be considered. If the harm done to these people outweighs the good done for the consumers, then the lower standards would be morally wrong. However, it seems unlikely that the savings to consumers would cause more harm than good. In addition to the economic concerns and the associated ethical worries, there are also concerns about health.

While the Trump administration does not seem to care about the harmful effects of pollution, about 50,000 deaths each year result from the air pollution caused by traffic. There are also many non-lethal health impacts of this pollution, such as asthma.  Increased fuel efficiency means that vehicles burn less fuel for the miles they travel, thus reducing the air pollution they produce per mile. Because of this, increasing fuel efficiency will reduce fatalities caused by air pollution. This health argument can be retooled easily into a moral argument: increasing fuel efficiency reduces pollution deaths and, on utilitarian grounds, this would be morally good.

It is, of course, reasonable to raise the question of how significant the reduction in deaths would be and arguments can be advanced to try to show that the reduction in pollution would not be significant enough to justify increasing fuel efficiency on these grounds. It also should be noted that we, as a people, tolerate roughly 40,000 vehicle deaths per year as the cost of operating our vehicles and roads as we do. As such, continuing to tolerate deaths from air pollution is also an option. For those not swayed by health concerns, in the past, there have been national security and economic arguments advanced for increasing fuel efficiency and they can still be applied today.

One stock argument is that increased fuel efficiency will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and thus make us safer in various ways. This security argument can also be re-painted as a moral argument based on the good consequences of increased security. Another stock argument is based on the claim that buying foreign oil increases our trade deficit and this is economically harmful to the United States. Because of the negative consequences, this argument can also be refit as a moral argument in favor of increasing fuel efficiency. Given the Trump administration’s professed obsession with national security and trade deficits, these arguments should be appealing to them.

Given the above arguments, there are excellent reasons to maintain the goal of increasing the fuel efficiency of cars and light trucks. While there are some reasons to not do so, such as helping the gas industry maintain profits, this would be the wrong choice.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

My Dungeon Masters Guild Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Divisive Obama?

by 3 Comments

Official photographic portrait of US President...

One of the relentless talking points of conservative pundits and many Republicans is that Obama is divisive. Perhaps even the most divisive president in American history. It is, in fact, a common practice to engage in a point-by-point analysis of Obama’s alleged divisiveness. As should be expected, supporters of Obama deny that he is divisive; or at least claim he is not the most divisive president.

It is almost certainly pointless to try to argue about the issue of whether Obama is divisive or not. Since this is a matter of political identity, the vast majority of people cannot be influenced by any amount of evidence or argumentation against their position. However, one of the purposes of philosophy is the rational assessment of beliefs even when doing so will convince no one to change their views. That said, this endeavor is not pointless: while I do not expect to change any hearts (for this is a matter of feeling and not reason) it is still worthwhile to advance our understanding of divisiveness and accusations about it.

Since analogies are often useful to enhancing understanding, I will make a comparison with fright. This requires a story from my own past. When I was in high school, our English teacher suggested a class trip to Europe. As with just about anything involving education, fundraising was necessary and this included what amounted to begging (with permission) at the local Shop N’ Save grocery store. As beggars, we worked in teams of two and I was paired up with Gopal. When the teacher found out about this (and our failure to secure much, if any, cash) she was horrified: we were frightening the old people; hence they were not inclined to even approach us, let alone donate to send us to Europe. As I recall, she said the old folks saw us as “thugs.”

I have no reason to doubt that some of the old folks were, in fact, frightened of us. As such, it is true that we were frightening. The same can be said about Obama: it is obviously true that many people see him as divisive and thus he is divisive. This is also analogous to being offensive: if a person is offended by, for example, a person’s Christian faith or her heterosexuality, then those things are offensive. To use another analogy, if a Christian is hired into a philosophy department composed mainly of devout atheists and they dislike her for her faith and it causes trouble in the department, the she is divisive. After all, the department would not be divided but for her being Christian.

While it is tempting to leave it at this, there seems more to the charge of divisiveness than a mere assertion about how other people respond to a person. After all, when Obama is accused of being divisive, the flaw is supposed to lie with Obama—he is condemned for this. As such, the charge of divisiveness involves placing blame on the divider. This leads to the obvious question about whether or not the response is justified.

Turning back to my perceived thuggery at Shop N’ Save, while it was true that Gopal and I frightened some old people, the question is whether or not they were justified in their fear. I would say not, but since I am biased in my own favor I need to support this claim. While Gopal and I were both young men (and thus a source of fear to some), we were hardly thugs. In fact, we were hardcore nerds: we played Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, we were on the debate team, and we did the nerdiest of sports—track. For teenagers, we were polite and well behaved. We were certainly not inclined to engage in any thuggery towards older folks in the grocery store. As such, the fear was unwarranted. In fairness, the old people might not have known this.

