Posts

While same-sex marriage is now legal, there seems to be an appetite to roll it back. As such, it is worth considering the previous fight in preparation for the future fight. Back when President Obama supported same-sex marriage he was criticized by some leaders in the black community.  For example, Reverend William Owens, the president of the Coalition of African-American Pastors said that “by embracing gay marriage, President Obama is leading the country down an immoral path.”

Owens based his position on his view that same-sex marriage is “simply wrong” and that it was a mistake to consider same-sex marriage as a civil right. He also claimed that the Black Church must oppose it because “the Black Church has always been the conscience of America.” Because of this view, he called upon black pastors and Christians to stop supporting Obama. Owens seemed to claim that the President’s view was just to get the support (and money) of the “Hollywood folks.” This raised some interesting issues back then that will no doubt arise again.

Not surprisingly, those who support same-sex marriage often draw an analogy between the civil rights movement of the 1960s and the movement to secure rights for LGBT+ Americans. Supporters of same-sex marriage also compared same-sex marriage and mixed-race marriages to argue in favor of same-sex marriage rights. In the United States, it was not until the case of Loving v. Virginia in 1967 that laws against inter-racial marriages were deemed unconstitutional. Even now, some oppose mixed race marriage because they see it as immoral and unnatural. I still get the occasional paper arguing against mixed marriage in my college Ethics class.

On the face of it, mixed-marriage and same-sex marriages seem morally analogous. After all, in both cases people are denied the right to marry based on who they want to marry being the “wrong” sort of person: either the wrong race or the wrong sex. Those who favor allowing mixed-race marriages contend that race should not be a relevant factor in determining who one should be allowed to marry. In the case of those who favor same-sex marriage, it was contended that a person’s sex should not be a relevant factor in determining who one should be allowed to marry.

Given the similarity, it is tempting to think that those who supported the civil rights movements of the past and support (or at least tolerate) mixed-race marriage should also, based on consistency, support same-sex marriage.

However, this is not always the case and some people (such as Owens) who support civil rights oppose same-sex marriage. There is a reasonable question as to whether this difference is morally justified.

Owens, as noted above, takes the strategy of claiming that same-sex marriage is immoral and hence should not be supported. Given his remarks about civil rights, he presumably believed that the civil rights movement was morally good. As such, grounds are needed for distinguishing between the goodness of the civil rights movement and the alleged evil of same-sex marriage.

One stock approach is to use the religious argument against same-sex marriage. Among Christian thinkers, the basis for the religious objection is typically and famously found in Leviticus. Naturally, there must also be a mixing of norms (see my Moral Methods book) from the religious claim that homosexuality is an abomination to the moral claim that homosexuality (and thus same-sex marriage) is morally wrong. Since I argue about this general point at length in my book For Better or Worse Reasoning, I will focus on three specific points here.

The first is that basing the opposition to same sex-marriage on religious grounds runs into the problem that the same text used to attack same-sex marriage also contains passages that seem to support slavery and inequality, things inimical to the views of those who support the equality of the civil rights movement.

The second, which is a related point, is that if same-sex marriage is opposed on religious grounds, then consistency requires that other religious rules be followed. This is an instance of a general problem of using religion as the basis for ethics: when people use religion to justify or condemn one practice, they often selectively ignore parts of the text that condemn or justify other practices.

For example, consider the commandment that requires keeping the Sabbath. This, unlike the short line in Leviticus, is one of the ten major rules. However, this commandment is routinely and regularly ignored by the same people who oppose same-sex marriage, as are many other rules (such as those regarding usury and the stoning of disobedient children). If it is argued that these other rules should be ignored because of changing times or on some other grounds, the same sorts of reasons can be given for ignoring Leviticus and thus this religious foundation of the argument against same-sex marriage can be undercut. Of course, it could be argued that this interpretation of this part of Leviticus should be honored while other rules can be ignored as desired. The challenge is doing this selective ignoring in a principled manner rather than merely on the basis of prejudice and convenience.

A third point is that religious arguments were used in support of slavery, against the civil rights movement and against mixed-race marriages. As such, those who would use religious arguments against same-sex marriage while wanting to hold to civil rights will need to be careful to show that their religious arguments against same-sex marriage are legitimate while the religious based opposition to civil rights was mistaken and, of course, that the religious based support of civil rights was in the right. This could be done but the burden of proof would seem to rest on those who want to support civil rights while also opposing same-sex marriage.

Considering the above, the religious based approach does not seem to be a particularly viable means of condemning same-sex marriage if one wants to support other civil rights.

A second common way to argue against same-sex marriage is an appeal to tradition. What is claimed to be traditional marriage is good and right because it is alleged to be traditional. One problem is that appealing to tradition is a fallacy. Another problem with this, at least for those who oppose same-sex marriage while favoring civil rights is that the civil rights movement was opposed on the grounds of tradition and it involved a break with the traditions of racism and unequal rights. As such, appealing to tradition not a very viable option for those who want to oppose same-sex marriage while also supporting civil rights. The same sort of problem arises with appealing to common practice and appealing to belief. There are also logical fallacies and both were employed to argue against civil rights. As such, these do not seem to be viable ways to argue against same-sex marriage while also supporting civil rights.

Naturally, these approaches are not the only avenues to arguing that same-sex marriage is morally wrong. However, these other arguments also certainly seem to fail, as I argue in my For Better or Worse Reasoning. Unlike some opponents of same-sex marriage, those who support civil rights face the added burden of reconciling their arguments against same-sex marriage with their support of civil rights. For example, if someone argues in favor of civil rights based on the principle of equality, they would need to argue why this principle applies to civil rights but does not apply to same-sex marriage. This might be doable but the burden of proof rests on those who wish to support civil rights but also wish to oppose same-sex marriage.

Another possible approach is to argue that there is a relevant difference between the past civil rights movement and same-sex marriage. One plausible way to do this is to note that civil rights should be seen as relating to race while same-sex marriage is (obviously) a matter of sexual orientation. One stock argument is that race is not a matter of choice and hence discrimination against people based on race is wrong. Since the traditional civil rights focus on race, supporting these civil rights would thus seem right. In contrast, it could be argued that sexual orientation is a matter of choice and hence a person could choose to be straight and thus be able to marry someone of the opposite sex. In contrast, a person cannot decide to not be black and hence it makes sense to have civil rights extended to people regardless of race. In contrast, there is no such obligation to people who “choose” to be gay. There is also the point that while people cannot, in general, easily hide their race in America, they can hide their sexual orientation. Hence, features that cannot be hidden should be protected, while those that can need not be protected.

One obvious objection to this approach is arguing that being gay is no more a matter of choice than is being black or being born a woman. As such, the choice argument would not hold. Another obvious objection is that the mere fact that a person can conceal something about themselves hardly seems to justify not extending rights to them. Just because, for example, some black people can “pass” for white does not entail that they are not entitled to equal civil rights. Likewise, the fact that a gay person can pass as straight does not mean that they do not need their rights protected.

Another approach is to argue that while being of a certain race or sex (male or female) is not immoral, being gay is. If true, this claim would provide the needed relevant difference to allow a person to support civil rights while still opposing same-sex marriage.

One obvious concern with this approach is that those who oppose civil rights for minorities or women would argue that minorities or women are inferior to, for example, white men and are not entitled to the same rights. In the case of same-sex marriage, the idea is that people who are gay are morally inferior to straight people and thus not entitled to the same rights, most especially marriage rights. As such, those who support minorities or women having civil rights while opposing the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples need to show that there is a difference between homosexuals and other people that warrants the difference in treatment.

In the case of people who otherwise supported civil rights, such as Owens, the burden of proof would appear to be on them to show that while certain people should have full civil rights other people should be denied the right to marry.

There is, of course, also the issue of whether marriage rights should be denied to people who are immoral. Other civil rights do not seem to require being moral. As I have argued in Better or Worse Reasoning, there is not a general moral requirement for marriage, So, for example, a serial killer could always legally marry a murderer, if they are different sexes. As such, there seems to be no general grounds for denying marriage rights to same-sex couples, even if it is assumed that being gay in and of itself makes a person morally evil.

