A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Archives for February 2018

A Philosopher’s Blog has a new home.

by 7 Comments

A Philosopher’s Blog began in March, 2007 and was hosted on WordPress.com. This free service served the needs of the blog quite well, mainly because it was free. However, I decided to move the blog to a new host so as to gain more control over such things as plug-ins, layout and advertising. My blog had been suspended once in the past, which stuck in the back of my mind. But, I still recommend WordPress.com for people starting blogs and who want to have a quality blogging site for free.

I spent the past few days exporting all of the original A Philosopher’s Blog and importing it. This process was…an ordeal. Here is a quick guide to exporting from WordPress.com.

In theory, the process should be simple. Go to your WordPress.com Tools and select the Export option. You have the option of doing the process yourself or paying WordPress.com to handle it for you. If you elect to pay WordPress.com, you will have a limited selection of hosts. If you elect to handle the export yourself, you can use any host you wish, provided that you can install WordPress.

The first thing to try is to export everything. You will get an email from WordPress.com with a link to your download. It will be a Zipped file containing one or more XML files containing all your WordPress data (posts, comments and such). Once you have WordPress set up on your new site, install the import tool for WordPress (if needed) and then go to Tools to import the file(s). Sites typically have a file size limit for imports; if your exported file(s) are too large, here is a guide on how to split them. In my case, the export files were already split and under the import limit of my new host.

If all goes well, everything will import into your new WordPress site and you can resume blogging. In my case, problems arose and only a fraction of the posts were imported. If this happens to you, then this is the start of the trouble shooting grind. If you are competent with editing XML files, you might be able to go into the files to find and fix what might be causing the problem. If not, there is the brute force method. Which is what I did.

My approach was to go to the Export tool and export the pages in 5 year groups. Then I tried to import these files. This worked in some cases, but in some cases there was only partial success. I suggest activating the Archives widget for your site, that way you can quickly see which months have imported. After determining what had not imported, I split the exports down to one year per export and then tried importing these files. Once again, this was a success for some years and a partial success for other years. After checking the archives again, I tried exporting the missing months and this met, once more, with varying degrees of success. For a few of the months I had to import each month individually. I never determined exactly what the problems were; but it seemed that everything eventually imported successfully.

Once you get your new site setup, you need to decide whether you want WordPress.com to redirect your site. If you do not want to abandon your readers, this is a good idea. WordPress.com, as of this writing, charges $13/year to provide this service. This redirect will, well, redirect visitors to your new site. It will also redirect search results and so on. To use an analogy, it is rather like forwarding your postal mail.

If you see that a post is missing, let me know and I’ll endeavor to rescue it.

 

Tower of Zakelana 5E

by Leave a Comment

Roughly three hundred years ago the young Zakelana was refused admission to an academy of wizards because “girls are witches and not wizards.” Undaunted, she sought impromptu lessons from adventurers while serving drinks at the local tavern. From this humble start, she became one of the world’s greatest wizards.  In addition to being famous for her mastery of extra-dimensional magic, she was well known for her gift for turning foes to allies and for having a very broad definition of what counted as a legitimate target for adventuring. This approach earned her the anger of many powerful people who sent assassins or monsters to exact their vengeance. Whenever possible, Zakelana attempted to persuade any would-be killer to switch sides. The best-known example occurred when a rival mage sent a creature to torment Zakelana in her dreams. According to the tale, Zakelana was able to win over the creature with the gift of a pony named “Giggles.”

In her later years, she retired from adventuring and one day simply vanished. Some speculate a final experiment failed and banished her eternally to some other dimension. Another tale relates how one of her many enemies finally killed her. In any case, she vanished but left behind a tower and a magical gateway to the space containing the tower. Some tales claim that the guards of the tower are monsters Zakelana won over but could not allow to roam freely. The tales also speak of the great wealth and magical secrets within the tower.

Tower of Zakelana is intended for a party of 10th-12th   level characters. It is for the 5th Edition of D&D.

Here are some of the features of the adventure:

  • Detailed color maps for the adventure.
  • Full statistics are included for all encounters—no need to look up monsters.
  • New Spells.
  • New Magic Items
  • Hero Lab support.

Available Now

 

Getting it Wrong

by 24 Comments

Embed from Getty Images

On February 14th, 2018 seventeen people were murdered during a school shooting. As per the well-established script: the media focused on the weapon used, the right offered “thoughts and prayers” while insisting that this was not the time to talk about gun violence, and the left called for more gun control. As other have pointed out many times, this script will also play out in the usual way—the attention of the nation will drift away, children will be buried by their parents and nothing will really be done. This cycle will repeat with the next school shooting. And the next. As a country, we are getting it wrong in many ways.

One way we get it wrong, which is a fault of the media and the left, is to obsess on the specific weapon used in the latest school shooting. In this case, like many other cases, the weapon was an AR-15. The media always seems to ask why the weapon is used in shootings; the easy and obvious answer is that it shows up at mass shootings for the same reason that McDonald wrappers and bags end up alongside the roads I run. That is, both the AR-15 and McDonalds

are very popular. There is also the fact that the AR-15 is an ideal weapon for engaging a crowd—it has a large magazine capacity, it is lethal and is easy to shoot. But, the AR-15 is not unique in those traits. There are many other assault rifles (as they are called) that are similar. For example, the AK-47 and its clones are also effective weapons of this type; but they are the Arby’s of assault weapons. That is, less popular. There is also the fact that non-assault weapons are just as lethal (or more so) than the assault rifles. They just tend to have smaller magazines. This shows one of the problems with the obsession with the AR-15—there are other weapons that would do the same.

Another problem with obsessing about the specific weapon is that it allows an easy red herring counter. A red herring is when one diverts attention from the original issue to another issue. When, for example, a reporter starts pressing a congressman about the AR-15, they can easily switch the discussion from gun violence to a discussion about the AR-15, thus getting away from the real issue. The solution is, obviously enough, is to get over the obsession with the specific weapon and focus instead on the issue of gun violence in general. Which leads to another way we get it wrong.

School shootings are horrific, but they are not the way most victims of gun violence die. In general, homicides are at record low levels (although we are still a world leader in homicides). Most gun-related deaths are suicides and the assault rifle is not the most commonly used weapon in most gun deaths. School shootings and mass shootings do get the attention of the media and the nation, but this seems to enable us to ignore the steady flow of gun-related deaths that do not grab the headlines. This is not to say that mass shootings are not a serious problem, nor that we should not act in response to them. But, the gun violence problem in America goes far beyond mass shootings. It is, ironically, a quiet problem that does not get the spotlight of the media. As such, even less is done about the broader problem than is done about mass shootings. And, to be honest, little or nothing is done about mass shootings.

While there are proposals from the left for gun control, the right usually advocates having a “good guy with a gun”, addressing mental illness, and fortifying places such as schools. There seems to be little evidence that the “good guy with a gun” will solve the problem of mass shootings; but this is largely due to the fact that there is so little good data about gun violence. While mental illness is clearly a problem and seriously addressing mental illness would be a broad social good, it seems unlikely that the vague proposals being offered would really do anything. America essentially abandoned the mentally ill during the Reagan era, an approach that has persisted to this day. The right does not seem to be serious about putting in the social services needed to address mental illness; they merely bring it up in response to mass shootings to distract people from gun control. The left, while expressing concern, also has done little—we have massive problems in this country that are simply festering away. Also, people with mental illnesses are more likely to be victims than perpetrators, so addressing mental health in a way that focuses on mass shooters would not address the much broader problem.

The proposals to create “Fortress Academia” might seem appealing, but there is the obvious problem with cost: public schools tend to be chronically underfunded and it is not clear where the money needed for such fortification would come from. There is also the fact that turning schools intro fortresses seems fundamentally wrong and is, perhaps, a red herring to distract people from the actual causes of the problem. To use an analogy, it is like addressing the opioid epidemic by telling people to get better home security to prevent addicts from breaking in to steal things to sell to buy drugs. This is not to say that school safety is a bad idea, just that turning our schools into forts does not seem to be the best approach.

I know that it will not be that long before I am writing about another mass shooting; people will move on to other things, as they always do, and the malign neglect of the problem will persist.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

My Dungeon Masters Guild Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Kant and Tasering Dead Rats

by 12 Comments

Embed from Getty Images

While Logan Paul has posted YouTube videos of rather awful behavior, his channel is still operating as of this writing. Paul’s latest video adventure involved tasering a dead rat, leading Penny Arcade to raise the moral question of the ethics of dead rat tasering as well as the morality of YouTube continuing to tolerate the presence of Paul’s videos.

Since YouTube is in the business of making money, it makes sense for it to monetize whatever legal product will make money, regardless of how awful it is. Since our civilization tolerates the sale of tobacco and opioids (with a prescription), it is rather hard to condemn the “selling” of what Paul creates. After all, there are clear doubts about the harms of viewing a video of a dead rat riding the lightning. While much could be said about the ethics of allowing these videos to remain up (since YouTube is a private company, it has no requirement to honor the 1st Amendment), I will turn to Penny Arcade’s inquiry into the tasering of a dead rat. Obviously, this discussion will take place within the context of Kant’s ethical theory.

Kant makes it clear that animals are means rather than ends—they have no moral status of their own. Rational beings, in contrast, are ends. For Kant, this distinction rests on the fact that rational beings can chose to follow the moral law. Animals, lacking reason, cannot do this. Since animals are means and not ends, Kant claims that we have no direct duties to animals. They are classified in with the other “objects of our inclinations” that derive value from the value we give them. While one might dispute Kant’s view about the ability of living animals to follow the moral law, one can see clearly and distinctly that a dead rat cannot do this. It is, after all, dead. An ex-rat.

Despite this view, Kant argues that we should treat animals well. However, he does so while also trying to avoid ascribing animals themselves any moral status. While Kant is not willing to accept that we have any direct duties to animals, he “smuggles” in duties to them indirectly. As he puts it, our duties towards animals are indirect duties towards humans. To make his case for this, he employs an argument from analogy: if a human doing X would obligate us to that human, then an animal doing X would also create an analogous moral obligation. For example, a human who has long and faithfully served another person should not simply be abandoned or put to death when he has grown old. Likewise, a dog who has served faithfully and well should not be cast aside in his old age.

While this would seem to create an obligation to the dog, Kant uses philosophical sleight of hand: the dog cannot judge (that is, the dog is not rational) so, as Kant sees it, the dog cannot be wronged. So, then, why would it be wrong to shoot the dog?

Kant’s answer seems to be rather consequentialist in character: he argues that if a person acts in inhumane ways towards animals (shooting the dog, for example) then his humanity will likely be damaged. Since, as Kant sees it, humans do have a duty to show humanity to other humans, shooting the dog would be wrong. This would not be because the dog was wronged but because humanity would be wronged by the shooter damaging his humanity through such a cruel act. In support of this, Kant discusses how people develop cruelty: they often begin with animals and then work up to harming human beings.

Kant goes beyond merely enjoining us to not be cruel to animals and encourages kindness. He even praises Leibniz’ gentleness towards a mere worm. Of course, he encourages this because those who are kind to animals will develop more humane feelings towards humans. So, roughly put, animals are essentially practice for us: how we treat them is training for how we will treat human beings. But what about dead animals, like the rat Paul tasered?

A dead animal clearly and obviously lacks any meaningful moral status of their own. While animal right advocates tend to argue that living animals think and feel, even they would agree that a dead animal does not feel or think. As such, a dead animal lacks all the qualities that might give them a moral status of their own. Oddly enough, given Kant’s view of living animals, a dead animal would seem to be on par with a living one. After all, living animals are also mere objects and have no moral status of their own.

Of course, the same is also true of rocks and dirt. Yet Kant would never argue that we should treat rocks well. Perhaps this would also apply to dead animals, such as the rat Paul tasered. That is, perhaps it makes no sense to talk about good or bad relative to dead animals. Thus, the issue is whether dead animals are more like live animals or rocks.

A case can be made for not abusing dead animals. If Kant’s argument has some merit, then the key concern about how non-rational beings are treated is how such treatment affects the behavior of the person engaging in said behavior. So, for example, if being cruel to a living rat could damage a person’s humanity, then he should (as Kant sees it) not be cruel to the living rat.  This should also extend to dead animals. For example, if being cruel to a dead rat would damage a person’s humanity, then he should not act in that way. If being kind to the dead rat, such as giving it a burial, would make a person more inclined to be kind to other rational beings, then the person should be kind to the corpse.

While some might think to mock the idea of treating dead animals well, it is well worth noting that Kant’s reasoning would also apply to dead humans. A dead human is no longer a rational being—the corpse is but a thing. However, abusing the corpse of a human could damage a person’s humanity and make them more inclined to harm living humans. As such, while human corpses have no moral status of their own, it would be wrong to abuse them.

While the impact of abusing a human corpse would probably be greater than abusing the corpse of an animal, it would be odd to think that most decent people would be able to abuse animal corpses and suffer no ill consequences to their character. As such, the question raised by Penny Arcade can be answered: tasering a dead rat is morally wrong.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

My Dungeon Masters Guild Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Dragon Hunt 5E

by 3 Comments

The once peaceful town of Gremsel is no longer peaceful. Several months ago a ferocious red dragon landed in the center of the town and gave the people an ultimatum: either they would pay  tribute or he would consume every creature in the town, from the smallest cat to the largest cow. Unable to stand against such a beast, the people agreed to his demand.

Hope arrived in town with a new magistrate possessing funds to hire bold adventurers. Sadly for the good folks of Gremsel, hope quickly departed down the dragon’s belly as he boldly killed and consumed the adventurers, returning only their charred skulls to the center of town.

Desperate and short on funds, the magistrate of Gremsel has put out a call for heroes bold (and generous) enough to face the dragon. Will the new heroes slay the dragon or shall their charred skulls join the tastefully arranged pile in the center of the town?

Dragon Hunt is intended for a party of 8th-11th level characters.

Available now for 99 cents on Dungeon Masters Guild.

Here are some of the features of the adventure:

  • A dragon. In a dungeon.
  • Detailed maps for the area and dungeons.
  • Full statistics are included for all encounters—no need to look up monsters.
  • A robust narrative with opportunities for both role-play and combat.
  • Hero Lab support.
  • For D&D 5th Edition

 

 

Trump, Treason and Joking

by 11 Comments

During President Trump’s first state of the union address, the Democrats were clearly not interested in praising him. Trump took this slight very seriously and rushed to hold a rally to sooth his wounded pride. At the event, he accused the Democrats in Congress of committing treason: “They were like death and un-American. Un-American. Somebody said, ‘Treasonous.’ I mean, yeah, I guess, why not.” Since treason is one of the worst crimes and not applauding a president is not treason Democrats and many Republicans condemned Trump’s remarks. The response from the Whitehouse was that people, especially in  the liberal media, need to get a sense of humor because “the President was obviously joking…”

As should be expected, the view people hold on this depends on their feelings about the president. His detractors believe that he was serious or at least did something very wrong. His proponents think he was joking and that the snowflakes in the liberal media and Democratic party need to man up. His most devoted fans might believe that he was serious and see this as a good thing.

Since Trump seems to have no respect for truth and faces clear challenges with grasping reality, it is difficult to tell what he means when he says words. If he was serious, then he is clearly wrong and is wandering deeper into the territory in which dwell would-be authoritarians. If he was not serious, then he was also wrong—accusing people of treason is nothing to joke about. As many have said on many other occasions, Trump is able to grossly violate norms of behavior and simply keep on going through what would be career enders for almost all other human beings. Imagine, if you will, what the response would have been on Fox News and elsewhere if Obama had “jokingly” said Republican Representative Wilson was committing treason when he yelled “you lie” at the president. I am certain they would not have chortled in appreciation at his little bon mot. They would have been, rightly enough, outraged at such behavior.

While President Trump’s behavior is morally problematic, it does provide an excellent example of a rhetorical device that could be called an “appeal to joking.” Rhetorical devices are intended to sway people’s feelings and thus influence their beliefs. Being rhetorical in nature, they lack logical force—they do not actually prove or disprove anything. The gist of the method, as noted above, is to defuse criticism by insisting that the awful thing a person said was but a joke. The method can also be developed into a fallacy by making it into a full, but bad, argument. The appeal to joking has the following form:

  1. Person A says B, which is something horrible.

  2. There is criticism of or backlash against B.

  3. A (or A’s spokespeople) insist that A was joking.

  4.  Conclusion: Therefore, A should not be criticized or held accountable for saying B.

The reason that the conclusion does not follow from the premises is that merely claiming that the horrible thing was a joke does not entail that the person should not be criticized or held accountable for saying it. One reason for this is that merely making the claim does not prove the person was, in fact, joking. A second reason is that even if the person was joking, this does not entail that they are thus free from criticism or accountability. After all, a person is still accountable for their jokes.

Like many fallacies, there are good arguments that resemble it. If a person can show that they were, in fact, not serious in their remark and intended it to be a joke, then they can advance a good argument that they should not be criticized or held accountable as if they were serious. The challenge is, of course, making a convincing case that it really was a joke rather than an attempt to walk back something awful by pretending it was a joke. This form of reasoning, which is good, would be as follows:

 

  1. Person A says B, which is something horrible.

  2. There is criticism of or backlash against B.

  3. A (or A’s spokespeople) provides credible evidence that A was really joking.

  4. Conclusion:  Therefore, A should not be as strongly criticized or held as accountable for saying B as A would be if they were serious.

From a moral standpoint, it is sensible to accept such reasoning since saying something awful as a joke is not as bad as actually meaning it. This is not to say that jokes are not without moral consequences of their own. For example, while joking about assassinating the president is not as bad as seriously planning to assassinate the president, it is still morally wrong.

Not surprisingly, defenders of a person who uses the appeal to joking will tend to think that credible evidence has been provided that the person is “just joking.” In some cases, the alleged evidence might be that the claim is so absurd or horrible that no one could be serious about it. For example, Trump’s claim that the Democrats were treasonous for not applauding for him is so absurdly over the top that one would have to either believe that Trump is joking or that he is some sort of deranged authoritarian who believes that his whims should be law and that a failure to praise him is the act of traitors.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

My Dungeon Masters Guild Page

Follow Me on Twitter

%d bloggers like this: