Month: November 2024

 

Feminists tend to criticize the portrayal of female superheroes in comics.  This criticism is usually body types of female heroes, the poses, and skimpy. One response is the Hawkeye Initiative in which Hawkeye (or another male superhero) is drawn in the same pose and costume type as a female superhero. As would be imagined, the male hero looks absurd when so posed and costumed, which is the point of the criticism.

While the presentation of female superheroes in comics is a first world problem, it does raise important concerns about potential harms, such as perceptions of body image.  But my interest here is in superhero costumes from a practical standpoint. While I am no expert on fashion, I draw on my experiences as an athlete, martial artist and gamer to guide the discussion.

In the realm of fiction, being a superhero generally means being very physically active and engaging in combat. This means that a sensible superhero would have a costume designed to take these into account.

While I am not a superhero, decades of competitive running give me some insight into what to wear when engaged in physical activity. One important factor is mobility, as you need to be able to move properly in athletic clothing. One approach is loose fitting clothing that allows a lot of motion (such as running shorts) while another is the tight-fitting spandex (such as running tights) that also allow free motion. The idea of heroes wearing tights makes sense for the same reason it makes sense for runners to wear them. Another important factor is temperature management. Most heroes will generate body heat and sweat when they are active. So, they will need to be able to stay cool while active but also remain warm when they are just patrolling or engaging in dramatic dialogue.

As a runner, I wear as little as possible when I am running in warm weather. These are just shorts, socks and shoes.  Many other runners are similar, with women generally adding the legally necessary coverage. Presumably a superhero that runs about would want to wear as little as possible. As such, in warm weather superheroes dressed in super versions of running clothes would make sense and they would have lots of skin exposed.  This assumes that the superheroes need to stay cool when being active. A superhero that had no need to sweat could wear whatever they wished—the concerns of mere sweaty mortals would not matter to them.

Considering this, it would make sense for female superheroes to wear the same amount of clothing as competitive runners: not much. However, the same would also apply to male superheroes.

While wearing minimal clothing is a good idea when active under warm conditions, like runners facing cooler weather, superheroes would alsoneed to cover up more to remain comfortable and perhaps avoid hypothermia. Practical and sensible superheroes should also consider following a standard practice of runners: wearing more clothing to warm up or when waiting to compete, then shedding clothing when it is time to get down to business. Since hanging out all day in sweat-soaked clothes is uncomfortable, sensible heroes would also change costumes when they can. And shower.

Unlike runners, superheroes engage in combat, and this imposes another set of practical considerations. Since superheroes tend to fight hand to hand, it would be unwise to have costumes that provide a foe with easy handholds. As such, tight costumes without extraneous material would be the best choice. Capes would, as always, be a poor choice.

When engaging in combat, it has always been a good idea to have protective gear. Some of this protection is intended to deal with the incidentals of combat, such as ending up in contact with rough surfaces (like being knocked down in the street) but most of it is supposed to provide protection against attacks. This protection usually takes the form of armor, ranging from ballistic clothing to powered armor (like Iron Man wears).

Armor does have the usual trade-offs: it tends to restrict movement, tire out the wearer quicker, and create overheating problems. As such, heroes that rely on speed and freedom of movement might be inclined to avoid armor or at least keep it to a minimum. The classic Batman, for example, did not wear any armor. However, as anyone who plays games like D&Ds or faces combat in the real world knows, armor is usually a good idea when other people are trying to kill you.

To be effective armor must at least cover the important parts (usually the head and torso) and that means exposing a lot of skin is a bad idea. As such, the “classic” fantasy drawings of heroines in armor are absurd. Or, as a veteran D&D player put it, “if the enemy can see your cleavage, they can cut your boobs.” And no one wants their boobs cut.

Superheroes who have powers that make them invulnerable or otherwise grant great defensive powers do not need to rely on armor and they can safely wear whatever they like; such as Power Girl’s famous cleavage window costume. While the classic Wonder Woman relied on her magical bracelets, the updated version seems to be close to Superman in her ability to withstand damage. As such, she would not need to rely on armor for protection. Superman, of course, does not need armor since his skin is almost certainly stronger than almost anything he could find on earth. As such, a superhero who still had to deal with the sweating problem but did not need armor would want to wear as little as possible, be they male or female. Perhaps this explains why Wonder Woman still dresses the way she does.

 

A way to argue the United States is obligated to provide health care is by contending it is analogous to its obligation to defend citizens from “enemies foreign and domestic.” While there is disagreement about the obligations of a country, most thinkers believe the state is required to provide a military defense against foreign threats and deploy the police against domestic threats. So, just as the United States is obligated to defend its citizens from foreign terrorists and domestic criminals, it is obligated to defend them against cancer.

Another approach is to forgo the analogy and argue the basis of the obligation to provide military defense and police services also extends to providing health care. The general principle is that the state is obligated to protect its citizens. Since anthrax and heart failure can kill a person just as dead as a bullet or a bomb, then the state is also obligated to provide medical protection. Otherwise, the citizens are left unguarded, and the state would fail in its duty as a protector. While these lines of reasoning are appealing, they can certainly be countered. This could be done by arguing that there are relevant differences between providing health care and providing armed defenses.

One way is to argue that the state is only obligated to protect its citizens from threats presented by humans and not from other threats, such as disease or accidents. So, the state is under no obligation to protect citizens from the ravages of natura disease. But, the state is obligated to protect citizens from foes using disease as a weapon.

