Posts

When President Trump and Elon Musk do something, the immediate response is usually to ask, “is that legal?” While I am not a lawyer, as a philosopher I say that law is made up and depends entirely on the willingness to comply or enforce.

Law is made up in that people create the laws. But there are those who argue that law is not (entirely) made up but has a real foundation, such as ethics or religion. For example, there are natural law and rights theorists, such as John Locke, who argue for an objective moral foundation for the law. Religious thinkers, such as Thomas Aquinas, argue that while human laws are made by humans, they derive all their validity from God’s law.

Even if we consider that one of these theories might be correct, there are two basic problems. The first is determining which, if any, theory is correct. From a practical standpoint, people usually believe their interpretation of their morality or religion is correct. But since everyone cannot be right, belief does not settle the matter. The practical problem is that we do not know which, if any, is correct.

The second problem is that even if the correct interpretation of the correct theory is found, there is still the problem of translating that theory into human laws and this means that people will still need to create the laws. Thanks to ambiguity, vagueness and other complexities of language and meaning, each person will have their own interpretation of these laws. As an example, people have very different concepts of what is reasonable.

A person following the law will have their own interpretation, which can be significantly different from that of a person enforcing the law. If conflict arises, this can involve the courts and thus the interpretations of the judges, lawyers and jury members can all become involved. This all assumes that everyone is acting in good faith, but this is often not the case. So, in addition to what people think the law means, there is also what they want the law to mean in a specific situation. Thus, not only is the initial law made up, but each interpretation is also made up. And a person’s interpretation will vary over time and from situation to situation based on both conscious and unconscious factors such as bias, financial interest or even being hungry. Even if an interpretation is made, its efficacy depends entirely on the willingness of people to comply or enforce it. So, asking whether something is legal is asking for an interpretation of the law, which leads to the question of whose interpretation matters.

Unlike what some call the “laws of nature”, such as the law of gravity, people can decide whether to follow an interpretation of human law. An everyday example is the speed limit. Unlike the speed of light, the legal speed limit depends on people willingly not exceeding it. More serious examples include laws about murder, firing federal employees, and obeying the president of the United States. Obviously enough, a person can always refuse to obey and thus the law is nothing without the willingness of people to comply with an interpretation of a law. As such, a simple “no” negates all the power of the law.

As an obvious objection, you are probably thinking about the fact that the police can kill people, that the President can command people to hurt other people, and that judges can make rulings. But this also depends on the willingness of people to obey an interpretation of the law. As an example, an officer can decide not to give you a ticket or not shoot you. If no one listened to the President, he would need to try to, one assumes, get a gun and threaten people like a lone criminal. A judge’s ruling only works if other people are willing to act on that ruling. As such, a simple “no” negates all the power of the law. While an officer, a judge, or all the Presidents men could hurt you, they cannot make you say “yes” unless you are willing to do so. And they will not hurt you unless they are willing to say “yes” to somebody’s interpretation of the law.

Interestingly, when Trump and Musk do “illegal” things, they are relying on the willingness of other people to comply based on “legal” authority. This seems to be a bit of a paradox in that Trump and Musk are relying on their “legal” authority or “right” to do “illegal” things. They do have a great advantage, since the process seems to be that they can do whatever they want and then a judge might be asked to decide if the “illegal” action was illegal. It is somewhat like being able to demand that a bank give you money and they must give it to you, with the only recourse is that they could ask a judge to ask you to give back the money.

Getting back to the question of whether something is legal, the answer is that it depends on the interpretation of the person who other people are willing to obey. From a practical standpoint, the legal system works initially on people agreeing to go along with it and if this fails, it becomes a matter of the willingness of some people to hurt others until they either agree or are killed. So, anything Trump and Musk does is “legal” until they agree to stop or someone stops them.

As with any research, opposition research relies on sources. If the goal is to gather true and relevant information, then the credibility of sources matters. There are the usual logical standards for assessing the credibility of sources. In such cases, the argument from authority provides a good guide. After all, to accept a claim from a source as true because of the source is to engage in the argument from authority.  This argument has the following form:

 

Premise 1: A makes claim C about Subject S.

Premise 2: A is an authority on subject S.

Conclusion: C is true.

 

The argument can also be recast as an argument from credibility, if one prefers that to authority.

 

Premise 1: A makes claim C about Subject S.

Premise 2: A is a credible source on subject S.

Conclusion: C is true.

 

Assessing this reasoning involves assessing the credibility of the source. One factor is bias: the more biased the source, the less credible. Other factors include  having the expertise to make claims on the subject, whether the source is identified or not (anonymous sources cannot be properly assessed for credibility), and whether credible sources also agree that the claim is true. It must be noted that a lack of credibility does not prove a claim is false. Rather, a lack of credibility means that there is no reason to accept the claim based on that source. Because people tend to weigh bias very heavily, it is important to remember that biased sources can still make true claims. Proving bias lowers credibility but does not disprove the claim.

If the goal of opposition research is to get true and relevant information, then only credible sources should be used. While there is the question of how credible a source should be, a minimal standard should be that the source is more likely to be truthful than they are to lie. And, to follow the advice of John Locke, the evidence must be proportional to the strength of the claim. So, for example, the claim that a candidate’s father was involved in the Kennedy assassination would require considerable support. If the goal is simply to win by any means necessary, then moral concerns are irrelevant. What would matter would be pragmatic concerns about the effectiveness of the information. If the credibility of the source matters to the public (which, as Trump has shown, is often not the case), then credible sources should be used. If the target audience does not care about credulity, then it would not matter, and opposition “researchers” could save time by just making things up. One could also advance the usual sort of utilitarian argument that the end of defeating a bad opponent would justify the means, though this would also require considering the harm caused by setting aside concerns about credibility.

In addition to the credibility concerns about sources, there are also moral concerns, especially about which sources are ethical to use. As was the case with methods, the use of publicly accessible sources usually raises no special moral problems. After all, such information is already available, and the opposition research merely collects it so it can be used against the opposition. As with the ethics of methods, the law can provide a useful starting point for ethical considerations about sources. It can also be argued that the use of illegal sources would be unfair to the opposition if they are staying within the law.  Naturally, it should be kept in mind that the law is distinct from morality, so that the legal is not always ethical and the illegal is not always unethical.

One example that helped bring opposition research into the public eye was the Russian efforts to get information to the Trump campaign in 2016. While Trump claims that they had nothing of value, it is illegal for a candidate to receive anything of value from a foreign source.  In addition to the illegality of accepting foreign assistance in a political campaign, there is also the moral argument that outsiders should not be allowed to interfere in our elections, even if they have true and relevant information. After all, the election is the business of the citizens and foreign involvement subverts democracy. But this could be countered by arguing that any true and relevant information should be available to the voters, no matter its origin.

As another example, someone who violates a non-disclosure agreement to provide information would also be an illegal source. From a moral standpoint, the person who signed the NDA would break their agreement and thus act unethically. Naturally, if the NDA was imposed unjustly then breaking it could be morally acceptable. However, using sources that have freely agreed to remain silent would seem to be wrong. But there is the obvious problem that NDAs can be used to hide awful things that would change the minds of voters and hence they have the right to know.

As was the case with methods, one could advance the argument that winning is all that matters, or a utilitarian argument could be used to justify using morally dubious sources. For example, a utilitarian argument could be made for getting a source to break an NDA that forbids them from talking about the settlement they got from being sexually harassed by a senator. After all, this information would be relevant to deciding whether to vote for the senator.

More broadly, it could be argued that the source should not matter if the information is true and relevant. After all, the right of citizens to know true and relevant information could be taken to override ethical concerns about sources. This is something that likely requires assessment on a case-by-case basis. To illustrate, consider the question of whether political campaigns should accept true and relevant information from foreign powers. On the one hand, there is the argument that the information could help prevent harm by reducing the chance that a bad person would be elected or appointed. However, accepting such aid from foreign powers is to invite the subversion of the election process and could create more harm than what is intended. As such, foreign sources of this type would be unethical to use. In the next and final essay, I will consider the ethics of the content of opposition research, which focuses on the matter of relevance.

To start with the obvious, ethical methods are acceptable, while unethical methods are not. The challenge is developing principles to distinguish between the two. As there are too many possible methods to address, I will focus on commonly used methods.

One ethical method is gathering information using publicly available methods. information One obvious example is acquiring publicly available voting records for politicians. Other examples include gathering information through requests for public documents, searching through public sites such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.  As a final example, interviewing people who agree to be interviewed would, in general, be ethical. While there is an overlap between methods and sources, there are important distinctions that require considering them separately. Methods are how you get information. Sources are where it comes from. While methods are used on sources, there can be a difference in their ethics. An ethical method might be used to get information from a morally problematic source, or an unethical method might be used to gather information from a morally unproblematic source.

Research methods become potentially more morally controversial the further one strays from publicly available methods. To use an analogy, looking at what a person is doing in public is (generally) not morally problematic. Peeping into their house from the sidewalk raises some moral concerns and hiding cameras in their bedroom is clearly wrong. As the analogy suggests, the methods become more morally problematic when they involve breaching the wall of privacy. While it might be tempting to regard all such methods as immoral, it will be argued that this is not the case: there are morally acceptable methods that breach this wall. To use an analogy, reporters engaged in legitimate reporting can justly break the walls of privacy.

In some cases, the desired information is not accessible by publicly available means, but the methods are still morally acceptable. For example, it is acceptable to privately interview sources who willingly talk to the researchers but would be unwilling to be interviewed in public view on, for example, the news.

In other cases, the methods used to breach the wall of privacy would be morally unacceptable. Likely examples include hacking, bribery, theft, and using intimidation or deceit. While these examples provide some limited guidance, what is needed is a more general principle. It is natural enough to seek guidance from the law.

While legality is not the same as morality, the use of illegal methods such as hacking, theft, threat and bribery and so on are morally problematic. In many cases of illegal methods, such as theft and hacking, there are independent moral arguments that establish such actions as wrong (over and above their illegality). It is, however, possible for morally acceptable methods of information gathering to be against the law. For example, a repressive state (such as Florida) might pass laws to shield the activities of politicians from the public. As other examples,  there are laws that hide the identity of campaign contributors or impose draconian non-disclosure agreements. As such, the law is not a perfect guide to morality but does provide a useful starting point.

Because most information is now digital, one method of concern is hacking (broadly construed). For the sake of simplicity, this can also be taken to include such things as phishing and other methods that are not, strictly speaking, hacking. This method includes various means of gaining access to digital information without the permission of the owner.

The various methods that breach the wall of privacy could be morally justified on utilitarian grounds. To illustrate, if a candidate had child pornography on his laptop, then it could be argued that hacking into his laptop would be morally justified because doing so could help keep a pedophile out of power. But this could be countered by arguing that this should be left up to law enforcement. The counter to that counter is that law enforcement can be selective about which criminals they decide to pursue.

Another approach is arguing that the citizens’ right to know justifies the use of means that would otherwise seem unethical. To use an analogy, a person’s privacy rights do not (in general) permit them to hide their crimes from the police. There can, of course, be clear exceptions in cases involving tyrannical laws or oppressive policing. Likewise, a political candidate (broadly defined) does not have a right to privacy when it comes to their misdeeds that voters have a right to know. For example, it could be argued that opposition researchers would be acting ethically by stealing documents from a corrupt politician that prove their corruption.

The obvious counter to such reasoning is that opposition researchers are not law enforcement (or moral enforcement). They are members of the public and lack any special moral right to use such methods. If they suspect that something bad is occurring, they should refer the matter to the appropriate authorities. The danger of citizens taking such research into their own hands is illustrated by the case of a concerned citizen who decided to investigate rumors that Hillary Clinton and other Democrats were operating a slavery ring in the basement of a pizza shop. During this “investigation” no one was hurt, but the “investigator” fired shots. As such, if something is bad enough to seem to justify using morally problematic methods, then the matter should be referred to the police (assuming they are not corrupt) and, where appropriate, to the press. But, once again, there can be situations where the authorities are unwilling to do anything even when crimes have been committed.

In the next essay, I will look at the ethics of sources.

Opposition research is gathering information intended to damage or discredit political adversaries. While the intent to find damaging or discrediting information might seem morally problematic, it can be neutral or even laudable. If the intent is to damage adversaries for political advantage, then this is not laudable but could still be ethical. After all, good might come from using opposition research to harm a bad opponent.

 The intent is to provide citizens with relevant and true information so they can make informed decisions, is morally laudable. This information allows for better decision making and can produce better results than making decisions with false or irrelevant information.

 While motives are relevant to assessing ethics, the morality of the motives is distinct from the morality of the research and its results.  This is because bad people with bad motives might do ethical research (for whatever reason) and end up doing good. For example, a selfish and corrupt politician might expose a worse villain. As would be expected, good people with good motives might engage in morally questionable research or end up causing harm, all from the best of intentions. For example, a researcher might use a questionable source and justify this by telling themselves that their good end justifies this means. As a final point about researchers, their ethics are irrelevant to the truth of the information they gather. To think otherwise, would be to fall into an ad hominem or genetic fallacy. In general terms, this is when an irrelevant negative assertion about a source is taken as evidence against their claim(s).  This is distinct from considering the ethics of the researchers when assessing their credibility. After all, bias reduces credibility and is relevant when assessing their likely honesty. Now to the ethics of research.

For this essay and those that follow in this series, it will be assumed that there are at least some moral limits to opposition research. Without this assumption, writing about the ethics of opposition would be limited to “anything goes.” One could refute this assumption by employing the approach of sophists both ancient and modern. The ancient sophists argued in favor of skepticism, relativism and the view that all that matters is success (or winning, if one prefers). On this view, there would be no moral limits on opposition research for two reasons. One is that skepticism and relativism about ethics results in the rejection of the idea of objective ethics. The other is that if success is all that matters, then there are no limits on the means that can be used to achieve it. What matters to the sophist, in terms of opposition research, is acquiring (or fabricating) information that can damage a political adversary and thus increase the chances of success.

In terms of arguments in favor of their being moral limits, one excellent place to start is by considering the consequences of having limits versus not having them. As noted above, good political decisions, such as deciding how to vote, require that citizens have relevant, true information. Opposition research that provides or aims at providing relevant and true information would enable citizens to make better decisions and (probably) produce better results. In contrast, taking the view that all that matters is victory will tend to produce worse results for the general good. There can be exceptions: a well-informed public might make terrible choices, and an utterly selfish person solely focused on their gain might end up somehow doing good. As would be expected, the general debate over whether there should be ethical limits on anything goes far beyond the possible scope of this short essay.

In the essays that follow, I will also make a case for there being ethical limits on opposition research. The gist of this argument is that if the essays are logically appealing, then that provides a reason to accept that there should be at least some limits on opposition research.  The assessment of the ethics of the research involves considering three key factors: the methods used, the sources and the content. There will be an essay on each.

