A Philosopher’s Blog 2020 is now on Amazon. It collects the blog posts from 2020 into one convenient book.
Archives for January 2021
Back in the Classroom & the Could Be Worse Fallacy
As COVID-19 cases surged upward in my adopted state of Florida public university faculty returned to the classroom. This Spring semester also saw widespread adoption of the HyFlex model of teaching. In practical terms, a HyFlex class at my university means that the professor teaches class in the classroom to any students who show up in person while the class is live streamed to other students. In some cases, such as my classes, students also have the option to complete the class as an asynchronous online class (watching videos of the class at their convenience).
As might be imagined, teaching a HyFlex class for the first time can be a bit of a challenge. Some classrooms have been upgraded as “Zoom Rooms” featuring HD cameras and other technology. These rooms are relatively easy for HyFlex teaching: you fire up the tech, then teach normally—aside from student’s voices coming from the ceiling speakers and glancing at a display from time to time to see the Zooming students. Some classrooms have been upgraded by attaching basic webcams to the decade old PCs in the rooms. This makes HyFlexing more challenging since you must talk into the webcam while also talking to the students in the room. But all this is manageable for most professors. While this new approach to teaching would have been of concern to some faculty in a normal year, their biggest concern is COVID.
My university has, obviously, adopted various safety protocols. Class size is limited, everyone must wear masks on campus, and decontamination is a regular thing. Students, staff, and faculty also must undergo regular testing and some faculty (those 65 and older) have been vaccinated. But going to campus and interacting does present some risks. Because of this, there have been some faculty in the state who have elected to not return to campus. I am currently teaching three HyFlex classes and one online class, so I am back in the classroom. Interestingly, non-class meetings (like committee meetings) are still all Zoom meetings and gatherings outside of class are still prohibited.
As an ethicist, I have approached this matter from a utilitarian standpoint: the ethics of in person classes is assessed in terms of weighing the harms and benefits. One major factor is, of course, that returning to in person teaching was necessary to avoid funding being cut—as such, we are taking a risk for money. This, obviously, is also subject to moral assessment but does figure significantly in the utilitarian calculation: by returning to the classroom, faculty help keep the schools funded. Another factor is that some students want (or even need) in person classes. As this is being written, I have about 150 students and 2 have shown up in person—but this might change. Other professors report higher numbers (within the limits allowed). But the benefit to in person learners can be offset by possible decline in the quality of education for the Zoom students. While the above-mentioned Zoom rooms do allow professors to teach in a mostly normal manner, teaching to Zoom students from a poorly equipped classroom can make the class worse. We will see how the quality of education is impacted.
The obvious possible harm is that faculty and students can infect each other with the virus. As noted above, the classrooms opened as cases surged—and they are still increasing. Even people who take the virus seriously often suffer from safety fatigue: masking, sanitizing, and keeping distance is tiring. There are, of course, also concerns about people who do not take the virus seriously. Worse, the virus and safety practices were made into a political issue—so rational people must worry about anti-maskers showing up in the classrooms.
While the idea of teaching an in-person class during a pandemic is scary, the objective numbers show that the chance of a professor or student contracting the virus in the classroom is low. But there is still a chance and it can be argued that the risk of serious illness or death outweighs the advantages of in-person classes during a pandemic. There is also the fact that the vaccines are becoming available—so it can be argued that schools should have waited to re-open in the Fall with vaccinated faculty, staff, and students. My own view is that this is what we should have done, and every death and serious illness that can be traced back to classroom is on the hands of those who pushed for the return to in-person classes. That said, I show up for every class.
When faculty complain about being forced back in the classroom, a common counter is to tell them that other people have it far worse. Essential workers and health care professionals have been at significant risk since the start of the pandemic. In general, they had and have the choice between showing up for work or being fired. And they tend to work in conditions that are much riskier than the classroom. For example, grocery store workers can be exposed to hundreds of customers—some of whom refuse to follow the safety protocols. No one is required to get tested before going shopping and efforts at social distancing have largely been abandoned. Medical personnel who work with COVID patients are also clearly at greater risk: while they take precautions, they are repeatedly exposed to infected people.
On the one hand, it seems reasonable to refute the complaints of professors by pointing out that other people have it worse. On the other hand, this sort of reasoning seems like it could be a fallacy. I will call this the “it could be worse fallacy.” This fallacy occurs when concerns, worries or complaints are dismissed by asserting that it could be worse. While the fallacy will almost always be presented informally, it can be given this form:
Premise 1: Person/Group A expresses concerns or worries about X or complains about X being bad.
Premise 2: But Y is worse than X (Or Person/Group A experiences Y which is worse than X).
Conclusion: X is not bad (A has no grounds for worry, concerns or complaint).
This is clearly bad logic. Even if there is something worse than something, it does not follow that the thing is not bad or that there are no grounds for concern or complaint. The following example illustrates this:
Premise 1: Sam complains that their spouse regularly beating and abusing them is bad.
Premise 2: But some spouses are killed by their spouse, which is worse than a mere beating.
Conclusion: Sam’s abuse is not bad, and Sam has no grounds for complaint.
In the case of complaining faculty, the logic would be this:
Premise 1: Faculty are complaining and concerned about the risks of teaching in person.
Premise 2: But other workers face worse risks from the virus.
Conclusion: Faculty have no grounds for complaint and concern.
This is, obviously, the same bad logic as the previous example. While it is true that others do have it worse, it does not follow that what is less bad is not still bad or merits complaint or concern. It is, however, important to note that there can be reasonable assessments that do rationally show that complaints, concerns, or worries are not well-founded or are overblown. In the case of faculty returning to the classroom, it would be reasonable to assess the chances of infection and the likely consequences and then match those to the claims and worries of the faculty to see if their assessment is correct. As with all judgments of risk and harm, people will have different assessments—but this can still be done in a reasonable manner. The most reasonable assessment of the risk of teaching in person might show that faculty worries are overblown but a mere comparison to something worse would not do this.
A related type of bad reasoning is the “you are lucky…” This technique involves “refuting” a complaint, concern or claim by asserting that the person or group is lucky to not face something worse. This works essentially the same way as the above fallacy since the idea is that the possibility of something worse refutes complaints and claims. It has the following structure:
Premise 1: Person/Group A expresses concerns or worries about X or complains about X being bad.
Premise 2: It is claimed that A is lucky because Y is worse than X.
Conclusion: X is not bad (A has no grounds for worry, concerns or complaint).
The problem with the “reasoning” is shown by this example:
Premise 1: Sam complains that their spouse regularly beating and abusing them is bad.
Premise 2: Sam is lucky that their spouse did not kill them.
Conclusion: Sam’s abuse is not bad, and Sam has no grounds for complaint.
In the case of complaining faculty, the logic would be this:
Premise 1: Faculty are complaining and concerned about the risks of teaching in person.
Premise 2: But faculty are lucky they are not working a riskier job (and lucky they have a job).
Conclusion: Faculty have no grounds for complaint and concern.
As with the previous fallacy, it can be reasonably argued that a person or group is “lucky”—that is, their complaints, concerns and claims that something is bad have no merit. In the case of faculty complaining about the risks, if it could be shown that the risk does not warrant their concern or complaints, then they would be refuted. But simply saying they are lucky that things are not worse for them is not a refutation.
The Straw Biden and Other Monsters of the Right
After Trump’s attempt at insurrection failed, Biden was sworn in as President. Since he entered the race in response to extremism, it is natural that his inaugural address included appropriate words. “And now a rise of political extremism, white supremacy, domestic terrorism that we must confront and we will defeat.” Biden also said, “there is truth and there are lies, lies told for power and for profit.” Given the recent insurrection and the seemingly endless flow of lies, these remarks seem eminently reasonable. But Rand Paul and Tucker Carlsen took issue with them immediately.
On Fox News, Rand Paul asserted that Biden was engaged in innuendo (suggesting something deprecatory). As Rand heard it, Biden was “calling us white supremacists, calling us racists, calling us every name in the book.” Rand also took issue with Biden’s remarks about lies, saying, “ ‘And going forward we’re not going to have manufactured or manipulated truth.’ That’s another way of saying ‘All of my opponents manufacture or manipulate the truth and are liars.’ ”
On the face of it, this seems to be a straw man of Biden’s claims. He focuses on extremism and calls for unity, something that would make little sense if the entire right was his target. Biden is also well known as a centrist with moderate views. As such, Paul seems to be making use of a common tactic in making a straw man, which is referring to an unknown fact. While Biden’s words and history are clear, Rand seems to be claiming to know the real meaning of Biden’s words—yet provides no evidence beyond his mere assertion. That is, Rand seems to be making a straw man. Then again, perhaps Rand is making a straw man of the right by assuming they are all extremist racists (something that is not true).
One interesting contrast is to compare how Rand interprets Biden with how he has defended Trump from accusations of racism. While interpreting Biden’s words in a very negative way, Rand did his best to cast Trump’s racist claims as not being racist. Naturally, this defense of Trump does not entail that Rand is wrong in his interpretation of Biden (though he is wrong) but it might illustrate the in group bias. This is a cognitive bias that leads people to interpret the actions and words of members of their own group positively and those of other groups negatively. It would be natural for Rand’s brain to interpret Biden negatively and Trump positively. Alternatively, Rand could understand he is lying and simply engaging in an intentional straw man to attack Biden.
As would be expected Tucker Carlson has attacked Biden for his remarks. Carlson was already constructing a straw man attack on critics of the attack on the capitol, alleging that these criticisms were directed at the entire right. This attack could also be a hasty generalization (drawing a conclusion from a sample that is too small) in that there are certainly some on the left who generalize from the extreme right to the entire right. That is, Carlson could be attacking the left for making a hasty generalization by using a hasty generalization. This could also involve the fallacy of anecdotal evidence (supporting a general claim with an anecdote rather than having an adequate sample). Biden and most Americans do seem to understand the difference between right wing extremists and conservatives, Carlson’s claims to the contrary.
Carlson has also expressed the concern that the term “white supremacist” is too vague, and this vagueness will be exploited to justify attacking innocent people. Carlson is right to be concerned about the misuse of vague labels. After all, he himself constantly attacks “the left” and applies this vague term across a vast swath of people—not caring much or at all about distinctions in beliefs and actions. As such, Carlson and his ilk provide a cautionary tale of the very thing he is warning about: broad attacks based on vague terms are harmful.
There are grounds to be concerned that charges of racism could be used as political weapons and, somewhat ironically, racism is extremely diverse. Defining “racism” and “white supremacy” can be challenging—there are distinctions and nuances. However, Biden seems quite clear in what he is talking about: he means the sort of people who attacked the capitol when he is talking about extremism. And while philosophers can agonize over fine distinctions in the shades of racism, the paradigm cases of white supremacy can be quite clear. While we cannot draw an exact line defining white supremacy, insisting that we must, or we cannot recognize it would be to fall into the line drawing fallacy.
There is also the moral argument that the errors made in honestly combating racism that will hurt innocent non-racists will be vastly outweighed by the harms addressed by doing so. To insist that the efforts must be perfect, or we can do nothing would be the perfectionist fallacy. This does seem to be what Carlson is pushing: efforts to address racism could result in some harms and we do not have perfect definitions, so we should do nothing.
Moral Mask, Rationalizing or Mental Illness?
Before, during and after the election Trump and his allies tried to undermine democracy with lies. As this is being written, the worst outcome of these lies was when Trump followers attacked the capitol after Trump incited them. While the right tried to blame the attack on Antifa, the FBI quickly refuted this lie. Once it became clear that the attempted overthrow of the election had failed and the arrests began, members of Trump’s mob began pleading for pardons. While Trump did dispense many pardons, he had none for his capitol warriors—he abandoned them like they were an aging wife. Despite the lack of evidence for widespread fraud, despite the failure of the coup, and despite Joe being sworn in as president, the idea that the election was stolen persists and will, no doubt, be used to incite more domestic terrorism in the future. I am continuing my somewhat informal efforts in epistemic epidemiology and this persistent claim warrants ongoing analysis.
In some cases, those who claim widespread fraud are engaging in the rhetorical technique of moral masking. This occurs when a person claims motives that are morally superior to their true motives. They are, metaphorically speaking, donning a mask of goodness to conceal less laudable or even wicked motives. This method does have value as a persuasive tool: pretending to have laudable motivations can influence others to agree with one’s views or, at the very least, encourage them to be more tolerant of one’s actions. Trump and his fellows said that they were refusing to accept the results of a legitimate election because they want Trump to remain in power to continue to get what they want, would probably have less persuasive power than their lies.
This method often includes lying about the morality of one’s actions and being deceitful in related claims and arguments. Trump and his allies presented themselves as acting correctly in their efforts to undermine democracy, lied about fraud, and advanced what were at best bad faith arguments. Trump and his allies did, however, seem to be aware they were lying. But some of his supporters undoubtably tried to convince themselves that they were acting rightly.
While those putting on the moral mask know they are engaged in deceit, people also rationalize. While the moral mask could be presented as a form of rationalization, rationalization involves an effort at self-deception. The person engages in an action (which might be telling a lie) because of a specific motivation and then attempts to present a better motivation as their true motive. This typically involves trying to justify the action by convincing oneself (and perhaps others) that the motives were rational or good. The attempt to persuade oneself might fail, but there is at least the attempt to do so—this distinguishes rationalization from simple lying and from the moral mask method.
Since people rarely admit to rationalizing as they are doing it, it can be challenging to determine when someone is engaged in this behavior. After all, the outward behavior of someone engaged in rationalizing will typically not reveal that they are rationalizing. Sorting out when this is occurring usually requires knowing the person well enough to make plausible assessments of their real motives. While it seems likely that some or even many of Trump’s supporters have been rationalizing, I have no way of confirming this unless they admit to doing so.
Trump supporters can also, obviously, believe Trump’s lies and believe what they are doing is right. Given the utter lack of evidence for the claims of widespread fraud and Trumps repeated failures in court (even with judges his administration appointed) a person would need to engage awful reasoning (or no reasoning at all) to believe Trump’s lies. Wishful thinking, fallacious appeal to authority, and appeal to authoritarian would be but some of the likely fallacies that would lead someone to believing Trump. There are also numerous cognitive biases that would influence how his supporters form their false beliefs, such as confirmation bias.
Trump’s supporters are obviously not unique in falling for fallacies and rhetoric. They are also not unique in having cognitive biases. However, their believes are dangerous to themselves and others, as the attack on the capitol showed. In most cases, I hope, his supporters are suffering from normal issues with their belief forming mechanisms. While these issues are severe, they would be within the realm of normalcy and could perhaps be treated. Some treatment would involve improving their critical thinking skills, but treatment would also require motivating them to apply such skills. Perhaps the shock of Trump’s craven and utter betrayal of his capitol storming mob will help some of his followers escape the lies of Trump through normal means. But some of Trump’s followers exhibit the classic behavior of cultists and their minds exist within a fictional reality constructed by Trump and the right-wing media. Those who fully embrace QANon are an excellent example of this.
While there is a grey area between epistemic issues and mental illness, it seems likely that some of Trump’s followers crossed over from normal errors of belief to such corrupted belief-forming mechanisms that they would require medical treatment to recover or achieve some degree of mental health. This sort of mental illness would, obviously, be outside of the domain of philosophy and would be in the field of psychiatry. This is not to say that one could not apply epistemic theory to such belief formation, just that it would be so pathological that it becomes a concern for medical doctors.
It must be noted that when I consider that some Trump supporters might be mentally ill, I am not disparaging them or joking; the seriousness of their condition invokes only concern and worry. While some might be engaged in moral masking, rationalizing or merely deceived, some do seem to exist within a world disconnected from reality in a way that seems to be a form of madness. I am, obviously, not qualified to make such medical judgments—all I can do is point out that their belief forming mechanisms are so corrupted that they have left the realm of epistemology and have probably entered the domain of medical science.
Trump’s Abandoned Mob
After years of shaping his base, Trump incited them to launch an attack on the capitol to overturn the election. While resulting in surprisingly few deaths, this coup attempt failed. While the right attempted to blame the attack on Antifa, the FBI quickly refuted this absurd lie.
As Trump’s final days in office approached, the rioters pleaded for pardons. Since they believed they were doing the will of Trump, it makes sense that they would expect a pardon—after all, they were his loyal warriors who attacked the United States to keep him on the throne. Trump, who went home to watch the riot on TV rather than leading his forces, abandoned them once again. He did, however, issue numerous pardons—just none for them.
In fiction, such abandoned followers would be outraged and later seek vengeance for the cruel betrayal. But Trump’s most devoted followers dwell in an alternate reality in which Trump is their god-emperor and his throne was stolen. Many of them also embrace the ludicrous (but dangerous) fictional world of QAnon that envisions Trump as the savior of America—he will sweep away child-stealing cultists in the storm. As such, it would not be surprising if this abandoned mob weaves a narrative in which the heroic Trump has gone to Florida to heroically prepare for the next battle. One for which he will, without doubt, call forth his loyal warriors to place him back on the throne that is rightfully his. Or maybe this will shock them out of their delusion, and they will see Trump for what he really is: a squalid little drifter, a soulless husk of pure selfishness.
Thoughts on Joe & America
Joe Biden was sworn in today as President despite the efforts of Trump and his supporters to overturn the results of the election with lies and insurrection. While Trump and some Republicans persist in the dangerous lie of widespread voter fraud, there have been calls for unity. These generally amount to calls for the Democrats to allow Trump and his allies to avoid the consequences of their actions. The Republicans are also calling for the Democrats to work with them; the idea seems to be that the Republicans want the Democrats to forget and forgive years of refusal to work together.
While the country has been heavily divided by the lies of Trump and the right-wing media, I do agree that it would be good if the chasm between Americans could be bridged or at least reduced. But the burden of doing this rests on the right: they worked very hard to expand the crack in America with repeated lies. The latest big lie, that the election was stolen, is perhaps the biggest hammer blow on the crack. If Trump were not such a lazy and incompetent fascist, he might have been able to pull off a coup. Fortunately, he stirred up his base but did not secure meaningful support from the military and the police. He was also so lazy that he did not bother to go with his followers to the capitol; he simply went home to watch it play out on television. While Trump’s lazy, incompetent ignorance was a disaster in the context of COVID, these traits likely saved America from a fall into fascism. At least for now.
While the sulky snowflake Trump flew off to Florida, his followers and enablers are still pushing the lie that the election was stolen. Some are explicitly rejecting violence as a means of achieving their goals, but their persistence in this obvious lie encourages others to engage in violence. After all, the lie that the election was stolen and the lies that this necessitates (such as that the institutions and officials across the political spectrum and across the nation are in on the conspiracy) would tend to lead a believer to thinking that violence is the only rational option. After all, if Trump won and there is a massive conspiracy against him, there would seem to be no peaceful remedies. I do get why some Republicans would want to maintain the lie while also wanting things to be peaceful: they want to exploit the lie to their own advantage, but do not want to be killed by the mob or have the government destroyed. So, in terms of unity, the only chance for progress is for the Republicans and their allies to stop lying about the election and, ideally, hold Trump and his allies accountable. This seems unlikely and shows that the Republicans are not serious about unity: they just want to avoid accountability and are counting on Democrats being stupid enough to work with them. Democrats do, of course, have a history of doing just that.
While the right cast Joe as a radical leftist (while also accusing him of being a racist, a tough-on-crime politician, and a failure at advancing the progressive agenda) he is not. While Biden is to the left of fascists and authoritarians, he would be center-right on a “normal” political spectrum. That is, he favors the traditional status quo and wants to maintain capitalism. It is true that he will push the country leftwards—but this is leftwards from Trump. It is also true that he will support policies that help the middle class, minorities, and the poor—but none of these will be radical changes. He is a safe centrist and Wall Street is fine with Joe. It must be noted that he will make a big difference in the COVID response. Trump not only proved his ignorance and incompetence, but he also intentionally caused active harm to America—and his followers adored him for this. Biden will follow a rational plan that should improve things significantly, though he will face a serious obstacle in the form of Trump’s base.
While Joe is better than Trump (which is an insanely low bar that any normal human exceeds) it is unlikely that he will address the fundamental problems besetting the United States. While his policies will probably be a smidgen to the left of those of the Obama era, it is likely that we will see Obama 2.0 in terms of the policies Joe enacts. It would not, I think, be much of a stretch to say that we will see what amounts to a third Obama term—continuing what Obama did. As critics on the left (and attackers on the right) have pointed out, Obama-Biden did little for the workers of America. While Obama was obviously an historic President, his administration did relatively little to address the problems besetting minorities in America. That is, Obama-Biden was a very centrist regime and friendly to the elites of capitalism. Perhaps most importantly, the failures of Obama-Biden helped enable Trump to become President. While Trump lost the Presidency, a more competent fascist would probably have easily won—and the fascist to follow Biden might be a competent one.
Overall, I have the plausible worry that Joe is simply going to shift the country back to 2012. While this would be an improvement over where we are now, it will simply delay the success of fascism in America. As noted above, Trump is an incompetent, lazy fascist. He is also, as others have said, a soulless husk without virtue who can barely use language. Yet his followers are deluded into thinking he is strong, honest, and competent. Just imagine what a competent, charismatic fascist could do in 2024. Perhaps our only real hope is that America is a trash fascist country whose trash fascists (trashcists, if one will or trashcysts if one prefers) want trash leaders—so competent fascists will fail in favor of more Trumps.