This seems odd. From the standpoint of the victim, it does not matter whether their disease is natural or inflicted, since the effect on them is the same. What matters is the harm being inflicted on the citizen. To use an analogy, it would be like the police being willing to stop a human from trying to kill another human but shrugging and walking away if they see a wild animal tearing apart a human. As such, it does not matter whether the harm is caused by a human or, for example, a virus—the state’s obligation to protect citizens would still apply.

Another counter to my view is to argue that while the state is obligated to protect its citizens, it is only obligated to provide a certain type of defense. The psychology behind this approach can be made clear by the rhetoric of those supporting generous state funding of the military and police while being against state funding for medical care. The military is spoken of in terms of its importance in “degrading and destroying” the enemy and the police are spoken of in terms of their role in imposing “law and order.” These are very aggressive roles. One can appear tough while speaking about funding submarines, torpedoes, bullets and missiles.

In contrast, the rhetoric against state funding of health care speaks of “the nanny state” and how providing such support will make people “weak” and “dependent.” This is caring rather than clubbing, curing rather than killing. One does not look manly or tough when speaking about funding preventative care and wellness initiatives.

What lies behind this psychology and rhetoric is the principle that the state’s role in protecting its citizens is one of force and violence, not one of caring and curing. This does provide a potentially relevant difference; but the challenge is showing that this difference warrants providing armed defense while precluding providing medical care.

One way to argue against it is to use an analogy to a family. Family members are generally obligated to protect one another, but if it were claimed that this obligation was limited only to using force and not caring for family members, then this would be rightfully regarded as absurd. Imagine, for example, a parent who was willing to kill to protect their child, but unwilling to take care of their illnesses and injuries. They would be rightfully condemned as a bad parent.

An interesting rhetorical approach is to embrace the military and police metaphors. Just as the state should thrust its force against enemies within and without, it should use its medical might to crush foes that are literally within—within the citizens. So, the state could wage war on viruses, disease and such and thus make it more manly and less nanny. This should have some rhetorical appeal to those who love military and police spending but are loath to fund healthcare.

As far as the argument that health care should not be provided by the state because it will make people dependent and weak, the obvious reply is that providing military and police protection shoulf have the same impact. As such, if the dependency argument works against health care, it would also work against having state military and police. If people should go it on their own regarding health care, then they should do the same when it comes to their armed defense. If private health coverage would suffice, then citizens should just arm themselves and provide their own defense and policing. This, obviously enough, would be a return to the anarchy of the state of nature and that would be bad. If accepting military and police protection from the state does not make citizens weak and dependent, then the same should also hold true for accepting health care from the state.

As a final point, an easy way to counter the obligation argument for state health care is to argue that the state is not obligated to provide military and police protection to the citizens. Rather, the military and the military, it could be argued, exists to protect and advance the interests of the elites. Since the elites have excellent health care thanks to their wealth and power, there is no need for the state to provide it to them. Other than the elites in government, like the Republicans in congress, who get their health care from the state.  On this view, support for using public money for the military and police and not health care makes perfect sense.

 

When Middlebury invited Charles Murray to speak, the event was disrupted by student protestors and both Murray and Professor Allison Sanger were assailed on campus. This incident sparked reflection on the campus and beyond. Peter Singer, a philosopher who is no stranger to controversy,  had his talk disrupted by people who disagree with his views. The process of shutting down a speaker by disruption is the heckler’s veto.

Critics have claimed that such disruptions prove the left believes free speech extends only to those they agree with. On the one hand, this does have some merit: some notable disruptions have been aimed at speakers whose views are generally opposed by the left. On the other hand, such disruptions have also been opposed by others on the left. As such, claiming the left opposes free speech they disagree with is no more (or less) accurate than saying the right opposes local control when they disagree with it, such as when local governments want to ban fracking or impose gun control. While speculating about whether “the left” is against free speech is interesting, the focus of this essay in on the ethics of the heckler’s veto.

The extreme version of the heckler’s veto is violence, such as that directed against Murray and Sanger. Richard Spencer, who is regarded by some as a Nazi, was famously punched for his views, igniting a debate about the ethics of punching Nazis. When protests occurred on campuses over Gaza, violence was often used to silence the protestors. This violence included state and university sanctioned police violence. The right, which had been outraged about “the left” silencing speakers was generally on board with this.

The standard version of the heckler’s veto is, as the name indicates, heckling to prevent a speaker from being heard or interfering until they give up. The hallmark of this sort of heckler is that they are not trying to engage and refute the speaker, they are endeavoring to prevent the speaker from being heard.

One approach is to take the standard view that as long as the speaker is not engaged in directly harmful speech (such as slander or calls for violence), they should be free to speak without disruption. A more sophisticated approach is to use a utilitarian method of weighing the harms and benefits of allowing the speaker to exercise the right to free speech. For example, if punching Nazis to silence them sends the message that Nazism will not be tolerated and this reduces the hate crimes committed in the United States, then such punching could be defended as good. For those who see protesting against Israel as bad, they could argued that the good of silencing protestors warrants disrupting protests, perhaps even with violence.

An alternative to the utilitarian approach is to argue that there are some things, such as Nazism and sexism, whose badness entails people should not be permitted to speak in favor of them even if doing so created no meaningful harms. While I do see the appeal in the “there are things we must not allow to be said” approach, there is the challenge of showing that even without any harm being caused, such speech is simply wrong. One obvious approach, which I will not develop here, is that publicly speaking in favor of such things will always cause meaningful harm.

One interesting approach to heckling is to point out that it seems to be a tactic for those who cannot refute the views they oppose; it is the noisy refuge of the logically or rhetorically incompetent. If the views being expressed by the offending speaker are wrong, then they should be refutable by argumentation. If all someone can do is yell and disrupt, they should remain silent in favor of someone who can refute the speaker. For example, those who disagreed with Murray could have made their points by arguing against him.

A practical reply is that the audience might not be given the opportunity to engage in a possibly lengthy refutation of the speaker. As such, they must engage in heckling to prevent the speaker from speaking. A reasonable counter to this is that while a person might not have the chance to engage at the actual event, they have an opportunity at refutation via other venues, such as social media.

Another reply to this is that allowing the speaker to speak on a campus lends legitimacy and normalizes the speaker’s views, even if the views are not explicitly endorsed. As such, if a speaker cannot be prevented from being invited, then they must be silenced by disruption to prevent their views from gaining a platform.

While this does have appeal and schools should consider the educational merit of speakers, having a person speak on campus does not entail that the school endorses the views and does not automatically make them legitimate. To use the obvious analogy, using the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf in a political science class does not endorse or legitimize these works. Likewise, inviting someone with right wing views or who is critical of Israel to a debate does not entail that the school endorses these views or make them automatically legitimate. Just as reading books containing ideas one might not agree with (or even hate) is part of education, so too is listening to speakers expressing such ideas. As such, heckling speakers to silence them would be on par with censoring books to keep people from reading them or movies to keep people from seeing them. Critics of the right are, no doubt, thinking that is exactly what the right does, and this exposes the hypocrisy of their claims that they are protecting freedom from the left.

The educational value argument can be countered by making use of  one of Plato’s arguments for censorship in the Republic. Plato argued that exposure to certain types of art would corrupt people and make them worse. For example, someone who was exposed to violent works of art could become corrupted into becoming violent. Plato’s solution was to ban such art.

In the case of speakers, it could be argued that they must be silenced by heckling because their speeches would corrupt members of the audience. For example, one might claim that listening to Murray talk about his work would corrupt audience members with racism and poor methodology. As another example, one might argue that allowing people to protest Israel’s actions would corrupt the audience This argument assumes, as does Plato’s, that most people lack the ability to defend themselves from such corrupting power. Since the hecklers think the speaker is wrong, they presumably think that most people are either incapable of discerning right from wrong or are just awaiting the right trigger to cause them to embrace evil. On this view, the hecklers would be heroes: those strong enough to resist the siren song of evil and loud enough to drown it out. For those who agree with Plato, Aristotle or Stanley Milgram, this argument should be appealing: most people are easily swayed towards misdeeds and few are influenced by either arguments or fine ideals. Those who dislike Trump and attribute his election in part to defects in voters would also find this approach appealing. And, of course, no discussion of this sort would be complete without a mandatory reference to Hitler and his ability to win over the people.

But, of course, no discussion of this sort would be complete without noting how heckling is like any other tool in that it can be used by the good and the evil alike. Naturally, the people using it will usually think they are on the side of good and their foes evil. Their foes are likely to think the opposite. Since sorting out what is good and bad requires consideration and discussion, silencing people would interfere with sorting these things out. As such, I am opposed to heckling, even if I disagree strongly with the target. That said, one might be tempted by Plato’s argument that the ears of the many must be protected from corrupting words and that it is up to the philosophers to decide which words are corrupting and which are wholesome.

 

While the right to free speech is fundamental to classical liberalism, contemporary liberals are often accused of being its enemy. Two examples include incidents at Berkeley and Middlebury. As always, the matter of free speech is philosophically interesting, especially when it involves higher education.

One important distinction in the context of rights is that of the negative versus the positive. A negative right is not an evil right; rather it is a freedom such that the possessor is not entitled to be provided with the means to exercise the right. It is a right to not be interfered with.

A positive right is an entitlement to the means needed to exercise the right. For example, the United States currently grants citizens a right to public K-12 education. In addition to having the liberty to seek this education, it is also provided (by the taxpayers). In contrast, college education is usually a negative right: students have the liberty to attend college but are (generally) not provided with free education.

The right to free speech is a negative right; it is intended as a protection from impediment rather than an entitlement to the means of expression. To use an obvious example, while I have the right to express my views no one is obligated to provide me with free radio or TV time in which to do so.

While university personnel have no right to unjustly interfere with free speech, they are usually under no moral obligation to provide people with speaking opportunities on campus. For example, while I might be invited to speak at Harvard, Harvard has no obligation to provide me with a room just because I might want to talk about philosophy.

Decisions about who to invite and who to allow to speak in official venues are often made on pragmatic grounds, such as which speakers will boost the reputation of the school or who happens to be friends with top administrators. There are also practical concerns about the cost of the speaker, the likelihood of trouble arising, and the extent of the interest in the speaker. While these practical concerns are important, decisions about who to invite (and who to exclude) should also be made on principled grounds.

One reasonable principle is that decisions should be made based on the educational value of the speaker campus, broadly understood. Since universities are supposed to educate students, it makes sense for them to operate on this principle. Speakers who offer little or nothing in the way of educational value could be justly denied invitations. Of course, education is not the only concern of a university in terms of what it offers to the students and the community. Speakers who offer things of artistic value or even mere entertainment value should also be given due consideration.

One concern about decisions based on these factors is that there can be good faith debate about which speakers have the merit to warrant their invitation. For example, the incident at Middlebury arose because some see Charles Murray’s co-authored controversial book The Bell Curve as  based on pseudoscience and bad methodology. While these matters can be clouded with ideology, there are established standards regarding educational merit regarding such things as methodology and legitimacy. The main problem lies in their application, but this is not a problem unique to picking speaker as it extends across the academy. Fortunately, the basic principle of merit is reasonable clear but the real fights take place over the particulars.

Another seemingly sensible principle is a moral one; that those invited should reflect the values of the institution and perhaps the broader society. At the very least, those invited should not be evil and should not be espousing evil.

This principle does have some problems. One is deciding what conflicts with the values of the institution. Another is that it is difficult to speak of the values of the broader society, given the considerable diversity of opinions on moral issues. When people use this approach, they usually refer to their own values and fall prey to the cognitive bias that leads them to assume their values are shared by society. There is the enduring problem in ethics of sorting out good and evil. There is also the concern about whether academic or artistic merit can offset moral concerns. For example, a Catholic university might see a pro-choice philosopher as endorsing a morally wrong position, yet think that having this philosopher engage a pro-life philosopher in a campus debate to have educational merit. As another example, a liberal institution might regard an extreme libertarian as having morally problematic views yet see educational merit in having them present their arguments as part of a series on American political philosophy.  As with the matter of merit, there are rational and principled ways to approach ethical concerns but this is even more fraught with controversy than questions of assessing educational merit.

While I agree that speech can cause harm, I hold to a presumption in favor of free expression. As a principle, this means that if there is reasonable doubt as to whether the merit of a speech outweighs moral concerns about the speaker or content, then the decision should favor free expression. This is based on the view that it is better to run the risk of tolerating possible evil than to risk silencing someone who has something worth saying. As such, I generally favor a liberal (in the classic sense) approach to inviting speakers to universities.

Americans tend to favor free expression for those they agree with and oppose it for those they dislike. When campuses attempted to exclude right wing speakers, the right expressed its devotion to free expression, speaking of the free market of ideas. As was expected, when college students and faculty recently protested the treatment of the Palestinians by Israel, the right supported a crack down on free expression and on some campuses riot police were turned lose on students and faculty. The right has also worked hard to restrict the content of college classes, enacting laws imposing what they call “reforms.” For example, my adopted state of Florida professes to be all about freedom, but this is only for the freedom to express views that accord with the ideology of the right. It could be countered that “the left” takes a similar approach when it is in power, allowing free speech it approves of. While such finger pointing might feel good, it also shows that Americans are not as committed to free speech as we claim.

 

While simple and ideologically appealing explanations for Harris’ loss are tempting, the truth is that the reasons are many and often complicated. While it is inarguably true that racism and sexism (two staples of American politics) were factors, the relationships between the two parties and the truth were also factors.

While politics often involves people in a dubious relation with the truth, Trump seems to have locked the Republican party into strategic deceit. The prime example is, of course, what was dubbed the “Big Lie” about Trump being robbed of his rightful victory in 2020. As would be expected, talk of issues with the election has ceased with Trump’s victory. While the Republican party has engaged in strategic lying broadly, I will focus on economic lies.

To be fair and balanced, both the Republicans and the Democrats are right when they claim that many Americans are suffering economically. Inflation, stagnating wages, the high cost of health care and the absurd price of housing have been hurting Americans. Even those who are relatively well off also seem to have felt that the economy was not working for them as it should. As such, both sides agreed on and were correct about the general claim that most Americans are facing economic woes. But they obviously differed in their explanations and proposed solutions. I will focus on the explanations.

While the Republican populist rhetoric did lay some of the blame on corporations, there was an emphasis on lying about the impact of migrants. In addition to the old lies that migrants are stealing jobs, spreading disease, committing crimes and sponging off the system, J.D. Vance also offered the false claim that migrants were responsible for the high cost of housing. While migrants do occupy housing, it is obviously not true that undocumented migrants are buying houses in the United States. In addition to the barrier of the high cost, there is also the fact that legally buying a house is a process that an undocumented person would not be able to complete. Trump and Vance ran hard on the migration issue, linking it to the economy and using racism and xenophobia to add rhetorical fuel to their false claims. The economic link is a smart rhetorical play for two reasons. First, it provides cover for people who are motivated by racism and xenophobia but who do not want to be seen for what they are. Second, it onboards people who are not racist or xenophobic but who are rightfully worried about their economic woes. In terms of how this can work, I need to present an analogy to tech support.

While I am a philosopher, I am also the guy that family, friends, and co-workers turn to when they have tech issues. While I do not work in IT, I was the editor of a Mac ezine in the 1990s, wrote shareware programs, and still build my own PCs. I also have those philosophical critical thinking skills that translate well into fixing tech problems.

When I first started helping people, I made some mistakes that were soon corrected by experience. These were not technical mistakes but psychological. The first was that I would try to explain the nature and the cause of the problem accurately and in some detail. I learned that no one cared much about a detailed explanation, even if they could understand it. The second was that when I tried to show them how to fix the problem as I fixed it, they did not want to know the details, nor did they care much about what I was doing as long as I solved their problem. As one friend put it, they didn’t need to know how to fix problems since they had me. Since learning that people only want their problems solved without caring much about the complicated why or how, since then I have fixed problems quietly. While I was initially annoyed by this and wondered how they could not love knowing about technology as I did, I realized that this was a biased view on my part. While I am interested in technology and solving problems and willing to expend my resources on this knowledge and skill, other people are not interested and prefer to expend their mental resources on other things. This is rational since a person has only so many resources to spend and it makes sense to rely on other people who have the needed knowledge and skill. This holds even when the problem is important and affecting a person.

While I am also interested in politics and economics, it makes sense that (just as with technology) most people are not. They do recognize when they feel things are not going as they would like, and they want someone else to offer them a simple explanation and be told that the problem will be fixed for them.

While we talk about “the economy”, it is obviously an incredibly complicated network of people, resources, made-up laws, made-up traditions, practices, relationships, and so on. As such, there are usually no simple explanations or fixes for economic problems (and one person’s problem is another person’s profit). But just as people notice when their PC is crashing, people notice when their grocery bills are higher, and their rent eats up an ever-larger chunk of their paycheck. Not being experts in the economy (and who really is?) they do not really know why this is happening and have no idea what complicated solutions are needed. Instead, just as my friends and relatives turn to me to fix their technology woes, voters look to politicians to offer simple explanations and easy to understand fixes. But there are obvious differences in that I am honest about technology problems, and I know how to fix them (only one partial failure in over thirty years). When it comes to the economy, as noted above, the Republicans have embraced strategic lying.

They offer simplistic and untrue explanations, such as blaming migrants. But this appeals to people since they are offering an explanation they can understand without being experts in economics: migrants are hurting the economy and hence hurting them. They can then offer a simple, easy to grasp solution (that will make things worse): the Republicans will round up and deport the migrants. This solution will not work for obvious reasons and will most likely make things work because a cornerstone of American food production and construction is cheap migrant labor. This means that the Republicans might suffer some loses when the economy does not improve (or gets worse) but perhaps they can use strategic lying to avoid blame for that. Given that the Republicans have adopted strategic lying, one might think that the Democrats could have won by telling the truth about the cause of Americans’ economic woes and offering real solutions. But Democrats will (mostly) not tell the truth about the economy.

While the Republican rhetoric accuses the Democrats of being socialists and communists, this is also part of strategic lying. While it is true that there are Democrats who have views that are left of the current center, the mainstream Democrats are committed to (or bought by) the same capitalist system (and capitalists) that the Republicans work hard to serve. There is, however, a meaningful difference in that the Democrats push back against some of the worst excesses and favor relatively timid and mild regulations and protections for the lower classes and the environment. In contrast, the Republican party seems to favor allowing the elites to do as they wish without regulation (as long as they do not wish to appear “woke” for marketing purposes, as Disney found out). While some Democrats might have laudable motives, there is also a practical reason to keep the excesses of capitalism in some degree of check, since failure to do so could result in social upheaval and revolt. But getting back to Democrats not telling the truth.

Harris decided to run from the center, making a show of embracing rebel Republicans such as Liz Cheney and “good” billionaires. Despite the claims that the Democrats lost because they were too “woke” or too into identity politics, Harris and her fellow Democrats steered away from “wokeness” and generally avoided identity politics. They even took harder lines on immigration and crime. While acknowledging the economic woes of the lower classes, the Democrats generally did not tell the truth about the cause of those woes nor did they offer any meaningful solutions. This is because telling the truth about these woes would reveal that they are the result of the actions of the elite classes and that significantly improving the conditions for the lower classes would require meaningful changes to the status quo and not just band aids. One of the many reasons that the Democrats cannot do this is that they are, like the Republicans, reliant on the economic elites for their re-election funding. There are also the financial rewards politicians receive for serving these interests, be they Democrats or Republicans. Congress has, to no one’s surprise, an abundance of millionaires. Democrats, I suppose, deserve some faint praise for not engaging in scapegoating migrants or the poor for the economic woes most Americans face. But they deserve criticism for not telling the truth.

While it can be pointed out the Republicans’ strategic lie beat the Democrats’ strategic silence, it can be argued that the Democrats could have won if they had adopted views like those of Bernie Sanders. While some pundits and liberal elites are quick to claim that people who voted for Trump did so because they are dumb racist misogynists, I recommend that people think about my tale about fixing technology: people rationally want someone who can explain complicated problems in simple terms and offer a promise that they will fix the problems. The Republicans did offer explanations, although they were mostly lies. They also offered simple solutions (albeit ones that will just make things work). The next election cycle the Democrats should heed my advice and take my approach: offer a simple but honest explanation and offer a simple explanation of the complicated fix that is needed. Then fix the problem and remember that people will forget you fixed it until they have another problem.

 

The first time I was summoned for jury duty in my adopted state of Florida, a lawyer in the jury pool told me that they would not pick either of us. He was right: when the lawyer asked me my profession it looked like both lawyers crossed out my name on their sheets and I was not picked. This kept happening until my last summons on November 12, 2024. At last, I was selected for a jury. It did turn out that I was the alternate, which might have some connection with my being a philosophy professor. The outcome of the trial made the local newspaper. I thought I would provide some useful information about jury duty and share some of what I learned.

Since I live in Leon County in Florida, my state summons brings me to the courthouse in Leon County. If you happen to live here, the same would happen to you. While the specific details vary, most courts operate in similar ways. In my case, it began with the distinctive summons via the mail. As there can be a fine and even jail time for not responding, be sure to respond even if you believe it is not your duty to do so.

In Leon County, you can respond online via the e-Response system. If you are familiar with government websites, you know what to expect; it is like a trip back to the late 1990s or early 2000s. But the software is serviceable. I recommend signing up for the text and email alerts, otherwise you will need to call the night before to learn whether you need to report or not. Because most cases do not go to trial, there is a decent chance you will not even need to report. You can also request a delay or even be excused. If you have a reasonable request, they will work with you. For example, a few years ago I had non-refundable plane tickets, and they rescheduled me for another time for service.

If you do have to report, do so. As noted above, there can be consequences for failing to report. Here in Leon County there is a juror parking lot at 123 North Martin Luther King Jr Blvd. and other courts probably have similar arrangements. There is a shuttle that goes from the lot to the courthouse. Be sure to bring your summons with you.