8

Asteroid and lunar mining are the stuff of science fiction, but there are those working to make them a reality.  While the idea of space mining might seem far-fetched, asteroids and the moon contain useful resources. While the idea of space mining probably brings to mind images of belters extracting gold, one of the most valuable resources in space is water. Though cheap and plentiful on earth, it is very expensive to transport it into space. While the most obvious use of space water is for human consumption, it also provides raw material for fuels and many uses in industry. Naturally, miners will also seek minerals, metals and other resources.

My love of science fiction, especially GDW’s classic role playing game Traveller, makes me like the idea of space mining. For me, that is part of the future we were promised. But, as a philosopher, I have ethical concerns.

As with any sort of mining, two moral concerns are the impact on the environment and the impact on humans. Terrestrial mining has been devastating to the environment. This includes the direct damage caused by extracting the resources and the secondary effects, such as lasting chemical contamination. These environmental impacts in turn impact human populations.  These impacts can include directly killing people (a failed retaining wall that causes drowning deaths) and indirectly harming people (such as contamination of the water supply). As such, mining on earth involves serious moral concerns. In contrast, space mining would seem to avoid these problems.

Unlike the heavily populated planet earth, asteroids and the moon are lifeless rocks in space. As such, they do not seem to have any ecosystems to damage. While the asteroids that are mined will often be destroyed in the process, it is difficult to argue that destroying an asteroid would be wrong based on environmental concerns. While destroying the moon would be bad, mining operations there would seem to be morally acceptable because one could argue that there is no environment to worry about.

Since space mining takes place in space, the human population of earth will (probably) be safely away from any side effects of mining. It is worth noting that should humans colonize the moon or asteroids, then space mining could harm these populations. But, for the foreseeable future, there will be no humans living near the mining areas. Because of the lack of harm, space mining would seem to be morally acceptable.

It might be objected that asteroids and the moon be left unmined despite the absence of life and ecosystems. The challenge is making the case why mining lifeless rocks would be wrong. One possible approach is to contend that the asteroids and the moon have rights that would make mining them wrong. However, rocks do not seem to be the sort of thing that can have rights. Another approach is to argue that people who care about asteroids and the moon would be harmed. While I am open to arguments that would grant these rocks protection from mining, the burden of proof is on those who wish to make this claim.

Thus, it would seem there are not any reasonable moral arguments against the mining of the asteroids based on environmental concerns or potential harm to humans. That could, of course, change if ecosystems were found on asteroids or if it turned out that the asteroids performed an important role in the solar system that affected terrestrial ecosystems. While this result favors space mining, the moral concerns are not limited to environmental harms.

There are, as would be suspected, the usual moral concerns about the working conditions and pay of space miners. Of course, these concerns are not specific to space mining and going into labor ethics would take this short essay too far afield. However, the situation in space does make the ethics of ownership relevant.

From a moral standpoint, the ethics of who can rightfully claim ownership of asteroids and the moon is of great concern. From a practical standpoint, it is reasonable to expect that matters will play out as usual: those with guns and money will decide who owns the space rocks. If it follows the usual pattern, corporations will end up owning the rocks and will exploit them. But how things will probably play out does not determine how they should play out. Fortunately, philosophers considered this sort of situation long ago,

While past philosophers probably did not give much thought to space mining, asteroids (and the moon) fit into the state of nature scenarios envisioned by thinkers like Hobbes and Locke.  They are resources in abundance with no effective authority over them. Naturally, the authorities can do things on earth to people involved with activities in space, but it will be quite some time before there are space police (though we have a Space Force).

Since there are no rightful owners (or, alternatively, we are all potentially rightful owners), it is tempting to claim the resources are there for the taking. That is, the resources belong to whoever, in Locke’s terms, mixes their labor with it and makes it their own (or more likely their employer’s own). This does have a certain appeal. After all, if me and my fellows in Mike’s Space Mining construct a robot ship that flies out to asteroid and mines it, we seem to have earned the right to those resources through our efforts. Before our ship mined it for water and metal, these valuable resources were just drifting in space, surrounded by rock. It would thus seem to follow that we would have the right to grab as many asteroids as we can. To be fair, our competitors would have the same right. This would be a rock rush in space.

But Locke also has his proviso: those who take from the common resources must leave as much and as good for others. While this proviso has been grotesquely violated on earth, the asteroids provide us with a new opportunity to consider how to share (or not) these abundant resources.

It can be argued that there is no obligation to leave as much and as good for others in space and that things should be on a strict first grab, first get approach. After all, the people who get their equipment into space would have done the work (or put up the money) and hence (as argued above) be entitled to all they can grab and use or sell. Other people are free to grab what they can, if they have access to the resources needed to reach and mine the asteroids. Naturally, the folks who lack the resources to compete will end up, as they always do, out of luck. 

While this has a certain selfish appeal, a case can be made for sharing. One obvious reason is that the people who reach the asteroids first to mine them did not create the ability to do so out of nothing. After all, reaching the asteroids will be the result of centuries of human civilization that made such technology possible. As such, there would seem to be a general debt owed to humanity and paying this off would involve contributing to the general good of humanity. Naturally, this line of reasoning can be countered by arguing that successful miners will benefit humanity when their profits “trickle down” from space. It could also be argued that the idea of a debt to past generations is absurd as is the notion of the general good of humanity. This is, of course, the view that the selfish and ungrateful would embrace.

Second, there is concern for not only the people who are alive today but also for the people to be. To use an analogy, think of a buffet line at a party. The fact that I am first in line does not give me the right to devour everything I can stuff into my snack port. If I did that at a party, I would be rightly seen as a terrible person. It also does not give me the right to grab whatever I cannot eat so I can sell it to those who have the misfortune to be behind me in line. Again, if I did that, I would be rightly regarded as a horrible person who should be banned from parties. So, these resources should be treated in a similar manner, namely fairly and with some concern for those who are behind the first people in line. As such, the mining of space resources should include limits aimed at benefiting those who do not happen to get there first to grab the goodies. To be fair, behavior that would get a person kicked out of a party is often lauded in the business world, for that realm normalizes and lauds awful behavior.

In closing, it should be noted that space is really big. Because of this, it could be argued that there are plenty of resources out there, so it is morally acceptable for the people who get there first to grab as much as they can. After all, no matter how much they grab, there will be plenty left. While this does have some appeal, there is an obvious problem: it is not just a matter of how much is out there, but how much can be reached at this time. Going back to the buffet analogy, if I stuffed myself with as much as I could grab and started trying to sell the rest to others behind me in line, then yelling “there are other buffets out there” would not get me off the moral hook.

 

Shortly after the #metoo movement began gaining nationwide attention, a female student arrived at my office and started to close the door as she introduced herself. While admitting this is embarrassing, I felt a shiver of fear. In an instant, my mind went through a nightmare scenario: what if she is failing and is planning on using the threat of an accusation of sexual harassment to get a passing grade? Quieting this irrational worry, I casually said “Oh, you can leave the door open.” She sat down and we talked about her paper. In a bit of reflection, I realized that this was a reversal: it is usually the woman who feels the shiver of fear when a man is closing the office door.

To head off any criticisms about inconsistency, I’ve always had a literal open-door policy for all students. This originated in my grad school days when a female friend told me that when a male professor closes his office door on her, she feels trapped and vulnerable. As various cases indicate, her fear was not unfounded. Now that I have my own office, I always keep the door open. As such, it was ironic that I would be one scared by the closing of my office door by a woman.

Like everyone else, I have fears. An important question about a fear is whether it is rational. To illustrate, I will use my fear of heights. Part of this fear is rational: I suffered a full quadriceps tear when a ladder went out from under me. So, being wary about ladders, roofs and the edges of tall things like mountains is sensible. However, my fear also extends to flying. This fear, I know, is irrational. While accidents do occur, being inside a commercial airliner is one of the safest places a normal person can be. I have never been in airplane crash or mishap, so there is not even an instigating incident to explain this fear.

While I have been told and have told myself that flying is nothing to fear, this does not work. Statistics and proof do not change how I feel. I deal with it using Aristotle’s method: I make myself face my fear over and over until I can function normally—despite being terrified. Because of my fear of flying, I do not dismiss other peoples’ fears, even when they might seem unfounded or even silly. As such, when men claim to be terrified of false accusations of sexual assault, I do not dismiss this fear. This is, I am obligated to say, a fear I have felt.

As with any fear, an important question is whether the fear of a false accusation is rational. Is it like the sensible fear that leads me to be careful on roofs or is it like the irrational fear of flying that causes me needless discomfort? As with any fear, this cannot be judged by the strength of the feeling—this gives no indication of the likelihood of a bad thing happening. To illustrate, most people are not terrified of the health complications from a poor diet and lack of exercise but are afraid of shark attacks. But poor health habits are much more likely to kill a person than a shark attack. Sorting out the rationality of fear is a matter of statistics, although the specific context does matter. For example, if I jump into shark infested water while covered in blood, my odds of being attacked would be higher than usual. As another example, a person surrounded by women who are scheming, unethical liars would have greater odds of being falsely accused of assault.

While it is challenging to have accurate data about false accusations, the best available data shows that between 2% and 10% of accusations are shown to be false. The FBI claims that 8% of rape accusations are found to be false.  In contrast, unreported cases of assault (which, one must admit, are hard to quantify) are much higher than the number of false accusations. The best evidence suggests that only 35% of sexual assaults are reported. As such, an assault is unlikely to be reported and the odds of a false accusation are extremely low.

But one might insist that false accusations do happen. This is true, but the data shows the typical false allegation is made by a teenage girl trying to get out of trouble. So, the notion that women use false accusations to destroy men is not well supported. This is not to say that this is impossible, just that it is extremely unlikely. Going back to my fear of flying, the fear is not irrational because a crash could never happen. Rather, it is irrational because the fear is disproportional to the likelihood of a crash. So, the terror we men feel about being falsely accused of sexual assault is like my fear of flying: it is not a fear of the impossible, but a fear of the extremely unlikely.

There are, however, people who do have a reasonable fear of being wrongfully accused and convicted. These are black people (and other minorities). Many of those who are vocal about their fear of men being falsely accused of sexual assault have little or no concern about the wrongful accusation and conviction of minorities and express faith in that aspect of the legal system. This is an inconsistent view: if false accusations leading to harm are awful and something to worry about, then the false accusations against minorities should be seen this way. One might suspect that the worry does not stem from a passion for justice, but fear of accountability.

Imagine I am the CEO of a corporation whose factory farming practices drew the attention of the Humane Society and legislation has now been proposed to reign in my cruel excesses. If I appeared in a video complaining about the Humane Society forcing me to be less cruel and this would have a tiny impact on my vast wealth, few people would be sympathetic. If I was smart and evil, I would use astroturfing instead of honesty. Astroturfing involves concealing those behind a message or organization to make it seem that it arose and is funded by grassroot participants. In this imaginary scenario, I could hire a company to lay down some AstroTurf for me.

 While astroturfing can be a complicated, it usually involves three basic techniques. The first is using positive names for the shell organization(s). For example, my Astroturf organization might be called “Friends of Friendly Farming”, which is much more appealing than “Cow Cruelty Crusaders.”

A second technique is using commercials depicting the “common folk” who just happen to be extremely concerned about the issue. For example, my commercial might feature a mother venting her rage that meat would be unaffordable for her family if the wicked Humane Society had its way.

The third and key part of astroturfing is that those behind it remain anonymous. After all, if people knew that I was behind Friends of Friendly Farming, they would find it less appealing. Since astroturfing is inherently deceitful, it would seem to be immoral. But what, if anything should be done about it?

The use of deceptive names is unethical because of their rhetorical influence over people who might not otherwise support the group if its name matched its purpose. Going back to my example, most would find “Friends of Friendly Farming” appealing. But most would not be won over by “Make Sure Mike Keeps Making Money by Being Mean to Animals.” This technique is like advertising and labelling unhealthy junk food made in China as patriotic, healthy, “Yankee Snacks”. That is, it is deceit. However, just because something is unethical does not entail that it should be illegal.

While the First Amendment does not explicitly protect the right to deceptive speech, laws aimed at requiring honest naming for groups would seem unlikely to withstand scrutiny. There are also practical concerns about enforcement and the potential for abuse of such laws. For example, Republicans would presumably use such laws to insist that all liberal and moderate groups label themselves as “Woke Marxist Transgender Anti-American Vermin.”

 There is also the problem of sorting out whether terms, especially value terms, are being applied correctly. Value terms are especially challenging, given the extent to which even good faith disagreement about them exists. For example, determining whether a group called “Righteous Americans for Righteous Justice” is righteous and for righteous justice would be difficult. As such, while the use of intentionally deceptive names is unethical, it should not be illegal.

The use of dishonest and deceptive commercials is also unethical. They are like listing false ingredients on a food label to get people to buy it. It is also like catfishing. This is when a person pretends, online, to be someone desirable as part of an intentional deception. As with deceptive names, the use of actors portraying “common folk” with strong views on the issue is probably protected by the right to free expression.  There is also the fact that politicians favor allowing considerable leeway in certain deceptive practices, usually determined by which industry is bankrolling their re-election.  

As noted above, the essential quality of astroturfing is that the real parties remain anonymous, hidden behind an appealing shell. In addition to being unethical, this anonymity makes it difficult to assess the case made by those speaking for the anonymous entity. This is because the identity of the source of a claim is necessary to assess the credibility and possible bias of that source. While claims obviously stand or fall on their own, the identity of the source is critical to the practical matter of judging claims.

While there might be a right to deceptive (or persuasive, if one prefers) speech, there is not a right to anonymous speech. Requiring those funding groups and ads to identify themselves does not limit their right of free expression and it serves, as noted above, to protect the right of the listeners to properly assess the claims intended to influence them. Naturally, there are cases in which anonymous speech is morally acceptable—such as in oppressive regimes.

Those who engage in astroturfing might claim they would be harmed if their identities were known. After all, they want to be anonymous because they believe that if people knew their identities, then their efforts at persuasion would be less effective. As such, not being allowed to remain anonymous would harm them.

The easy and obvious response to this is that people do not have a moral right to remain anonymous simply because people would be less likely to be persuaded if they knew their identity. Using an analogy, a company wanting to sell dog meat could not justly claim it would be harmed if it was not allowed to hide the identity of the meat. In such cases, the right to know trumps the right of free expression. As such, it would be reasonable to have laws that forbid such anonymous funding. Naturally, moral exceptions can be made in oppressive countries that engage in unjust persecution.

Despite the American myth, upward mobility is limited and most of us will die in the class we were born into. Part of this myth is the often-true story that college helps people move up the economic ladder. My family fits this narrative. My father’s parents did not finish high school as they had to take jobs in a shoe factory to help support their families. My father finished high school, got a master’s degree, taught high school for years and after his first retirement taught mathematics at the college level. My mother also has an M.A. My sister and I went to college, and I ended up getting my PhD and staying forever as a professor. Because of my family story, I support college education for those who want it.

While college has never been cheap, the increase in the cost of higher education has outpaced inflation. The reasons are clear. First, many states have disinvested from public higher education. Some of this leftover from the last time the financial elites burned down the economy, but most of it is politics. Some of this is ideological: Republicans tend to oppose funding public colleges, preferring to channel money into private profits. There is also the practical reason that weakening public education can push students towards for-profit colleges who have lobbied Republicans and Democrats. With less public support, more of the burden falls on students and their families.

Second, there is massive administrative bloat. Some of this bloat is the number of administrators. For example, while there used to be just deans, there are now assistant deans and associate deans. There are also assistant provosts and associate provosts, and an impressive number of vice presidents at many universities.

 Some of the bloat is due to burdens imposed by the state, such as assessment and various education laws. Some of it is due to the obsession with remaking colleges into businesses. In addition to having well-compensated executives, schools now have marketing departments who talk about “the brand.” There is also the tendency of bureaucrats to expand their bureaucracy. Currently, schools have entire cadres of administrators with no direct connection to education. Despite, or perhaps because of, the increased number of administrators, more administrative tasks are assigned to faculty. This can require hiring more people to teach as their teaching time is devoured by administrative work.

In addition to the ever-increasing number of administrators there has also been a significant increase in their salaries, especially at the higher levels. University presidents can have salaries close to a million dollars and bonuses are common. This is also a result of the business model: high pay “management” ruling over lower pay “workers.” While administrators make the tired old arguments that top money is needed to attract top talent from the private sector (usual business), the same arguments rarely apply to faculty and other employees. Presumably because faculty are not as important to the mission of the university as administrators.

Third, there is the cost of facilities and amenities. Some of this expense is reasonable: smart classrooms are more expensive than the traditional classroom. Other luxury items mainly serve to drive up costs.

Since college provides a way to go up the ladder or at least get a strong grip on a rung, it is important to address the problem of high costs. While one solution has been to make colleges “free”, this runs into the obvious problem that there is no such thing as free college. “Free” college just shifts the cost. This shift can, however, be morally and economically justified—but the discussion needs to be honest about who is paying.

A less drastic solution is for states to return to investing in education. This was once seen as a good idea s as money spent on students was returned many times over as taxes and had many non-economic positive returns on the investment. Valuing helping people upwards does run against current trends, which is to funnel money upwards towards those who already have the most money

It would also help if the state reduced some of the imposed administrative burden on colleges. While this would have a negative impact on those employed in these administrative offices, it would help reduce the cost of education. The challenge is, however, sorting out which administrative burdens to lessen. Reducing administrative positions and salaries would also help.

The number of administrators could be brought back to the older ratios of administrators to everyone else and their salaries could be reduced to more closely match those of faculty. While it could be argued that this would cut down on the top talent, there are some obvious responses. One is that education attracts top talent faculty who are willing to work for relatively low salaries compared to what they could get in the private sector. While detractors of professors often think that people teach or engage in research at colleges because they are unable to get jobs in the private sector, most faculty chose the academic life. This is for a variety of reasons, ranging from the love of teaching to the difference in culture between the academy and the corporation (although this difference is shrinking). So, if the administrator’s argument about having to pay top dollar for top talent were good, then faculty would be terrible. Another is that various scandals and problems have shown what these top dollars sometimes buy.

Finally, schools can also cut their spending on facilities and things that are not relevant to their educational mission. There are, of course, other possibilities but these would be a good start to make college more affordable.

While one of many heroes in the Iliad, Odysseus is the main character of the Odyssey. He is characterized as possessing many positive traits, especially intelligence. While President Trump clearly lacks the intellectual keenness and skill at counsel of Odysseus, there are some interesting parallels between the two.

 Odysseus is famously presented as a skilled deceiver and fond of adultery (his own, of course). While his fellow heroes benefit from his cunning, Achilles and others regard him as a liar and condemn him for this. For the heroes of the Republican party, Trump occupies a similar role: they are pleased when he wins and assists them in winning but once found his lies and immoral actions (such as adultery) troubling. Trump, like Odysseus, is a master of deceit and disguise. For example, Trump has presented himself as a populist enemy of the elites while, at the same time, surrounding himself with billionaires.  Like Odysseus, Trump achieves victory through cunning and deceit—and thus deserves all the praise due such success.

While no one likes to lose, both Trump and Odysseus are obsessed with wining. Odysseus makes it clear that he wants to win in everything. One of Trump signature lines was that were he president, we would win so much we would be tired of winning.  Trump did lose his second run for President but won in his third attempt. There is even talk of a third term. While winning is generally seen as good, there is the question of what it means to be a victor.

In the case of Odysseus, being a victor means getting what he desires, despite the contrary wishes of friends or foes. “Odysseus’ outlook threatens to make nonsense of morality in the broadest sense: including those values that provide a guide for conduct in situations affecting the well-being of others, imposing constraints on what one may do in pursuit of personal gain.” Odysseus is thus someone who “disregards moral constraints to do anything at all in pursuit of his or her own goals.” Trump, famously, takes  the same approach: he pursues what he wants and does not let concerns about ethics or the interests of others interfere. While this might seem to make both Odysseus and Trump villains, it must be remembered that Odysseus is the (complicated) hero of the Odyssey. Likewise, Trump is a hero to his followers. This raises the question of how this is possible.

One tempting explanation is that Trump’s followers are somehow still deceived: they do not know what Trump truly is. If they knew, they would abandon him. But this view is, in many cases, implausible. While Trump’s supporters claim he is honest, religious, and acting in their interest their support is (usually) not the result of ignorance. Rather, as others have argued, they see Trump as acting against their enemies and his unethical behavior as justified because it is aimed at these enemies. Trump is, as his followers point out, “winning” and fighting against the “enemies of the people.” In this regard, Trump is much like Odysseus. He exemplifies the pre-Socratic “warrior-king” virtues. This is being strong, doing anything to win, and  providing his friends with a cut of the spoils.

Most importantly, this “warrior-king” promises to harm the perceived enemies of his followers and those they disike. If the “warrior-king” convinces his followers that he is hurting their enemies and protecting their share of the loot, they praise and follow him. If Trump was seen as losing, if he stopped attacking their enemies and could no longer convince his followers that he is protecting their share of the loot, then he would lose support. However, as long as he keeps hurting the right people and is seen as winning, then the loyalty of his base is assured. Ethical violations do not matter, unless they are violations that help the enemies of his followers. As such, his followers do not care about his adultery, they do not care about his lies, and they do not care about any collusion, crimes or other misdeeds. What matters to them is what matters to Trump: believing they are winning, and their enemies are losing.

The concept of tribalism is often used to explain American politics but is also wielded as a weapon. An expert might claim that tribalism is causing unwillingness to compromise, while a partisan might deride the tribalism of the other tribe. While this essay is not intended to explore the complexities of a rigorous definition of the concept, I will endeavor to discuss the matter in a neutral and rational way.

Tribalism is characterized by loyalty to the tribe. This differs from loyalty to principles or values. After all, a person who is loyal to a tribe because it is their tribe will remain loyal even when the values of the tribe change. In contrast, a person dedicated to values that a tribe just also happens to have at a certain time will leave that tribe if these values are abandoned. American tribalism involves value fluidity: as the tribe changes values, tribalists shift their values. For example, Republicans once endorsed free trade and opposed tariffs. They also professed to dislike deficits and spending. Trump, however, shifted these values and now the Republican tribe embraces tariffs, deficits and big government spending. Such is the power of tribalism that it trumps professed values.

It might be contended that tribes need values and principles to define them, hence this claim of fluidity is an exaggeration. However, the ease with which tribes shift values shows that it is real. People even develop myths that the values they profess now have always been the values of their tribe.

Tribalism has its origin in biology as humans are social animals and tribalism is the human equivalent of pack loyalty. Animals generally lack abstract principles or values, and this is one reason why tribalism trumps values—it is grounded in unthinking instinct. Tribalism is also fueled by cognitive biases. The most important is in-group bias, which is the tendency of people to see members of their own group as better than the members of other groups. This bias makes it easy for people to attribute positive qualities to members of their own tribe while easily assigning negative traits to those of other tribes. This probably also helps support value fluidity: whatever changes occur in the values professed by the tribe will still be seen as better than the values of other tribes. As might be expected, fallacious reasoning also plays a role in tribalism.

There is a fallacy, often called the “group think fallacy”, in which it is inferred that a claim is true (or something is good) because members of one’s group believe the claim (or hold to the values). This is obviously fallacious but has considerable psychological appeal. This also helps fuel value fluidity, since beliefs and values are not based on objective assessment, but by reference to the group. As would be expected, tribalism creates numerous problems.

One problem is that tribalism makes the professed values of the tribe meaningless. This is because loyalty is to the tribe rather than to the professed values. This does raise some interesting philosophical questions about the basis of tribal identity. It also creates a ship of Theseus style problem about whether there is a point at which a tribe has changed its professed values so much that it is no longer the same tribe. There are also some other interesting metaphysical problems about identity here as well in terms of what makes a tribe the same tribe across time and value changes.

A second problem is that tribalism encourages irrational behavior. They can often act contrary to what seem to be their own interests and against the general welfare because of the dictates of their tribal leaders. On the positive side, tribal leaders could issue commands that do coincide with the interests of the tribal members and the general welfare. However, this would be a matter of luck.

A third problem is that tribalism makes it easy for authoritarians to gain ready-made followers who happily serve them, no matter how terrible they are. Because of these problems, it would seem best to find ways to counter tribalism.

One obvious solution is improving critical thinking, so that people can recognize the defects behind and of tribalism. However, mere logic is obviously enough—people also need training in goodness and commitment to virtue, as per Aristotle. But tribalism provides its members with a defense against critical thinking and training in the virtues.