In the case of Obama, the question is whether or not his alleged divisiveness has a foundation. This would involve assessing his words and deeds to determine if an objective observer would regard them as divisive. In this case, divisive words and deeds would be such that initially neutral and unbiased Americans would be moved apart and inclined to regard each other with hostility. There is, of course, an almost insurmountable obstacle here: those who regard Obama as divisive will perceive his words and deeds as having these qualities and will insist that a truly objective observer would see things as they do. His supporters will, of course, contend the opposite. While Obama has spoken more honestly and openly about such subjects as race than past presidents, his words and deeds do not seem to be such that a neutral person would be turned against other Americans on their basis. He does not, for example, make sweeping and hateful claims based on race and religion. Naturally, those who think Obama is divisive will think I am merely expressing my alleged liberal biases while they regard themselves as gazing upon his divisiveness via the illumination of the light of pure truth. Should Trump win in 2016, the Democrats will certainly accuse him of being divisive—and his supporters will insist that he is a uniter and not a divider. While whether or not a claim of divisiveness is well founded is a matter of concern, there is also the matter of intent. It is to this I now turn.

Continuing the analogy, a person could have qualities that frighten others and legitimately do so; yet the person might have no intention of creating such fear. For example, a person might not understand social rules about how close he should get to other people and when he can and cannot tough others. His behavior might thus scare people, but acting from ignorance rather than malice, he has no intention to scare others—in fact, he might intend quite the opposite. Such a person could be blamed for the fear he creates to the degree that he should know better, but intent would certainly matter. After all, to frighten through ignorance is rather different from intentionally frightening people.

The same can be true of divisiveness: a person might divide in ignorance and perhaps do so while attempting to bring about greater unity. If the divisive person does not intend to be divisive, then the appropriate response would be (to borrow from Socrates) take the person aside and assist them in correcting their behavior. If a person intends to be divisive, then they would deserve blame for whatever success they achieve and whatever harm they cause. While intent can be difficult to establish (since the minds of others are inaccessible), consideration of what a person does can go a long way in making this determination. In the case of Obama, his intent does not seem to be to divide Americans. Naturally, those who think Obama is divisive will tend to also accept that he is an intentionally divider (rather than an accidental divider) and will attribute nefarious motives to him. Those who support him will do the opposite. There is, of course, almost no possibility of reason and evidence changing the minds of the committed about this matter. However, it is certainly worth the effort to try to consider the evidence or lack of evidence for the claim that Obama is an intentional divider. I do not believe that he is the most divisive president ever or even particularly divisive in a sense that is blameworthy. It is true that some disagree with him and dislike him; but it is their choice to expand the divide rather than close it. It is like a person who runs away, all the while insisting the other person is the one to blame for the growing distance. In closing, what I have written will change no minds—those who think Obama is divisive still think that. Those who think otherwise, still think as they did before. This is, after all, a matter of how people feel rather than a matter of reason.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Democrats at Work Part V

by 1 Comment

A wholly self created red, white & blue donkey
A wholly self created red, white & blue donkey (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By popular request, a fifth post to bear the weight of comments about Democrats at work.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Lessons from Ebola

by 1 Comment

English: Biosafety level 4 hazmat suit: resear...
English: Biosafety level 4 hazmat suit: researcher is working with the Ebola virus (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

While Ebola outbreaks are not new, the latest outbreak has provided some important lessons. These lessons are actually nothing new, but the outbreak does provide a focus for discussing them.

The first lesson is that most people are very bad at risk assessment. In the Ebola hot spots it is reasonable to be worried about catching Ebola. It is also reasonable to be concerned about the situation in general. However, many politicians, pundits and citizens in the United States are greatly overestimating the threat presented by Ebola in the United States. There are only a few cases of Ebola in the United States and the disease is, the experts claim, difficult to catch. As such, the chance that an American will catch Ebola in the United States is extremely low. It is also a fact Ebola outbreaks have been contained before in countries with far less medical resources than the United States. So, while it is prudent to prepare, the reaction to Ebola has greatly exceeded its actual threat in the United States. If the concern is with protecting Americans from disease and death, there are far more serious health threats that should be the primary focus of our concern and resources.

The threat of Ebola is overestimated for a variety of reasons. One is that people are rather susceptible to the fallacy of misleading vividness. This a fallacy in which a very small number of particularly dramatic events are taken to outweigh a significant amount of statistical evidence. This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because the mere fact that an event is particularly vivid or dramatic does not make the event more likely to occur, especially in the face of significant statistical evidence. Ebola is indeed scary, but the chance of infection in the United States is extremely low.

Another reason is that people are also susceptible to a variation on the spotlight fallacy. This variant involves inferring the probability that something will happen based on how often you hear about it, rather than based on how often it actually occurs. Ebola has infected the 24 hour news cycle and hearing about it so often creates the psychological impression that infection is likely.

As I have consistently argued, threats should be assessed realistically and the response should be proportional to the actual threat.

The second lesson is that the politicians, media and pundits will exploit scary things for their own advantages. The media folks know that scary stories and fear mongering get viewers, so they are exploiting Ebola to the detriment of the public. Ebola has been made into a political issue, so the politicians and pundits are trying to exploit it for political points. The Republicans are using it as part of their narrative that Obama is an incompetent president and thus are emphasizing the matter. Obama and the Democrats have to strike back in order to keep the Republicans from scoring points. As with the media, the politicians and pundits are exploiting Ebola for their own advantage at the expense of the public.