When you arrive, you’ll go through a process like that at the airport: your stuff will be x-rayed and you’ll walk through a metal detector. Obviously, leave any weapons at home. While courts vary, you can usually bring electronics, drinks and food to the jury selection. Once you are in the jury courtroom, you’ll get a short talk or video on jury duty and then a judge will administer an oath. After that, you’ll wait to be taken to another courtroom. My day was a busy day, with juries needed for three trials. My group consisted of 40 people, selected at random. We were then split into two groups, one of 21 people (including me) and another 19 people. The number is likely to vary with the nature of the trial.

The group of 21 was put in the juror box, while the other 19 sat in the spectator seats. Each of the 21 answered a set of questions, such as our age, marital status, profession, and whether we knew anyone involved in the trial. Next, the prosecutor and defense attorney asked us questions.

In my group, only three people were clear they did not want to be there, two said they had medical reasons, and one was a new mother. Those who were taking an unpaid day off from work also did not want to be there, since the state only pays jurors about $15 a day, something that makes jury service a real burden for some people, especially for long trials. The judge was clear that the court did not want to burden people, and he acted upon this, excusing the three people who expressed reasons why serving would be burdensome. These three were replaced from the second group, and the additions were questioned.

After this, I and six other people were selected.  We were told when to report (8:30 am) and where to park (validated parking). While courts vary, we had to provide our own lunch (we could leave for lunch or stay) although snacks and drinks were provided. We could bring electronics, although we had to leave bags and such in the jury room and keep our phones off.

The prosecutor and public defender were both professional, competent and serious. The state presented a carefully considered and well evidenced case, while the defense attorney worked hard to provide the best defense possible for his client. The judge ran the courtroom with skill and compassion. My fellow jurors took their duty seriously, taking detailed notes, paying careful attention and abiding by the rules. Seeing all this helped restore some of my faith in people, despite the obvious fact that I was in a criminal trial. While there are courts that are indeed awful, my experience with Leon County courts (albeit only as a juror) has shown that we are fortunate here.

After both sides rested their cases, court adjourned and then we returned the next day. After the closing arguments, I was revealed as the alternate and had to wait outside the jury room while the bailiff retrieved my stuff. I was then escorted out of the building and returned home.

As an ethicist, I have often been critical of the bad aspects of our legal system, but this trial was conducted in a just and fair manner. This, of course, contrasts with some other aspects of our legal system. In general, it seems that across the United States marginalized people who lack power and resources suffer in the legal system as they are often targeted by the police, exploited for income, and lack the money to hire the best defense. As such, they are often the victims of the legal system. The upper classes tend to get premium justice as they are usually protected by the law and police rather than targeted and can, of course, buy the best lawyers. The folks in the middle seem to get the fairest justice, since they are not targeted and have enough resources to get a decent defense. But they lack the privileges of the upper classes and hence are subject to the law. Which is how it should be for everyone.

 

A well-established rhetorical tactic is to falsely accuse someone (such as transpeople) or something (such as television) of being a danger to children. Because humans tend to feel very protective of children, this accusation can easily create feelings of anger and fear that override rational assessment. Such accusations are even more effective when the target is someone or something the intended audience already fears or dislikes. For example, homosexuals have long been accused of being pedophiles.

One recent development has been the Republican strategy of accusing their opponents of pedophilia despite a lack of evidence. This typically takes the form of accusing them of being groomers. Transpeople and drag queens are among the most recent targets being accused of being pedophiles, despite the lack of evidence that these people are any more likely to be pedophiles than anyone else.

My adopted state of Florida has been on the frontlines of the culture wars, attacking LGBT+ people and going after anything labeled as “woke”, ‘DEI” or “critical race theory.” As would be expected, this has involved false claims about pedophiles and groomers. For example, it was claimed that books refereeing to LGBT+ people were corrupting or being used to groom children. But who is endangering the children?

It should not be surprising that marginalized people are not likely to be pedophiles or groomers. After all, pedophiles and groomers often rely on positions of power or authority to gain access to their victims and shield themselves from both suspicion and consequences. The Catholic Church provides an excellent illustration of this and has an entire Wikipedia page on is sexual abuse cases. As a single example, in 2024 the Archdiocese of Los Angeles agreed to pay $880 million to settle sex abuse claims, bringing the current total to over $1.5 billion. Sexual abuse of minors is also a problem in other churches. For example, male pastors from Texas are at least eight times more likely to sexually assault minors than drag queens. While people might be inclined to doubt these claims, they can be confirmed. For example, a skeptic can investigate the Los Angeles settlement and review the documentation. One can also scour police reports nationwide to search for examples of transpeople and drag queens who are pedophiles or groomers, but this will turn up little or nothing.

My adopted state of Florida, which seems to be pushing towards theocratic authoritarianism, passed a law opening schools to volunteer chaplains. In response, the Satanic Temple announced its intention to send in volunteer chaplains, which seems to have paused the plan until it can be reworked to allow only Christian chaplains into schools. Those who rushed to “protect the children” from transpeople, drag queens and books should have opposed this proposal. After all, if the effectively nonexistent threat transpeople and drag queens present warrants such action, then the threat presented by chaplains should be terrifying to them. It is not being claimed that chaplains are likely to be pedophiles, just that statistically they are much more likely to be pedophiles than would a transperson or drag queen. Given the statistical data, it makes more sense to ban chaplains from schools than to go after transpeople, drag queens or books. I must note that I am friends with ministers, chaplains and other religious leaders that are good people. As such, my point is not that we should demonize religious leaders as pedophiles and groomers but that we should not demonize people such as transpeople, drag queens and Democrats. In addition to churches, pedophiles can also be found in police departments.

The Post conducted an analysis of Bowling Green’s The Henry A. Wallace Police Crime Database. To be clear, this is a database of crimes committed by police. This database is, as one would expect, incomplete because it relies on reported arrests and hence is certain to underreport police crimes. From 2005 to 2022 17,700 state and local officers were identified as having been charged with crimes. About 1,800 of these officers were charged with a crime involving child sexual abuse. As per the conservative narrative applied to marginalized groups accused of being groomers, the officers typically spent months befriending and grooming the children before sexually abusing them. As many of these officers were convicted, the court documents can usually be found online, and the Washington Post’s claims can be independently confirmed. Unless, of course, one believes that the police and legal system are themselves involved in a conspiracy to falsely claim that some police have sexually abused children.

Given that Republicans are the self-proclaimed protectors of children and enemies of pedophiles, it might be wondered why they are focusing their efforts against people who are not at likely to be pedophiles while seeming to ignore the sexual predators known to be in police departments. As the Washington Post investigation found, while schools, churches and youth programs usually take special effort to address the risk of child sexual abuse, police departments generally do not do this. It was found that police departments hired people despite their having been accused or convicted of child abuse and other serious crimes. It was also found that officers could resign after being accused of inappropriate behavior with children and move to another department. In some cases, accused officers were reinstated and then eventually convicted of abusing children. Police departments also often fail to notice or act on evidence of inappropriate behavior. I must also note that there are many excellent police officers and  I am glad to know some of them through running, gaming, and my recent experiences as a juror.

If Republicans really cared about protecting the children, they would do something to address this. After all, they have adequate energy to fight imaginary dangers in the culture war. Why not use that to address real threats? While this obviously requires speculation, there seem to be two likely reasons the Republican party does not actually care about protecting the children from real pedophiles and groomers.

The first is that the party is focused on using children as tools for political advantage. Accusing institutionalized authorities such as churches and the police of doing what they are in fact doing would not be politically advantageous. But demonizing their political opponents and marginalized people is advantageous.

The second is that the right seems to accept or even praise “transgressions” by the right type of authority figures. While this sounds horrific, it is not actually being a groomer or pedophile that matters but who is being accused. In line with the claim that “every accusation is a confession”, the right wing media has an established record of defending actual pedophiles and sexualizing children. As this is being written, Matt Gaetz is likely to become Attorney General, despite the existence of credible accusations that he had sex with an underage girl.

In closing, while the right professes to be concerned with protecting children from pedophiles and groomers, the evidence shows this is not true. They are, for the most part, focused on falsely accusing their opponents and marginalized groups while largely ignoring the real danger to the children.

 

While homophobia can still be exploited for political advantage, it is not as effective as it used to be. In response to its diminished political value, the American right embraced transphobia. Before this, most Americans gave little thought to such matters as transpeople competing in sports and bathroom bills. Now that Trump has reclaimed the Whitehouse, it is certain that transphobia will continue to be pushed onto the American people and exploited for political advantage. This will give rise to various moral questions, centered around sports and bathrooms. The right seems extremely interested in bathrooms and who is using them. While one could simply assume that their views are, at best, based on ill-founded but sincere fears, there is the moral question of whether transpeople should be allowed to choose their bathrooms.

One way to approach this moral issue is to consider the matter in utilitarian terms. This requires weighing the likely harms and benefits of allowing or denying this choice. If our overall goal in politics is to serve the good of the people, this is a reasonable approach. It also does not beg any questions as it requires an honest evaluation of the harms and benefits to everyone.

A utilitarian assessment would favor bathroom choice. This is because the two most used arguments against bathroom choice are defeated by the facts. One argument is that allowing bathroom choice would put people in danger. This argument has considerable rhetorical power that derives from fear. After all, the idea that women and girls will be attacked in bathrooms is frightening. But does it have any logical force? Because some states allow bathroom choice, we have data about the danger. Currently, the evidence shows that there is no meaningful danger. As some wits enjoy pointing out, more Republican lawmakers have been arrested for bathroom misconduct than transgender people. As such, those worried about misdeeds in bathrooms should be focusing on the threat presented by Republican lawmakers. The other argument is the privacy argument, which falls apart under analysis.

While some might advance these arguments in good faith, there are those who oppose bathroom choice because they dislike of transgender people and make the “transgender people are icky argument.” This “argument” has no merit on the face of it, which is why it is not advanced as a reason by opponents of bathroom choice. Instead, as noted above, politicians and pundits rely on false claims about danger, using the psychological force of these lies in place of the logical force of evidence. But can a good argument be made for restricting bathroom choice?

A stock problem with utilitarian arguments is they can be used to justify violating rights. This occurs in cases where the benefits received by a numerical majority come at the expense of harm done to a numerical minority. However, it can also arise in cases where the greater benefits to a numerical minority outweigh the lesser harms to a numerical majority. In the case at hand, those opposed to bathroom choice could argue that even if bathroom choice benefits transgender people far more than it harms people who oppose it, the rights of anti-choice people are being violated. This then makes the matter one of competing rights.

In the case of public bathroom facilities, such as student bathrooms at schools, members of the public have the right to use them; that is the nature of public goods. There are, however, reasonable limits placed on access. For example, the public is not allowed to go into a school during normal hours to use the bathrooms. Similarly, the bathrooms in courthouses and government buildings are often not open to anyone to wander off the street and use. So, like all rights, the right to public bathrooms does have limits. It can thus be assumed that transgender people have bathroom rights as do people who oppose bathroom choice. What is in dispute is whether the right of transgender people to choose their bathroom trumps the right of anti-choice people to not be forced to share bathrooms with transgender people. Or whether the right of anti-choice people to force transgender people to use specific bathrooms overrides the right of transgender people.

Disputes over competing rights are often settled by utilitarian considerations, but the utilitarian argument already favors bathroom choice. As such, another approach is needed, and a reasonable one is the consideration of which right has priority. This approach assumes that there is a hierarchy of rights, and that one right can take precedent over another. Fortunately, this is intuitively appealing. For example, while people have a right to free expression, the right to not be unjustly harmed trumps it. This is a reason why libel and slander are not protected by this right.

So, the bathroom issue comes down to this: does the right of a transgender person to choose their bathroom have priority over the right of an anti-choice person to not encounter transgender people in the bathroom? My inclination is that the right of the transgender person has priority over the anti-choice person. To support this, I will use an analogy to race.

Not so long ago, there were separate bathrooms for black and white people. When the end of race segregated bathrooms was proposed, there were dire warnings that terrible things would occur if bathrooms were integrated. Obviously enough, these terrible things did not take place. Whites could have argued that they had a right to not be in the same bathroom as blacks. However, the alleged white right to not be in a bathroom with blacks does not seem to trump the right of blacks to use the bathroom. Likewise, the right of transgender people to choose their bathroom would seem to trump the right of anti-choice people to exclude them.

It can be objected (using a slippery slope approach) that if this argument is taken to its logical conclusion, then bathrooms should be gender neutral. While many will have an emotional reaction to the idea, there is the historical question of why bathrooms were segregated to begin with.  While people might think this has always been the case, the first regulation requiring separate facilities for men and women was not passed in the United States until 1887. The ideological rational behind the separation was the view that women are weaker and needed protection in public spaces. But this separation was not limited to bathrooms as women had their own reading room in public libraries and even their own train cars. But these other gender segregated areas eventually vanished in most of the United States. We do not, for example, have women only seating sections on planes. As such, while it might seem odd to accept gender neutral bathrooms, it was once odd to suggest integrated libraries and transportation, which are now accepted without a thought in most of the United States. One can, of course, raise the danger and privacy arguments against allowing gender neutral bathrooms, but attacking people and harassing them are both already crimes, whether they occur in bathrooms or not. Bathrooms can also be designed to allow privacy (enclosing or replacing urinals and making stalls peep proof). To be fair, it can be argued that a person using the bathroom is more vulnerable to attack and that bathrooms usually only have one exit, making escape more difficult. Given the number of men who seem onboard with “your body, my choice”, women are now even more justified in being wary of men and hence a case can be made to keep bathrooms separate to keep men out.

But making this argument in good faith would require considering all areas where men are likely to harm women and establishing gender segregation in these areas. This would be most, if not all, areas in the United States showing that it is not bathrooms that are the danger, but bad men.

 

While it is tempting to focus on a single reason why Harris lost, her defeat was due to the combined effects of various factors ranging from the large to the miniscule. In the run up to the election, Trump supporters posted relentlessly on social media that gas and groceries were cheaper under Trump, and many seem to have voted for Trump to punish Harris and Biden for their economic situation. Harris has also been criticized for being locked into the status quo and was perceived as being a mere continuation of the unpopular Biden presidency and Trump has been able to convey the impression that he will shake things up and damage the status quo, which proved appealing. Running as a moderate centrist who might make a few minor tweaks was not, it turns out, a winning strategy for Harris. Voters correctly believe they are being harmed by the status quo, but their only viable alternatives were voting for someone already presiding over their suffering or for Trump.

It is certainly reasonable to consider the impact of sexism and racism, subconscious or otherwise. As the polls noted, Trump did very well with men, while Harris did well with women (but not well enough). While young men are not a huge demographic, the Democrats seem to be losing the culture war for them. For example, in the popular culture realms of video games, movies and shows, social media influencers have been successful in advancing the narrative that games, shows and movies are bad because they are “woke” (anti-male and anti-white). Other influencers that target young men also tend to be on the right. These culture war victories no doubt helped Trump, especially since the Democrats do not seem inclined to engage much in trying to win that demographic.

An obvious reason why Harris lost is that she was running against Trump. To use a slightly out of date Halloween metaphor, Trump is like a werewolf in that he seems immune to things that would destroy mere humans. For other politicians, a scandal or engaging in weird behavior would end their career, but Trump has proven largely immune to consequences. In a real sense, nothing Trump did had any negative impact on his support. If Harris had been running against anyone else who did what Trump did or acted like him, she would have almost certainly won by a landslide by simply pointing out the scandals, crimes and weird behavior. But she was running against Trump and thus none of this harmed him. For Democrats, their best hope is that no other Republican has Trump’s magical immunity.

Lastly, there is the rhetorical advantage held by Trump. Trump and his supporters fully embraced lying as a strategy, advancing lies about the 2020 election, about Harris, about immigration and anything else they could think of. The “fire hose of falsehood” is almost impossible to defeat with the truth, especially if the lies are repeated across news media and social media. Trump also had an advantage in his focus on negative emotions, such as anger and fear. As a matter of psychology, people weigh the negative more heavily than the positive and this fuels various powerful fallacies and rhetorical devices. While hope and change can win, fear and anger win more often. This focus on lying and negative emotions provides Republicans with a strong rhetorical advantage which Democrats will be hard pressed to counter.