It could be argued that marriage rights are, in fact, denied to people who are immoral (or who want to engage in immoral activities). Pedophiles are rightfully denied the right to marry underage children (although what counts as underage varies by state) , people who are fond of animals are denied the right to marry animals, close relatives are denied the right to marry, necrophiliacs are denied the right to marry corpses and so on. However, this point can easily be countered, and I do so in my For Better or Worse Reasoning. After all, there are good moral arguments against marrying children, corpses and animals, mainly based on the obvious notion that they cannot provide consent. The same arguments do not, however, hold against same-sex couples.

On the face of it, it is difficult for a person to consistently support civil rights while at the same time opposing same-sex marriage rights. While clearly not impossible, the burden of proof rests on those who wish to defend civil rights for themselves while not extending those rights to others they regard as immoral or inferior. As this is being written, same-sex marriage is still legal in the United States, but no battle for rights is ever over.

 

A Philosopher’s Blog is Now on Substack!

You can subscribe and read for free.

https://aphilosophersblog.substack.com/

One clever political trick is to convince people you accept an appealing principle and then act in direct violation of that principle. That way, you gain the rhetorical benefit of espousing a principle while gaining the practical benefit of breaking it.

One of the holiest principles of American conservatives is the free market. It is advanced as a cure to economic ills and often described in ways that sound like it possesses magical powers. As might be imagined, thinkers have debated the merits of the free market of capitalism. Both Adam Smith and Marx praised it while others were rather critical of it, especially the forms that involve an essentially unregulated market.

Not surprisingly, one standard ritual for any Republican candidate is to praise the free market and promise to fight for the freedom of this market. But they seem too often engaged in an empty performance as the allegedly free market is not free. Rather than competitors competing on a level playing field without unfair advantages, the existing system consists of mechanisms of advantage that ensure competition is anything but free.

One of the great castles of advantage is occupied by fossil fuel industry. From this castle, propagandists for the industry rail against subsidies for the competing renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. To be fair and balanced, some conservative thinkers have argued for eliminating government support for all energy industries based on the free market principle. To also be fair and balanced, this is after the fossil fuel industry has enjoyed decades of subsidies and other state provided advantages. As an obvious example, the fossil fuel industry was built, in part, using oil extracted from public lands.

But one can consistently argue in favor of support for an industry while arguing against the support of another. If there were a relevant difference between the two industries that would require that the state support one industry to level the playing field, then the difference could be justified. To use an analogy, an athlete who is missing his legs should be allowed to use prosthetic legs so he can compete with other runners. However, giving mechanical enhancement (such as enhanced running shoes) to an able runner would be unfair. Likewise, an industry that needs governmental support to be able to fairly compete against other industries that were established and supported by state support could justly also receive state support. As such, if it could be shown that the oil and gas industry needed to retain its government support to compete against alternative energy, then that support could be justified.  Obviously, the same would also apply to the alternative energy industries—if they need the support to compete on a level playing field against the fossil fuel industry and its state support, then they should receive such support.

This, of course, assumes such support is acceptable. After all, another professed conservative principle is that the state should not take the hard-earned money of taxpayers and give it to those who have not earned it. While this principle is usually embraced when the state is providing support to the disadvantaged, it is usually ignored when it comes to state support to the advantaged, such as tax breaks for the wealthy.

While it might be claimed that the oil and gas industry needs the state welfare it enjoys, this is an odd claim. After all, the top five companies in the oil industry have made about $1.3 trillion in 2021-2025 with the big US fossil fuel companies making about $600-800 billion in the past 10 years. As such, they hardly seem to need state support.  

As noted above, some conservative thinkers have contended that the energy market should be made into a free market, although they usually just say that renewable energy sources should not receive subsidies while remaining silent about fossil fuel subsidies. However, doing this would not level the playing field. After all, the oil and gas industries have enjoyed state support since 1918. While the exact numbers can be disputed, it is estimated that the oil and gas industries received about $31 billion in state support each year. In contrast, the renewable energy industries received far less support, and this has been slashed and eliminated under the Trump regime. It is hilarious to hear conservatives attack solar and wind for not being viable without subsidies while they remain silent about how the fossil fuel industry was built on and is enriched by public support. But to be fair and balanced, some conservative pundits might be speaking in good faith ignorance about the history of state support for fossil fuel. But this is something they should look into if they are going to condemn state support for developing alternative energy.

Even if the state support of energy industries was eliminated, the playing field would not be level. After all, fossil fuel companies still have decades of state support and billions of dollars in advantages over the alternative energy companies.

To use an analogy, to call for a “level playing field” by condemning public support for alternative energy industries would be like calling for a “fair boat race” by forcing all competitors to row after some of them have been pulled for miles by powerboats and others are just a little bit out from the starting buoy. While everyone would now be rowing, it would hardly be a level playing field or a fair competition.

Obviously, the analogy does break down. In a boat race, the competitors could be returned to the start to begin the race anew. In the case of the energy industries, the oil companies cannot be “pushed” back to its starting point to give alternative energy companies a fair competition.

But it might be argued that while decades of state welfare for the energy industries was not a free-market system and gives them an unfair advantage, since nothing can be done about the past, the right thing to do is to restore the free market now and let the competition play out. This is analogous to how white supremacists like to argue against DEI efforts while ignoring centuries of established advantage.

Perhaps the alternative energy industries can still make a go of it, despite being at a tremendous disadvantage (like in the movies in which the underdog wins against all odds) and being denied the support that enabled the fossil fuel industries to become viable. Of course, this would be like making a competition “fair” by eliminating training for all athletes and then having the trained athletes compete against the untrained newcomers.

This analogy does suggest a potentially fair solution. To level the playing field, the alternative energy industry would need to receive support comparable to that enjoyed by the fossil fuel industries. This could be done by shifting the support from the fossil fuel industries to the alternative energy industries. Once the playing field has, in fact, been leveled in a few decades, then the support for the alternatives can be withdrawn and fair competition can finally begin. To go back to the boat analogy, the new competitors would be allowed to be pulled by a motorboat for the same amount of time and then they could row fairly against each other. In the case of the training analogy, the new athletes would receive comparable training to the old and then they could compete fairly on a level playing field. We would then have a free market, rather than a system that has given the fossil fuel industries an incredible advantage over the competition via past and current state welfare.

 

A Philosopher’s Blog is Now on Substack!

You can subscribe and read for free.

https://aphilosophersblog.substack.com/

Way back in July, 2012 the newsletter of the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) supported Meatless Monday. This was based on health concerns about meat consumption, the environmental impact of meat production, and its inefficiency (for example, it takes 7 kilograms of grain to make 1 kilogram of beef).

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) took issue with this recommendation and J.D. Alexander, the president of the NCBA, responded: “This is truly an awakening statement by USDA, which strongly indicates that USDA does not understand the efforts being made in rural America to produce food and fiber for a growing global population in a very sustainable way. USDA was created to provide a platform to promote and sustain rural America in order to feed the world. This move by USDA should be condemned by anyone who believes agriculture is fundamental to sustaining life on this planet.” It was also claimed that the support of Meatless Monday was “a slap in the face of the people who every day are working to make sure we have food on the table to say, ‘Don’t eat their product once a week.’ ”

There were also tweets critical of the newsletter. For example, Iowa Representative Steve King responded with “USDA HQ meatless Mondays!! At the Dept. of Agriculture? Heresy! I’m not grazing there. I will have the double rib-eye Mondays instead.”After these reactions, a USDA spokesperson retracted its support Meatless Monday and that the link to the newsletter had been posted without “proper clearance.” 

While this was a minor political dust up, especially compared to the nightmare that is current political hellscape, the meat debate is still ongoing. One issue that persists is whether meat is a means of producing “food and fiber for a growing global population in a very sustainable way.”

While meat is food and has some fiber, it is not an effective way of providing food and fiber for a growing global population relative to the alternatives. After all, meat production is far less efficient than growing crops. While the exact ratios vary, producing a kilogram of meat requires much more than one kilogram of feed. As such, a more effective way to feed a growing global population would be to grow crops for human consumption rather than use them to make meat.

While the meat industry has tried to make meat production more sustainable, it is not as sustainable as the alternatives. Meat production is far more resource intensive than growing crops for human consumption and meat production does more environmental damage by adding the damage of meat production on top of the damage caused by feed production.  And given that producing a kilogram of meat requires creating multiple kilograms of feed, it is just math that meat production is not as sustainable as the alternatives. There is also concern about the waste products of the animals that often end up contaminating water and food. While non-meat agriculture generated contamination (mainly from pesticides and fertilizers), meat production produces far more because the animals require feed crops that produce contaminants and the animals also produce contaminants, for a double shot of contamination.  So, the idea that meat production is a sustainable means for feeding a growing global population seems mistaken. 

There is also the economic concern to consider. The meat industry employs people and can be a profitable business, especially with the government transferring wealth from taxpayers to farmers.  If people go meatless on Mondays (or other days) this could result in slightly lower sales of meat, thus costing the meat industry some profits. As such, a utilitarian argument could be made against Meatless Monday. If people eat less meat, then there will be less income for the meat industry.

There is an obvious reply to this concern. While Meatless Monday might lead to less meat consumption, it is not the same thing as “Meal less Monday” in which people eat nothing. As such, if someone is not eating a steak or pork chop on a given Monday, they will probably be eating something else, thus supporting some other food industry.

While I still like meat, I love truth more and hence I  believe that eating meat is not very healthy. While it has long been known that excessive meat consumption is unhealthy, even small amounts of red meat present a health risk.  While red meat is protein dense, eating red meat is a causal factor in heart disease and studies also link it to other health problems, such as colorectal cancer. Naturally, those in the meat industry dispute these findings. While the fact that the meat industry is biased does not prove that they are in error, this bias reduces their credibility.

Because I do like eating meat, I would like these studies to be wrong. However, what I would like is not the same thing as what is true. In my own case, I had to change my diet because of health concerns back in 2012. Despite running 50+ miles a week and working out regularly, my blood pressure and cholesterol were not great. After changing my diet, my blood pressure dropped and my good cholesterol increased. Since then, I’ve maintained a diet that is very light in meat and mostly plants. While my case is just an anecdote, my experience is consist with the best medical advice today.  

To head off the obvious straw man attacks, I am not advocating that people eliminate all meat from their diets (although that would be an excellent idea in terms of health and ethics). Rather, I think that reducing meat consumption would help improve individual health and would also help the non-meat producing aspects of American agriculture. It would also be better for the environment. It would, of course, not be ideal for folks in the meat industry—but they are not the only people who matter and a Meatless Monday is not Meatless Everyday or even Meal Less Monday.

 

 

A Philosopher’s Blog is Now on Substack!

You can subscribe and read for free.

https://aphilosophersblog.substack.com/

With each mass shooting the gun debate ignites again, in an endless circular dance. Some people see such horrific events as evidence in favor of new gun regulation. Others quickly head off attempts to act.

Some think it odd that I, an allegedly liberal philosophy professor, am pro-gun. The psychological casual explanation for this is easy: I was shaped by my pro-gun upbringing. I learned to shoot as soon as I could hold a gun, I hunted for years, and I am still a gun owner. I enjoy shooting and I feel comfortable with guns. I feel uncomfortable around people with guns who have no grasp of basic gun safety—an encounter that sometimes happens at the range. But how I feel about guns should not determine what I should believe about guns and gun control.

Gun control, the limiting of gun ownership, can be supported by a very reasonable utilitarian argument. By restricting gun ownership, the likelihood of people getting injured or killed by guns is reduced. While limiting gun rights can be seen as a harm, this is supposed to be offset by the greater reduction in harm to the potential victims of guns (or people with guns if you prefer).

Because of the utilitarian argument, I accept that some gun control laws can be morally justified. However, there is the question of the extent to which gun rights should be limited (if at all). There are varying degrees of gun control ranging from none to complete gun control in which gun ownership is forbidden.

In the United States, people often see gun rights as special rather than in terms of general principles about right. On the right, gun ownership is sometimes venerated and defended with zealous devotion. On the left, guns are sometimes seen as inherently terrifying. I, however, follow a general principle that can be used to sort out what should be allowed and what should be restricted.

As noted above, the main argument for restricting gun rights is to reduce harm. This is based on the more general principle that rights or liberties can be restricted under the justification of reducing harm. As such, it would seem useful to discuss gun rights in this general context.

Given that the goal of gun control is to reduce harm, it might be tempting to argue in favor of complete gun control or at least strict restrictions. The general principle is that a ban or strict restrictions would be justified by significant harm reduction. While this does have some appeal, it needs to be considered in a broader context.

If the goal is to reduce harm, then gun control would be low on the list of things that should be restricted. After all, far more people perish due to automobiles, tobacco, alcohol and obesity than die in incidents of gun violence.  As such, if guns should be restricted to reduce harm, then automobiles should also be restricted more because they do much more harm. Also, poor health choices create massive harm, so regulation of food and exercise would be justified by this general principle. While some do advocate this regulation, most see these as absurd. However, if banning Big Macs and cars seems absurd, then banning guns would also seem absurd.

But it can be argued there are relevant differences between gun control and such things as strict automobile and obesity control. In the case of obesity, it can be argued that a person who is obese is primarily hurting themself (although general obesity does harm everyone). If people have a right of self-harm while not having the liberty to harm others, then the distinction is easy to make. Except, obviously, for suicide by gun—if slow suicide by obesity should not be restricted, then quick suicide by gun would also be a liberty. Using a right to self-harm, one might argue that suicide deaths involving guns should be morally distinct from homicides involving guns.

In the case of automobiles, it is tempting to argue that automobile deaths are accidents while gun deaths are intentional. However, there are accidental deaths involving guns and intentional deaths involving automobiles A vehicle can be used as a very effective weapon, albeit one that is hard to conceal.

A more plausible option is a utilitarian approach: while severely restricting automobiles would lower death and injury tolls (not to mention reducing pollution and perhaps encouraging exercise), the utility of the automobile provides an adequate offset against the harms arising from automotive liberty.

Unlike cars, it could be argued that guns lack adequate utility to morally justify the harm they cause. After all, guns are mainly used for entertainment such as hunting and target shooting. While they are sometimes used for survival hunting or protection against animal or human threats, these benefits are offset by the harm of allowing gun rights or liberties.

Naturally, when making the calculation of harms and benefits, if the entertainment value of guns is to be discounted or dismissed, then the same must be done for automobiles and anything else. This would include pool ownership. While pools are mainly for amusement, they cause numerous drowning deaths every year. This would also apply to tobacco, which has no practical benefit and is used solely for pleasure, despite the fact that it harms the user and those exposed to the secondhand smoke. It could even apply to junk food, snacks and desserts—these are consumed for pleasure rather than any health benefit yet are major contributors to obesity. It could even be argued that these harmful products are inflicted on people (by advertising and subsidies that make them cheaper than healthy food) and thus they could be seen as a form of attack.

Interestingly, if the restriction of guns is based on arguing that they are primarily entertainment and lack suitable utility, then the same line of reasoning can be used to restrict automotive rights. After all, if the enjoyment of target shooting does not justify the liberty to use a gun for this purpose, then the enjoyment of driving would not justify the liberty to drive. So, if automotive liberty is warranted in the face of death and injury on utilitarian grounds then then it is reasonable to restrict automotive usage to utility, such as transporting heavy items over a long distance. Merely driving around for amusement or to go someplace to be amused, such as a movie, would not warrant putting oneself and others at risk of death and injury.

Of course, gun defenders will argue that guns are not primarily for amusement. Rather, they would point to their essential role in protection, perhaps against scary minorities or communists. There is also the argument that private ownership of guns provides a balance against the compulsive power of the state. An unarmed population is only free at the discretion of the armed, which is a rather uncertain sort of freedom. After all, we did see the pro-gun groups rush out to counter the flooding of cities with ICE and the National Guard just as they promised. At least we might have in some possible world in another timeline.

The stock counter is that people are safer without guns and that the state can generally be trusted not to oppress the people to a degree that would necessitate armed resistance. These are, of course, factual matters—but not uncontroversial ones.  After all, people will point to the few cases where someone defended themselves and others with their guns. And we do see the Trump regime flooding the streets of American cities with ICE to allegedly do crimes against people and inflict terror on the population.

It can be said that it would be a better world without any weapons. This might be true, but it would also be a much better world if no one was willing to hurt anyone else and these seem equally likely to come about.

 

A Philosopher’s Blog is Now on Substack!

You can subscribe and read for free.

https://aphilosophersblog.substack.com/

BAI (Before AI) “Big Data” was a bugbear and the term was used to describe the acquisition, storage and analysis of large quantities of data. The search giant Google was one of the pioneers in this area and it is developed into an industry worth billions of dollars. While Big Data is obviously still used, it is now usually presented as part of the AI debate. But whether considered on its own or as part of AI, it still raises ethical concerns.

One common use of Big Data is to analyze customer data to make predictions used to target advertising. An infamous old example of this is Target’s pregnancy targeting. This Big Data adventure was a model of inductive reasoning. First, an analysis was conducted of Target customers who had signed up for Target’s new baby registry. The purchasing history of these women was analyzed to find patterns of buying that corresponded to each stage of pregnancy. For example, pregnant women were found to often buy lots of unscented lotion at the start of the second trimester. Once the analysis revealed the buying patterns of pregnant women, Target then applied this information to the buying patterns of women customers. Oversimplifying things, they were essentially using an argument by analogy:  inferring that hat women not known to be pregnant who had X,Y, and Z patterns were probably pregnant because women known to be pregnant had X,Y, and Z buying patterns.  The women who were tagged as probably pregnant were then subject to targeted ads for baby products and this proved to be a winner for Target, other than some public relations issues.

One interesting aspect of this method is that it does not follow the usual model of predicting a person’s future buying behavior from their past buying behavior. An example of predicting future buying behavior based on past behavior would be predicting that I would buy Gatorade the next time I went grocery shopping because I have bought it consistently in the past. The analysis used by Target and other companies differs from this model by making inferences about the future behavior of customers based on their similarity to customers whose past buying behavior is known. For example, a store might see shifts in someone’s buying behavior that matches other data from people starting to get into fitness and thus predict the person was getting into fitness. The store might then send the person (and others like her) targeted ads featuring Gatorade coupons because their models show that such people buy more Gatorade.

This method also has an interesting Sherlock Holmes aspect to it. The fictional detective was able to use inductive logic (although it was described as deducing) to make impressive inferences from seemingly innocuousness bits of information. The use of Big Data allows for (sometimes) reliable inferences based on what appears to be irrelevant information. For example, likely voting behavior might be inferred from factors such as one’s preferred beverage. 

Naturally, Big Data can be used to sell products, including politicians and ideology. It also has non-commercial applications, such as law enforcement. As such, it is hardly surprising that companies gather and analyze data at a relentless and ever growing pace. This certainly is cause for concern.

One ethical concern is that the use of Big Data can impact the outcome of elections. For example, analyzing massive amounts of data allows ads to be crafted and targeted. Given that Big Data is expensive, the data advantage would tend to go to the side with the most money, thus increasing the influence of money on the outcome of elections. Naturally, the influence of money on elections is already a moral concern. While more spending does not ensure victory, there is a clear connection between spending and success.

In any case, Big Data (and now AI) adds yet another tool and expense to political campaigning, thus making it more costly for people to run for office. This, in turn, means that those running for office will need even more money than before, thus making money an even greater factor than in the past. This, obviously enough, increases the ability of those with more money to influence the candidates and the issues. But, as a counterpoint, one could argue that the current age of AI provides Big Data AI tools for a low price and thus makes things “fairer.” As a counter to the counterpoint, one can argue that the best tools and the people who can use them well are still very expensive. But one can argue that the role of Big Data and AI in politics should be addressed by laws.

On the face of it, it would seem unreasonable to require campaigns go without Big Data. After all, it could be argued that this would be tantamount to demanding that campaigns operate in ignorance. However, the concerns about big money buying Big Data to influence elections could be addressed by campaign finance reform, which would be another ethical issue.

One major ethical concern about Big Data is privacy. First, there is the ethical worry that much of the data used in Big Data is gathered without people knowing how the data will be used or that it is even being gathered. For example, if you walk past a neighbor’s smart camera or drive by a Flock camera, data about you is being stolen without your consent and perhaps without you being aware of it. As a side issue, there is the interesting moral question about whether such systems being used to steal data about you would morally warrant your disabling them or even grabbing, for example, the solar panel used to power one, as compensation for their theft. Legally, of course, the answer is obvious—the law is generally against the people rather than protecting them.

While people might know that some information is being collected about them, knowing this and knowing that the data will be analyzed for specific purposes are two different things. As such, it can be argued that private data is obviously being gathered without proper informed consent and this is morally wrong.

The obvious solution is for data collectors to make it clear about what the data will be used for, thus allowing people to make an informed choice regarding their private information. Of course, one problem that will remain is that it is difficult to know what sort of inferences can be made from data. As such, people might think that they are not providing any meaningful private data when they are, in fact, handing over valuable information that can be exploited.

If a business claims that they would be harmed because people would not hand over such information if they knew what it would be used for, the obvious reply is that this hardly gives them the right to deceive to get what they want. However, most businesses need not worry about people deciding not to provide data. While Facebook seems to be dying under the hand of Zuckerberg, it still scoops up data and Tik Tok and Instagram are excellent data collectors.

A second moral concern is that Big Data provides a means of making inferences about private matters, such as pregnancy. While this sort of reasoning is classic induction, Big Data changes the game because of the massive amount of data and processing power available to make these inferences. In short, the analysis of seemingly innocuous data can yield inferences about information that people believe to be private—or at the very least, information they would not think would be appropriate for a company to know. People running companies generally seem that it is right and good for them to know anything they can monetize in the endless extraction quest.

One obvious counter is to argue that privacy rights are not being violated. After all, if the data used does not violate the privacy of individuals, then inferences made from this data do not violate privacy, even if the inferences are about things people think of as private (such as pregnancy). To use an analogy, if I were to spy on someone and learn from this that she was an alcoholic, then I would be violating her privacy. However, if I inferred that she is an alcoholic from publicly available information (like the Vodka bottles spilling from her recycling bin), then I might know something private about her, but I have not violated her privacy.

This counter has some appeal. After all, there is a meaningful and relevant distinction between directly getting private information by violating privacy and inferring private information using public data. To use an analogy, if I get the secret ingredient in someone’s prize secret recipe by sneaking a look at the recipe, then I have acted wrongly. However, if I infer the secret ingredient by tasting the food when I am invited to dinner, then I have not acted wrongly.

A reasonable reply to this counter is that while there is a difference between making an inference that yields private data and getting the data directly, there is also the matter of intent. It is, for example, one thing to infer the secret ingredient simply by tasting it, but it is another to arrange to get invited to dinner specifically so I can get that secret ingredient by tasting the food.  To use another example, it is one thing to infer that someone is an alcoholic, but quite another to systematically gather public data to determine whether or not she is an alcoholic. In the case of Big Data, there is clearly intent to infer data that customers have not already voluntarily provided. After all, if the data had been provided, there would be no need to undertake an analysis to get the desired information. Thus, while the means do not involve a direct violation of privacy rights, they do involve an indirect violation—at least in cases in which the data is private (or at least intended to be private).

The solution, which would be difficult to implement, would involve setting restrictions on what sort of inferences can be made from data. And there is the reasonable objection that drawing inferences from data is not a violation of privacy as long as the data used was not itself a violation of privacy rights.

A Philosopher’s Blog is Now on Substack!

You can subscribe and read for free.

https://aphilosophersblog.substack.com/

Back in 2022 college swimmer Riley Gaines tied for 5th place in the 200-yard freestyle with Lia Thomas during the Women’s Swimming and Diving Championships. While 5th place is a remarkable achievement at this level of competition, it would not have made the news except for the fact that Thomas is a transgender woman and Gaines decided to take up the anti-trans banner. From a cynical standpoint, one might argue that Gaines is now cashing in on the manufactured anti-trans grift beloved by the right. To be fair and balanced, one might also assert that Gaines is acting on deeply held beliefs and confronting what she perceives as a moral threat and not just as an opportunity to gain fame and sell books.

On her website, Gaines presents two of the main concerns advanced by anti-trans activists in the context of sports. Gaines asserts that “I can attest to the tears that I witnessed from finishers who missed being named an All-American by one place.” This can be seen as pointing towards the fairness argument against trans athletes, at least those who transitioned from male to female. The gist of the argument is that even after transitioning, a transwoman will have an unfair advantage in competition and hence should be banned. It is worth pointing out that Gaine’s one example of her own experience is used to “prove” that a problem exists. However, even if one thinks that it is unfair for a transwoman to compete with other women, even when transwomen were allowed to compete, the number of transwomen athletes was tiny. Put bluntly, it seems crazy to have a political frenzy over one example where Gaines tied for 5th place.

As I have argued in other essays, one can have a good faith discussion about fairness and competition. For example, while Thomas did knock another woman out of being an All-American, all the woman who placed also knocked other women out of being All-American. It is reasonable to infer that the women who placed had advantages over the women who did not (or just had a better day). They might, for example, have had a genetic advantage in endurance, strength or other qualities. Or maybe they have wealthier parents who were able to pay for better lessons. Or they went to schools that provided better support for swimmers. And so on. But to be fair and balanced, we collectively have decided to address fairness is simple ways, such as size, age, and sex and perhaps one could make a moral case that while other advantages do not matter morally, the alleged advantages of being a transwoman do matter. As I am not an expert in sports performance science, my opinions about whether a transwoman has, on average, an advantage after transitioning have no weight—so I will leave this to experts operating in good faith. There is, of course, the obvious fact that men, on average, have an advantage over women and this is commonly appealed to in making the anti-trans case. But, back to Gaines.

After Riley Gaines spoke during the 2022 CPAC, Trump said, “Just to show you how ridiculous it is, look at me. I am much bigger and much stronger than her, there is no way she could beat me in swimming, do we all agree?” When I saw this on video, I felt a nanosecond of empathy for Gaines. I know female athletes who have endured men disparaging their athletic ability and have seen how much this hurts them. This empathy quickly passed, since she had chosen a road on which misogynistic views are displayed like billboards. But I would have loved to see Trump try to swim against her. If he did, Vance would probably be president now. I freely admit that Gaines could easily beat me in a swimming race, unless she has gotten way out of shape. I’m sure that at her peak she could have beaten me when I was at my running peak as a varsity college runner—because running speed does not translate well to swimming speed. As an experienced athlete, I have respect for female athletes and know how strong they can be—which is why I see the anti-trans tactic of belittling them as fundamentally insulting to my fellow athletes.

To be fair and balanced, one can say that Trump was just joking and not making the absurd claim that he could beat Gaines. But some men do think that an average man can beat even a top female athlete, as evidenced by the infamous 2019 survey in which 12% of British men thought they could win a point against Serena Williams (3% of women thought they could). There is also the obvious fact that the anti-trans argument must assume that even a transitioned transwoman will consistently be a superior athlete.

Underlying this view, obviously enough, is the misogynistic view that women are inferior and need to be protected (the fairness argument often includes the dramatic claim that transwoman athletes will cause excessive injuries). While Gaines professes to want to protect female athletes, this view of women is weaponized against cis-gender athletes in the form of false accusations, public harassment and demands that they prove their sex. The focus on this also distracts from other concerns, such as women’s sports being underfunded. Shockingly, misogynistic views end up hurting all women. As such, even if Gaines does have good intentions, the ideology she is supporting will hurt women like her. But at least she can sell some books at collect speaking fees. But perhaps she is sincere and thinks she is doing good while she sells books and collects speaking fees.

The second point made by Gaines on her website is that “I can attest to the extreme discomfort in the locker room from 18-year-old-girls exposed to male body parts and having to undress with a male watching in the same room.” To her credit, she does not seem to accuse Thomas of planning to assault her and the “girls”, which is another standard attack on transwomen. To be fair and balanced, there can be a good faith discussion about the safety of women and who should be allowed in what spaces. However, transwoman as predator rhetoric is a bad faith argument, as it is not backed up with evidence. It also embraces sexist views of men as predators and women as helpless victims.

Speaking of predators, it did look like Trump tried to kiss Gaines at CPAC and that she turned away in disgust. To be fair and balanced, Gaines denies this and claims Trump was merely speaking to her and that she turned her head to listen. Even if Gaine’s is telling the truth, Trump has been accused by over 25 women of various forms of sexual misconduct. Most famously, Trump was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation in the E. Jean Caroll case. Ironically, it has been alleged that Trump walked into dressing rooms while contestants (including some as young as 15 or 16) were changing or naked. Given Gaine’s statement about how she felt about Thomas being in the locker room, it might seem odd that she would support Trump.

While Trump is just one example, the allegations against him show the obvious: transwomen are not the threat that other women should worry about, it is the cisgender sexual predators that present a real danger. This also illustrates the bad faith of many of the anti-trans activists: they profess to want to protect women, but support Trump.

 

 

A Philosopher’s Blog is Now on Substack!

You can subscribe and read for free.

https://aphilosophersblog.substack.com/

We Americans generally do health and nutrition badly. One reason for this is that we are often systematically misled by the state at the behest of commercial interests. Ask a nutritionist you trust about the federal food pyramid. Another reason consists of all the usual critical thinking problems humans have combined with the influence of ignorant influencers and grifters singing siren songs in the sea of social media.

One thing we sort of get right is that we need protein, yet we tend to get the protein thing wrong. As a runner, one of the mistakes I made in the past was thinking that stuff made for athletes, like protein bars, would be healthy choices. But the sports beverages turned out to be mostly sugar water and the protein bars are expensive candy—albeit with some protein. Since I wanted to eat less badly and not spend as much, I started making my own protein bars last year. They didn’t kill me or give me explosive diarrhea, so that has been great.

I’d like to say that this recipe was found in the text of the Odyssey and fueled Odysseus through his various deceits and crimes. But the truth is that Odysseus was fueled by Dunkin Donuts. I will avoid the usual recipe nightmare of providing an irrelevant narrative about how the recipe interacts in some unexplained manner with my life and daily activities. I just eat one of these bars after a run.

You’ll need a food processor or a strong mixing hand to make them, and cooking is only required for the quinoa. Or you could just eat it raw and risk stomach pain and gas. Do what you do and you get what you get.

 

Ingredients

  • 1 cup raw quinoa
  • 2 cups water (to cook the quinoa)
  • 3 cups oats
  • 3 cups chocolate chips (dark chocolate recommended)
  • 3 cups peanut butter (crunchy, smooth if you are a heretic)
  • 18 pitted Medjool dates (unpitted if you are a psychopath)
  • 1 cup chopped walnuts (or any other nut)
  • Salt (optional)
  • Honey (optional)

 

Recipe

Step 1: Cook the Quinoa. Follow the directions on the container; which usually say to boil 1 cup of quinoa in 2 cups of water and then simmer for 15-20 minutes. I put a little salt in the water.

 

Step 2: Process. Combine the following into your food processor and process using the slicing shredding blade; I usually use the pulse function to let the motor cool a bit. I divide the processing into three to avoiding killing the processor’s motor. A Vitamix might also work or might cause a kitchen fire. Process until everything is well mixed.

 

  • 1 cup cooked quinoa
  • 1 cup oats
  • 1 cup chocolate chips (dark chocolate recommended)
  • 1 cup peanut butter (crunchy, smooth if you are a heretic)
  • 6 pitted Medjool dates (unpitted if you are a psychopath)
  • 1/3 cup chopped walnuts (or any other nut)
  • 1 tsp Salt (optional)
  • ¼ cup Honey (optional)

Step 3: Pan Time: Line a pan with parchment paper and dump the processed stuff into it. Push it together and down, ideally filling 1/3 of the pan.

 

Step 4: Repeat. Repeat steps 2 and 3 until all the stuff has been processed. You can use a rolling pin to flatten the top.

 

Step 5: Cool, cut and store. Chill the bars-to-be in the fridge for at least 30 minutes. Cut them into bars, squares, stars or whatever you want. Put bars into an airtight container and store them in the fridge.  Eat after running or whenever. You’re an adult; life choices are up to you.

Smithsonian National Museum of American History Director Anthea Hartig was brought before congress in July 2026. During the questioning, Nancy Mace asked the director “what is a woman?” For those not familiar with this rhetorical tool, the question might have seemed irrelevant and even bizarre. However, it is a well-established rhetorical tool used by the right that was popularized by Matt Walsh and Justin Folk in the propamentary What is a Woman?

The use of rhetorical tools is a rational approach. For those who accept the cognitive miser theory, using a rhetorical tool saves cognitive resources. Even without a theory, it makes sense not to waste time re-inventing the wheel.  It also allows one to borrow skills by “running” a rhetorical “program.”

 My fellow gamers will understand the analogy of using an optimized character build and rotation in a game like Diablo IV or World of Warcraft: this allows a person to play above their own skill level by using the work of someone else. There is also the analogy to how people in tech support and customer service use scripts. One can even look at expert systems and AI that use stolen processes to emulate skills.

I have no general issue with people borrowing skills and using templates as I do this myself when I, for example, use an argument by analogy or use a plumbing technique I learned from a book or YouTube video. I also have no issue with using rhetoric—as I tell my students, rhetoric is like flavoring for food. Rhetoric is logically neutral but there is no need to avoid making your arguments “taste good” by using some rhetoric. But I do have an issue with substituting rhetoric for logic and using it in bad faith.

While “what is a woman?” can be a good faith philosophical question, when someone like Mace asks it, they are asking in bad faith. They are not inviting someone along on a journey of discovery or a thoughtful inquiry. Instead, it is a bad faith set up for a trap, for they already have the answer they want, and their intent is to score rhetorical points as part of an ideological performance.

If the target of the question is not prepared, they will probably flounder and struggle with their answer. The questioner can allow them to flounder a while and then shut them down with their prepared answer: “A woman is an adult human female.” For many audiences, it will seem that the questioner won: they confidently offer a decisive, simple answer while their target floundered. But this is obviously just a rhetorical victory: they have proved nothing and have merely persuaded the audience. This is why people on the right prefer to engage with unprepared people, such as college freshmen and other non-experts.

When engaging with a prepared or expert target, folks on the right prefer to ask the question when the target has a limited time to answer, the context favors them or when they can edit the response. In the case of Mace questioning Hartig, Hartig had only a short time to respond and was speaking before congress and cameras as a director trying to do the best she could for the Smithsonian and not, for example, as an expert on gender in a risk free environment. Folks on the right try to avoid engaging experts in contexts in which the experts have the time to provide a detailed response without a metaphorical sword dangling over their head.  But this question can still be rhetorically effective against even an expert.

While the right professes to believe their simplistic, grade-school answer to the question “what is a woman?”, this answer does actually have many rhetorical advantages over the sort of complex answer an expert would give.

One is that people generally find complexity boring when it is outside their areas of interest. Obviously. As a philosopher, I notice this—which makes sense. Most people are not, for example, interested in the finer points of trope theory. But I also notice it in my role as the DIY guy who fixes things. I learned decades ago that most people just want the thing fixed and, at best, a simple explanation. They do not want to hear me talk about IRQ conflicts or the idiosyncrasies of 2-stroke engines. An expert explaining what a woman is will most likely bore people, especially since the time spent learning expertise cuts into the time one might spend learning showmanship and rhetorical skills.

The second is that people often find complex explanations about what they thought were simple things unsettling or even frightening, even if they do not have an ideological commitment to the simple conception. While this might seem odd, dealing with the complexities of reality is a matter not just of intellect but also a matter of virtue. Virtue is, as our good dead friend Aristotle said, hard.

Engaging with the complexities of reality requires moderating your pride because you will need to admit when you do not know and when you are wrong. In American culture, admitting ignorance or error is usually a blow to one’s pride and status. It is often equated with weakness, although it obviously requires more strength of character to admit ignorance or error than it does to lie. Admitting ignorance or error also requires courage because, as just noted, doing so puts your status and pride at risk. My students often seem disconcerted and worried when I tell them, somewhat jokingly, that I am wrong about everything.

Concern about status crosses the political divide in the United States but folks on the right seem somewhat more concerned about hierarchy and status than the left. So, if someone offers a complex account of what it is to be a woman that goes beyond what we are taught in grade school, this might cause discomfort and fear in the audience. As such, a simple answer that fits what we were taught in grade school will feel right.

Given that Socrates famously claimed that wisdom is knowing you know nothing, it is hardly surprising that philosophers are often willing to admit ignorance and error. At least within certain limits that, ironically, help preserve their status as philosophers. In my own case, studying philosophy did help me accept that my ignorance is infinite and that I am wrong about everything. But my DIY training also led me to this view.

I had the good fortune of being raised by a dad who taught me many useful skills of the sort that would be stereotypically considered manly. I learned to use tools ranging from saws to rifles. I also took shop in school, something that has apparently been abandoned. I was good at shop, as evidenced by the fact that I have all my fingers. During COVID I enhanced my DIY skills by learning much more about electrical repair, plumbing and automobile repair. I’m also good at electrical work, as evidenced by the fact that I have not been electrocuted or burned down my house.

Refusing to acknowledge ignorance or error is an obstacle in fixing or building things, so part of learning to be good at these skills is learning how to moderate pride and develop courage. While one can get away with lying in business and politics, lying is not going to get your ice maker working again or solve the problem with your PC crashing when you try to play Darktide. Sure, you can lie to someone about fixing their icemaker or PC but that is a business skill. Lying about fixing, for example affordability, is a political skill. As is lying about what it is to be a woman.

The simple answer, that a woman is an adult human female, is obviously appealing to people who accept that ideology. Obviously, any conflicting answer will be looked upon negatively, especially if it is complex. Ironically, while the right seems smugly content with what they think is a simple answer that “proves” their gender ideology correct, they do not seem to understand that it invites more questions. Obviously enough, someone with any curiosity would realize that the concepts of adult, human and female raise questions that demand complex answers.

For example, while the concept of adult might seem simple and obvious, in the United States even the legal concept is complicated. For voting, contracts, jury duty, military service and consensual sex, a person is an adult at 18. For drinking, 21. If we get into the biology of adulthood, then we get different answers that vary between individuals. If we consider adulthood from a normative standpoint, such as in terms of moral accountability, then we also get different answers that vary with time and culture.

Sorting out what it is to be human is also a complex matter. There is the biological question in which we might wonder, for example, if neanderthals were human. There is also the normative question. For example, Kirk claimed that Spock was the most human, despite being only half biologically human. Outside of sci-fi, we make the moral claims that someone is human or inhuman, although they are obviously homo sapiens. There is also the metaphysical question of what it is to be human. For example, was Plato right when he claimed there was a form of Man? Probably not.

And although the right thinks (or pretends) they perfectly understand what it is to be female, this is also complicated even if we just stick to genetics and biology. For example, we are told in grade school that females are XX and males are XY. But 1 in 1,000 females are XXX. Human genital physiology is also complicated. But how can one respond to the “what is a woman?” question effectively and honestly?

From a rhetorical standpoint, the ideal would be to have a concise, snappy answer that is true. So, when the Nancy Maces of the world ask, “what is a woman?” one could just say (insert concise snappy truth). Unfortunately, the truth is complicated.

 As others have noted, there is no lower limit to simplicity if you lie, while reality imposes a simplicity floor on truth. This is one of the many reasons politicians and advertisers lie in varying degrees; they know that they need to keep it simple while also understanding simplifying leads to untruth. As such, beyond saying “it is complicated” there is no short, simple true answer to the question, which gives the right a huge rhetorical advantage. As would be suspected, they use the advantage of untrue simplicity broadly and this is augmented by decades of the right training Americans to distrust expertise. They also use the rhetorical technique of repetition as the question “what is a woman?” and the response “an adult human female” are talking points used across the world by the right.

To be honest, there is probably no way to counter this rhetorical question in a way that would change the minds of people already committed to the “an adult human female” gender ideology. Fortunately, most people are not committed to this ideology and their minds can change. After all, people have changed their minds about many things in America, with a recent change being the public view of same sex couples. It was not long ago that people just said “it’s Adame and Eve and not Adam and Steve” to “refute” same sex marriage. So, “a woman is an adult human female” might become another rhetorical relic of the right and they will need to find a new vulnerable group to demonize. Or rely on the classics, as misogyny, racism and antisemitism have served the right well.

 

A Philosopher’s Blog is Now on Substack!

You can subscribe and read for free.

https://aphilosophersblog.substack.com/

In an earlier essay I explained why I use AI images in my D&D content. This was not offered as an excuse or justification as I agree it is morally wrong to use these images. In another essay I presented the argument that using AI generated images is wrong because AI companies engage in theft. This moral argument would not apply to image generators not built on theft (if any exist). But there is another moral argument against using AI image generators which is that using them displaces human artists.

Concerns about the technological displacement of workers is, of course, ancient. As a philosopher, one example I often hear is that of Hiero of Alexandria who invented the aeolipile which is often presented as the first steam engine. One explanation sometimes offered as to why steam power did not revolutionize the ancient world is that it would have displaced slave labor and there was a political choice not to do this. There are alternative explanations, of course.

In general, the technological displacement of jobs can be divided into three categories. One is when technology ends an industry. Being from Maine, one example I know well is the end of the whaling industry. Petroleum and kerosene replaced whale oil while spring steel and plastic replaced whalebone. Whether such an ending is ethical or not obviously depends on the specifics of the situation. But AI is obviously not eliminating the industry of images.

Another is when technology reduces the number of jobs because it augments the ability of an individual to do work. As each worker can do more, fewer workers are needed and jobs might be eliminated. The power loom and spinning Jenny are examples of such technology as is the printing press. A much more recent example is the forklift—one forklift driver can do the work of many people. Some people worried that Photoshop would have a similar effect, that one worker using the software could replace many workers. Interestingly, Photoshop (and similar software) increased the number of artists and graphic designers employed. But it did automate some tasks and eliminate some jobs which takes us to the third way.

A third way technology eliminates jobs is through automation. While automation can augment, the pure form of automation is when human workers are replaced by machines that do the job in their place. The examples that are always used are when human computers were replaced with computers, when elevator operators were replaced with push button systems, when switchboard operators were replaced with automated dialing systems, and when manual pinsetters were replaced by machines in bowling alleys. In some cases, automation that eliminates one set of jobs creates other jobs; people like to say that the automation of manufacturing created jobs in repairing and programming robots, for example.

Not so long ago, the stereotype of automation eliminating jobs was that of a machine replacing “unskilled” manual labor. However, worries about AI replacing “skilled” jobs have been around for some time, with Star Trek’s 1968 “The Ultimate Computer” being an excellent example in science fiction. In the real world, we did see the creation of expert systems in which human experts were analyzed and interviewed so their skills could be recreated in software. One simple example of this is something you have probably used, which is tax preparation software.

One type of automation that is often overlooked is human automation in which humans become living robots (automanations?, hubots? biobots?). No, this is not a science fiction story but actual business practice.

During the rise of industrialization, skilled workers were studied to find out how they did their tasks and then these tasks were analyzed and broken down into simple tasks that could be done by unskilled workers. Business leaders had an excellent reason to do this, since skilled workers are less common and more difficult to replace than unskilled workers. So they need to be paid more and treated better. While it might be an exaggeration, it would not be absurd to say that the history of business is the history of trying to replace skilled workers with the cheapest possible unskilled alternative.

While this oversimplifies things, unskilled workers can “run a program” copied from skilled workers and complete a task as if they were skilled workers—thus serving as human robots. In philosophy, Searle’s Chinese room is an example of how this can work. While this deskilling was originally done for “manual” labor, it has been applied to “mental” labor as well.

While it might be seen as a silly example, if you have interacted with customer service or tech support, you almost certainly will have experienced an unskilled person operating from a script. The idea is the same—the script is an attempt to replicate skill (a program) and the person “running” it does not need to have any skill beyond following the script. Obviously, a human can still go off script and probably one of the many reasons humans prefer other humans for tech support and customer service. While “deskilling” jobs means that humans are still employed, the goal is to reduce the value of the worker so they can be paid less and be easily replaced. For example, replacing a gourmet chef is hard; replacing a McDonald’s worker is easy. AI is, of course, aimed at replacing human workers entirely by having a machine run the skill scripts. But there is the question of what AI can do.

Having been involved in the AI debate in the 1980s, I do recall that some artsy folks were confident that machines would never be able to create art—that literature, poetry and painting would be forever beyond the reach of AI. Modern AI can obviously generate text and images but there are people who insist AI is not creating art, usually by appealing to the old claim that machines cannot create art or some appeal to the human soul or magical creativity. While I agree that AI is not creating art, people worry that it is stealing jobs from human artists.

I think it is important to say that AI is not stealing jobs, for a reason analogous to why undocumented migrants aren’t stealing jobs. Neither AI nor migrants are forcing employers to hire them. Rather, employers are choosing to hire AI or migrants. Obviously, it is foolish to blame AI or migrants for what business leaders decide. Whatever complaints one might have about AI or migrants “stealing” jobs should be leveled against the business leaders who decide to use AI or hire people illegally.

From a moral standpoint, the criticism is that people should be hiring humans to create art. While some people do cast this in terms of AI images not being art, the practical concern is that companies are using AI rather than paying a human to create images, thus robbing a human of income. As I noted in the earlier essay on AI image generation, I am a general principle sort of person and here the general principle would be that it is unethical to use automation rather than pay a human being to do the job. It would also be unethical to do business with a business that uses AI image generators. If you have read my essay on AI images and theft, you know where this is going.

Given how widespread automation and technological displacement of jobs is, it is almost impossible to do business without doing business with a company that does not displace or eliminate jobs with technology. In some cases, those running the company have no idea they are doing this. For example, a company that uses forklifts to move cargo is probably not thinking they are eliminating lifting and carrying jobs. In other cases, they are explicitly trying to do this, as when they try to replace workers with AI. Each of us must decide what level of evil we are comfortable with in terms of, for example, which grocery store we shop at or what ISP we use. For some people, the use of AI image generation is a red line—and this can be the right choice. But what about individual use, such as when I create images for my D&D adventures?

Many of us use tax preparation software rather than paying someone to do our taxes or filling out the forms by hand. We are using an expert (I hope) system to do our taxes and thus potentially displacing a worker. But I suspect no one would condemn this as evil and insist that we must hire someone to do our taxes or do them by hand. We use the software because it is cheaper and easier. And it can do a better job than most of us.

But if we accept the principle used to condemn the use of AI image generators in place of human workers, consistency will require us to condemn the use of tax preparation software for the same reason. And so on for any use of automation that would replace a human we would otherwise pay to do the job for us. For example, the software I use to create my D&D content has an abundance of automation features that replace the work I could hire other humans to do.

An obvious reply is to break the analogy by arguing that art is special in a way that makes using image generating software morally wrong. I think that some of this is psychological, that people want to believe that art is something special that only people can create. For those who don’t condemn the automation of “manual” tasks, one might see a prejudice at work here that elevates art.

Or one could argue, as some people do, that all the automation is wrong. I do know people who still curse the use of programs like InDesign and even Word because they see these programs as destroying the old paste up approach to creating works. I also know people who lament automation across the board, longing for a “simpler” time they never lived in.  But what about the evil I do by using AI images in my D&D content?

One thing that shapes my view is that AI image generators do not prevent people from creating art. You can draw and paint all you wish—AI is not stopping you. That said, I am mad at the AI companies for ruining my birthday drawings.

Before AI, I would do a drawing of a friend on their birthday and post it to Facebook, which many people seemed to like. But when AI image generation became a thing, the value of the drawings became essentially zero—anyone could just create an image in a few seconds with AI. When people started thinking my drawings were done with AI, I knew it was time to stop—my gift having lost all value and meaning. I still draw everyday—I enjoy it and it is probably slowing down the failure of my brain. But I am still angry about the death of the birthday drawings. I suspect something similar might happen when robot cooks become a thing—if a robot in your kitchen can prepare a “homecooked” meal for your date or friend, then the value of cooking would presumably decrease. But back to AI images.

As people can still create art even if other people use AI image generators, the main worry is now economic. That is, the harm AI image generators do is to allow businesses and individuals to generate images without paying a human. Which is the harm automation always does and hence this is not a problem unique to AI and image generation. Instead, it shows a systemic problem in our economic system: the goal is to eliminate skilled human workers in favor of unskilled labor and AI. In the extreme, the goal would seem to be the elimination of all human workers in favor of automation.

In response, someone might point out the obvious: wouldn’t replacing all workers mean that companies would have no customers and thus this would be suicidal? While companies might engage in suicide (because it would be “rational” for each company to eliminate workers to compete with other companies doing the same), they are already beta testing an economy without the rest of us. Companies like Nvidia, OpenAI and Microsoft are essentially moving money around in a circle, only the circle does not include us. One can imagine the final form of the economy will be a single super AI running a virtual economy in cyberspace, a virtual world in which the number always goes up.

While companies using AI image generators in place of human artists is wrong, this is just a tiny symptom for a fundamental disease. While fighting for artists is good, it still leaves the true horror of our economic system unaddressed.

 

A Philosopher’s Blog is Now on Substack!

You can subscribe and read for free.

https://aphilosophersblog.substack.com/

In my previous essay I discussed the company side of corporate advocacy. As noted in the essay, in the before time the group One Million Moms called for a boycott of Kraft in response to the rainbow Oreo. However, what motived my decision to write about consumer advocacy was the quandary faced by a friend of mine about Chick-Fil-A. On one hand, my friend really likes the food at Chick-Fil-A and has been a loyal customer for years. On the other hand, my friend supports same sex marriage and was dismayed to learn that Chick-Fil-A donated about $2 million to anti-gay groups in 2009. As might be imagined, my friend was worried that their purchases contributed (however insignificantly) to anti-gay groups. This friend isn’t me; I’ve only eaten Chick-Fil-A when it’s been given to me.  I was told by my parents that people are starving in China, and my wasting food would, I had to infer, make them starve more. I assume people now tell their kids that people are going hungry in America unless they are the ones going hungry. In that case, they obviously know they are going hungry. But to get back to the tangent, I’ll eat Chick-Fil-A rather than throw it away because I’m conditioned to not waste food. But to get back to the point, let’s look at the ethics of consumer advocacy.

On the face of it, a person is free to decide whether to buy goods or services from a company as a matter of advocacy (or any other reason). So, for example, if someone was pleased by the rainbow Oreo and decided to buy Oreos, she has every right to do so. Likewise, if someone was displeased with the rainbow and decides to switch to another cookie, then he has every right to do so. This is a matter of personal choice and on par with buying (or not) based on any factor—be it the actor shilling for the company or a taste preference.

It might be objected that buying based on advocacy would be unfair—after all, a person should buy based on the quality of the product or service and other such relevant factors rather than by the (alleged) irrelevant factor of company advocacy. The easy and obvious reply is that by using (probably performative) advocacy, the company makes this a legitimate factor in purchasing decisions. If the company does not wish to be judged or impacted by its advocacy choices, then the only course of action (other than secrecy) is to not engage in that advocacy.

A more interesting moral problem is the issue of whether a person should buy from a company that engages in advocacy that they morally disagree with. For example, a person who finds same-sex marriage morally unacceptable faced the question of whether to buy Kraft products in the light of the rainbow Oreo. As another example, a person who supports gay rights faces the issue of whether to patronize Chick-Fil-A.

This problem is like the issue of taxes addressed by Thoreau in his essay on civil disobedience. He argued that people should not pay taxes to a state whose actions they found morally reprehensible. In Thoreau’s case, his concern was with the wickedness of slavery and an unjust war with Mexico. As he saw it, a person has an obligation to at least not be a party to what they see as evil. After all, a person who contributes to the doing of misdeeds bears some of the blame. At the very least, the person’s involvement shows that they accept or at least tolerate those misdeeds.

In the case of the state, the consequences of not paying taxes tend to be serious for some citizens. It is also difficult for the average citizen to get beyond the reach of the state. As such, citizens should probably be given slack when it comes to paying taxes to states that do wicked things. After all, all states do wicked things and living on a decommissioned offshore oil rig or on an ice sheet are not viable options for most folks.

Fortunately, it is much easier when it comes to companies. After all, there are sometimes other companies that offer similar goods and services. As such, it can be easy for a person to avoid contributing to cause that they find morally unacceptable. For example, a cookie lover who is opposed to same-sex marriage could have abandoned Oreos for another cookie. As another example, a person who favors gay rights can consume chicken from a company that does not contribute to anti-gay groups.

It might be countered that people should not have to make such choices. After all, it could be argued that by buying from those companies the consumer is expressing a preference for the product or service and not an approval of a specific moral or political agenda that the company might endorse.

The obvious reply to this counter is that while a person can patronize the company without supporting its advocacy, the customer is contributing to that advocacy. For example, the money Kraft made from selling products paid for the creation of the rainbow Oreo. As another example, $2 million of the money Chick-Fil-A made from selling food was given to anti-gay groups. So people who bought from them contributed to those groups, albeit indirectly.

It could be objected that very little of the money a company receives ever ends up in advocacy and each customer only spends a small amount. If one were to calculate what, for example, the average Kraft or Chick-Fil-A customer spends per year with those companies and what percentage a company spends on advocacy, then each customer would make a miniscule contribution. As such, saying that a customer contributes to advocacy would seem absurd.

But even a miniscule contribution is still a contribution, and the individual is thus responsible to that miniscule degree for advocacy conducted by that company. As such, if someone opposed to same sex marriage bought Kraft food, they made some microscopic contribution to the rainbow Oreo. Likewise, if a person who is for gay rights ate at Chick-Fil-A, then they helped fund anti-gay organizations. Naturally, a person’s responsibility can be mitigated by legitimate ignorance. For example, most customers have no idea what companies contribute to and many never see the performative advocacy advertisements.  

Because being a customer of a company that engages in advocacy helps fund that advocacy, it would seem to follow that a person who sees the advocacy position taken by a company as immoral should not patronize that company. Otherwise, they would be contributing to something they regard as wrong and that would be wrong.

That said, there is obviously the question of whether the person is right in their moral assessment. For example, if homosexuals are morally entitled to equal rights, then Chick-Fil-A would be acting wrongly in supporting groups that seem intent on denying gay rights. Kraft would, in contrast, be acting rightly in showing its support. In this scenario, boycotting Chick-Fil-A would seem right, but boycotting Kraft because of its support of gay rights would have been wrong.

In closing, one obvious problem is that all major corporations are morally awful—so supporting any of them would be wrong. But they excel at ensuring there are few if any alternatives and so we are trapped in supporting evil.

 

A Philosopher’s Blog is Now on Substack!

You can subscribe and read for free.

https://aphilosophersblog.substack.com/