This willful misleading and exaggeration is clearly morally wrong on the grounds that it misleads the public and makes a rational and proportional response to the problem more difficult.

The third lesson is that people will propose extreme solutions without considering the consequences of those solutions. One example is the push to shutdown air travel between the United States and countries experiencing the Ebola outbreak. While this seems intuitively appealing, one main consequence would be that people would still come to the United States from those countries, only they would do so in more roundabout ways. This would make it much harder to track such people and would, ironically, put the United States at greater risk.

As always, solutions should be carefully considered in terms of their consequences, costs and other relevant factors.

The final lesson I will consider is that the situation shows that health is a public good and not just a private good. While most people get that defense and police are public goods, there is the view that health is a private good and something that should be left to the individual to handle. That is, the state should protect the citizen from terrorists and criminals, but she is on her own when it comes to disease and injury. However, as I have argued elsewhere at length, if the state is obligated to protect its citizens from death and harm, this should also apply to disease and injury. After all, disease will kill a person just as effectively as a terrorist’s bomb or a criminal’s bullet.

Interestingly, even many Republicans are pushing for a state response to Ebola. I suspect that one reason Ebola is especially frightening is that it is a disease that comes from outside the United States and was brought by a foreigner. This taps into fears that have been carefully and lovingly crafted during the war on terror and this helps explain why even anti-government people are pushing for government action.

But, if the state has a vital role to play in addressing Ebola, then it would seem to have a similar role to play in regards to other medical threats. While Ebola is scary and foreign, it is a medical threat and thus is like other medical threats. However, consistency is not a strong trait in most people, so some who cry for government action against the Ebola that scares them also cry out against the state playing a role in protecting Americans from things that kill vastly more Americans.

The public health concern also extends beyond borders—diseases do not recognize political boundaries. While there are excellent moral reasons for being concerned about the health of people in other countries, there are also purely pragmatic reasons. One is that in a well-connected world diseases can travel quickly all over the globe. So, an outbreak in Africa can spread to other countries. Another is that the global economy is impacted by outbreaks. So, an outbreak in one country can impact the economy of other countries. As such, there are purely selfish reasons to regard health as public good.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

ISIS

by 20 Comments

ISIS (or ISIL) got America’s attention and now the war of rhetoric has begun in ernest. While the Republicans seem generally pleased that we are saddling up again, they have raised some criticism against President Obama’s strategy. Interestingly, many of these criticisms have been aimed at Obama’s word choices.

I recently heard an interview with Senator Marco Rubio on NPR. Rubio’s main criticism seemed to be that Obama was unwilling to commit to destroying ISIS completely.  The interviewer pointed out that such groups tend to reform or create spin-off groups rather than be destroyed. When the interviewer asked him if that goal was realistic or not, Rubio responded by saying that it could be done and gave an example of how the group that became ISIS had been destroyed previously. The interviewer politely noted that Rubio had actually supported his (the interviewer’s) point, but let Rubio ignore his own example and switch quickly to another issue.

As a general rule, it seems difficult to bomb such groups out of existence, mainly because the groups are defined by ideas and killing old members tends to merely attract new members. Obviously, this method could work-with enough killing a group would run out of possible members. However, the history of radicalism and America’s attempts to kill its way out of a problem show that destroying a group by bombing seems unrealistic. After all, we are still fighting Al Qaeda and ISIS can be plausibly seen as a new brand of Al Qaeda.

Another common criticism of Obama’s words is that he did not say that he would do whatever it takes to destroy ISIS. He merely said he would do what it takes to do so. On the one hand, this could be seen as a petty semantic point, a mere whining about words. On the other hand, this could be taken as a more substantial point. After struggling to end the Afghanistan and Iraq wars that he inherited, Obama has been reluctant to get the United States into yet another costly, protracted and likely futile ground war in the Middle East. As such, when he has acted, he has done so with limited goals and minimal engagement. Interestingly, the results have been somewhat similar: we dumped billions into Iraq and ended up with a chaotic mess. We dumped far less into Libya and ended up with a chaotic mess. I suppose that it is better to get a mess on the cheap than for a high price.

Obama, I think, is wise to keep American involvement limited. The hawks crying for war seem to have amnesia regarding our last few adventures since Viet Nam. Unfortunately, escalating involvement (trying to do whatever it takes) has never paid off. It seems unlikely that this time will be the charm.

The obvious reply is that we have to do something, we cannot just let ISIS behead Americans and establish a state. I agree. My concern is the obvious one: doing something is not a good strategy and neither is doing whatever it takes. We should be honest and admit that we have not gotten it right in the past and that doing the same damn thing will not result in different results.

I am not going to tell McCain or Cheney to shut up-they have every right to express their views. However, they have no credibility left. So, they should talk-but it would be unwise to listen.

%d bloggers like this: