“Every man is responsible for everyone, only people don’t know it. If they knew-it would be paradise at once!”

A though experiment: A century from now everyone considered evil today will have deceased, yet throughout society evil and suffering pervades. What is it exactly that causes immorality to persist? Although you may consider morality to be an entirely subjective and relativistic concept, I loosely agree, however I also believe there to be a degree of objectivity to morality; I associate objective morality with anything that unnecessarily causes physical pain, or causes mental pain such as that associated with maternal instinct, this base morality is associated with our bodily functions that enable our survival, for example if one experiences physical pain, it is because something is happening to the body that may reduce the chances of survival, therefore the pain provides an incentive to remove this cause. It is when, out of conscious decision, that someone decides to inflict pain on another person, or decides to be derisive (which also has physical implications) the act can be considered to be immoral.

If evil is pervasive, then it is fairly safe to say that there is a pervasive cause(s) of evil. I believe one of the causes of suffering is rooted in parenting. I cannot firmly stress enough the importance of ethical parenting,  it is highly probable that the first human contact anyone will ever receive is with their mother. Studies show that the nature of maternal contact has a signifiant effect on Seratonin levels, Seratonin has been thought to contribute to feelings of contentment, well-being and happiness. Children with negative early experiences with their mothers have exceptionally low Seratonin reserves, their Seratonin production is also exceptionally low. This means that they are constantly feeling malcontent and have a serious inclination towards depression. Drug addicts usually experienced abusive relationships in their earlier lives, the abuse is normally carried out by parents or guardians. Children who had lower than average maternal contact in their earlier years also have a higher propensity to drug addiction, it can again, be hypothesised that a persistently low natural Seratonin level means these people externalise their source of comfort, as they cannot acquire it through relationships. They thus turn to chemicals and intoxicants and lead a life of shameless debauchery. These findings are of absolute importance because it shows that:

a) immoral acts do not solely cause ephemeral suffering but rather anguish that persists for a long time and can eventually manifest into harmful habits.

b)malignant indulgent personalities are ostensibly enigmatic, it is possible to root part of their development to a chemical process, it is therefore a possibility that we can scientifically diagnose and remedy the cause of this societal affliction.

c)parenting has a profound effect on lives, and utmost care must be taken in ethical parenting in order to cultivate a better and happier society; parents are bestowed with the greatest moral responsibility, that being that for once in their lives, have the existence of a creature completely dependent upon them under their  absolute control. It is the one time that someones livelihood is unconditionally at your personal whim. For the good of society, it is imperative to do this altruistically and correctly.

How do we elucidate what constitutes ‘correctly’, this is a rare time where you will hear me agree with the pragmatism of a libertarian principle, namely the non aggression principle (NAP) being applied to parenting situations. I cannot envision even a single realistic situation in which the usage of violence on children can be justified on moral grounds. It doesn’t take supreme effort or prodigious intellect to refrain from violence. Through rational inquiry and common sense, we can easily come to the conclusion that violence towards children is barbarous in every sense of the word. Yet violence exists, and in certain societies, it is normal and accepted to coldly murder babies, for their gender, or to appease a deity, or even for purely egotistical and territorial reasons. This here is the bane of big society, it is the setbacks of culture, en masse a destructive culture has effects such that the whole is greater than the sum of the individual parts. Common culture influences morality greatly, culture spreads like wildfire, and the ethical constitution of a culture will proceed to form and change your moral predispositions until more or less synonymous with its tenets. Thus ethics is of paramount importance in shaping good societies, good ethical infrastructure will also have an effect on common parenting attitudes. Violent and corrosive ideals will no longer circulate from father to son and man-made sorrow will diminish.

The proposals above are particularly powerful if one holds the epistemic tabula rasa concept. It cannot be so simple, although we are to a large degree susceptible to fluctuating and subjective moralities throughout time as the actions of Nazi Germany have shown; biology and psychology show that there is a stubborn hereditary component of human behaviour, which if widely exaggerated can lead to the conclusion that evil is inherent and therefore indelible, but history has shown otherwise and behavioural change can start with something as simple as a kind gesture, personally I believe the callous nature of big society’s informality breeds ruthlessness and discontent.  This doesn’t have to mean that we cannot as a society make a concerted effort to maximise welfare due to hereditary indicators. Bettering society is possible through gradual ethical restructuring and the removal of violent social norms. If we take Dostoyevsky’s attitude of ‘every man is responsible’ then perhaps we can selflessly shape society for the better rather than inexorably pursuing economic self-interest and thus embracing unbridled materialism and the concomitant avaricious mindset.

Part of societies problems are rooted and directly applicable to compositional fallacy, that is, if one person does not do something selfless for societies sake, then the negative effect of that can be considered to be zero; if this mentality pertains to the majority the combined effects are vastly detrimental, implementation of benign ethics counteracts and removes this societal imperfection.

Ethics is important, and without ethics modern civilisation would not be possible. Ethics to me means sacrificing a little personal autonomy for gargantuan collective gain, in which personal autonomy eventually increases. Ethics is the glue that holds the fabric of society together, and without strong ethical infrastructure we cannot have sustainable institutions. Without ethics, there is no rule of law, and without the rule of law, there are no freely functioning markets.

Travelling throughout Europe

My delightful experiences with the police

It’s approximately 8PM and still broad daylight. The streets are littered with unusually energetic tourists soaking in the historic beauty of Broad Street, Oxford; rightly perceived to be a civil place, emanating pleasance more often than not. Au contraire, today I had a shocking and jaundice inducing experience. I’m an 18-year-old, 6 ft 2 male of african descent, my attire consisted of a brown panel cap, slim black jeans, backpack, black air max 90’s and a beige over shirt, I was 3 metres from my bicycle and deciding whether I wanted to unlock it or not, me being of indecisive nature took approximately 45 seconds to come to the decision that I’d instead go to the cafe across the road and read a book whilst I was waiting for my friend. Let me note I did not touch my bicycle, and as far as I’m concerned, I was in no way acting suspiciously.

I managed to walk 20 metres before I heard a forcefully husky and authoritative voice pretentiously sneer “OI!”, turning around I presumed it would be a beggar asking me for change; I was lovingly greeted by a short, stocky balding white male, in his thirties it seemed. The man was accompanied by a rather peculiar looking female, who proceeded to engrave her heinous gaze into my conscience. Both significantly smaller than I, they proceeded to grandly exhibit their dominance and superiority by through firstly a magnificently ridiculous manoeuvre, both almost in synchronisation, flashed their flimsy badges in my face as if they had practiced it relentlessly for hours in their mothers basements. It seemed only a mother could love these perfect embodiments of the ‘Napoleon Syndrome’. Dumbfounded my jaw dropped and I gazed back in disbelief.

Before I could even make an utterance the male exclaimed vehemently “POLICE, YOU’RE UNDER ARREST ON SUSPICION OF STEALING!”. Even then I couldn’t connect the dots, I merely wanted to read a book. Still in bewilderment, I felt a sweaty palm grip my wrist as hard as it could, he then made a rather pathetic and laughable attempt to tackle me against the wall and render me helpless from his arm bar of wrath. Instinctively threatened I easily overpowered him and as he struggled to get my arms behind my back I could see from the swine like agony in his face that he felt sincerely undermined, the female officer looked on in disgust. After he screamed at me to stop resisting I decided it was for the best, because after all, when a police officer physically assaults you with no conclusive evidence of my unlawfulness all your rights to self-defence deteriorate. I began to protest while sharp steel handcuffs were tightened beyond need binding me in a state of undeserved helplessness. Two other police officers threateningly approached as ‘back up’, my concept of ugly was drastically restructured, one man strongly resembled Hank from Breaking Bad but also had tones of a genetically unfortunate boar.

The officers were certain I was a thief, they went on to proudly explain that I was conspiring to steal the bike, my own bike, can you believe this? I could have never conceived that I would be charged for stealing my own bike, for the sake of argument, even if it wasn’t mine, I could have been admiring it as I was merely looking at it from a short distance. I went on to say it was my bike but they didn’t believe me. There reasoning was that because I was standing 3 metres from the bike for just under a minute (in which I was mostly on my phone) I was somehow stealing it. Think of the pure idiocy of this concept, which I outlined to them clearly. By this logic if someone is in the Louvre, and they spend two minutes adoring the perplexing beauty of Mona Lisa they must then be arrested because they want to steal it. If I gaze at an Italian sport car, most of the time, it’s not because I plan to steal it. If I am enticed by someones beauty, I can assure you it would never be because I want to kidnap her.  While handcuffed I went to reach for my phone in order to video what was going on, the most unsightly officer of the bunch confidently explained to me that I have no right to use my phone and grabbed it from my hands. This experience has certainly affirmed some of the prejudices which I previously chose to deny on the nature of police, which in actuality many of my friends hold.

They then coyly used this apparent conspiracy to steal in order to search me and my belongings, they burrowed through my bag finding nothing of their interest before rudely questioning me on the bike. After being body searched, I pointed him to the lock key in the side pocket of my bag, he went on to find it and questioned me again on what bike it is, as if I was constructing an elaborate lie.  I told him the descriptions of my bike, which he clearly knew anyway, he then went off to find that I wasn’t lying and the bike was indeed mine. None of them had a thing to say, not even an apology, just melancholic anger of the failure of their acute (racist) police senses. I was swiftly un-handcuffed and the back up officers cautiously retreated to the comfort of their police cars and drove off. The undercover police officers proceeded to get a rightful and passionate lambasting, they had not even a single retort. This event put a grand downer on day and my agitation has resulted in me writing this post.

It wasn’t the physicality of being manhandled by angry stigmatising men, but rather the emotional disruption from being suddenly deprived, with little moral reasoning, of your rights. I felt a sense of helplessness, even if it was for a moment or two. It opened my eyes to the cries of the people subject to police brutality of a much higher magnitude regularly. The indignant reverberation of Mark Duggan’s legacy is thus far more intelligible to me. Institutional racism is still prominent, although more subtle that before, the prejudices that exist within society not only become a self-fulfilling prophecy, as society treats the prejudiced accordingly. This then perpetuates itself into a regressive and segregating cycle, stigma is affirmed by the rare anecdote, then the lawful man is treated according to stigma and therefore becomes it, as it’s societies place for his/her type. If you treat someone as if they are a beast, they will act like a beast. That is how I felt, I felt denigrated to the point of violently lashing out, which would have given them a real reason to prosecute me.

 

 

It’s not as if it’s a one-off occurrence, in the last 2 months I’ve been searched numerous times, for clearly fallacious reasons. Being someone who has never touched drugs or even alcohol, let alone a cigarette in my whole life. I find it incredibly humorous when a pair of police officers approached me confidently whilst standing outside my house, on the phone in my council estate, not dressed shabbily or to appease a particular stereotype, but actually dressed to resemble someone who would be considered ‘lawful‘. The only problem was that, I was:

1. in a council estate, places presumed wrongly to be rife with drugs and crime and the epitome of social stratification

2.of coloured skin, thus appeasing conscious/subconscious premeditated fallacious perceptions about me due to the hue of my skin

This time I was far more composed, I smiled as they searched my bag only to find it filled with A-Level curriculum books and more importantly, no drugs. They quickly apologised and were off.  Another time I was walking home from my friend’s house in a Nike track suit and running shoes, I could have easily been on a run. Police stopped me, blatantly lied about a burglary which they couldn’t actually specify. Searched me again to find nothing. Institutional racism at work, society subtly reminding me I’m inferior. I know people who repeatedly do drugs, but because they’re white and dressed a certain way, have never been searched, despite drug usage across race being roughly constant if not tilted towards whites. Racism exists people, if not as explicitly as it used to be, it exists nonetheless. It exists through stereotypes and subconscious beliefs, it exists through media portrayal and culture, it exists through ignorance and a lack of communication with other races. What’s even more sad is that it’s not a static phenomena, it is dynamic, and as racism manifests, it is self-reinforcing and manifests into even more structural hatred as the structurally oppressed begin to assimilate their stereotypes or begin to associate and generalise some of the oppressors through race, which is a form of racism in itself. I am however very happy and extremely grateful to be born into a society which generally despises racism, but I would still much prefer racism to be completely eradicated, especially in the police force; who have significant responsibility and a very important role to play in society, a role that cannot be done righteously without eradicating racism.

I know I could have had it worse, I could have been far more brutally assaulted. But that’s not the case, it’s the attitudes and prejudices that were so lucidly conveyed to me this evening that has upset and worried me. When you’re falsely treated wrongly, when you’re treated not as yourself, an individual, but as a personification of a stereotype the frustration that commences is truly destructive and voids one of any motivation to be a prosperous and contributive member of society whatsoever. The United Kingdom is very much a multicultural society that has a lot to offer and is certainly (relatively) a beacon of societal success, but a multicultural society cannot have a police force with racist and classist attitudes as this will only engender hate and aggression, thus exacerbating the problem police currently face and inducing an unhealthy and divisive dislike for authority.

 

 

 

Thoughts on Libertarianism

Government: “A government is the system by which a state or community is governed.”

Libertarians will faithfully decree their disgust in the existence of the state, they will, with remarkable fervour assert to anyone and everyone that government is inherently immoral and should be abolished, for the good of humanity. I’m sympathetic to the distrust of government, and I am also sympathetic towards people’s wishes for a smaller state, in certain cases; however I cannot seem to reconcile the ideology that government is in itself a malignant conception which many libertarian type philosophers and economists assiduously ascertain to the masses.  There are cases of immoral conduct in small and large communes, it was common practice of the barbarians in medieval Arabia to bury alive newborn females, while it was also common conduct in America not so long ago to brutally enslave African-Americans. In many tribes across Africa females suffered genital mutilation to appease the wicked deities that are a part of their spiritual beliefs. Individuals often do sickly things, not for the sake of government either, take the callous and unsettlingly polite serial killer and necrophile Jeffrey Dahmer.

Libertarians will preach the “non-violence principle” which states that anything that is forceful/coercive is inherently bad. This is an easy stance to take, and quite frankly one which is obvious. But where do you draw the line and what is the practical usage?   Ethical problems are not black or white, take abortion for example, some will argue that people have a right to abortion, as they have a right to whether they want to give birth or not. But then others will argue that the right of abortion will impede the right of life of the aborted foetus, then there’s the unresolved question as to when consciousness is formed in the pregnancy process. And even if the baby isn’t actively conscious, is it still ethically correct and who’s rights take precedence? Libertarians tend to simplify things to the point of ridiculousness, for example using the non-aggression principle I can exclaim that if someone debates my beliefs without my consent that they’re being violet and should be condemned, as I have a right to hold beliefs without the rigorous evaluation of others. Using the NAP I could also propose that there is nothing wrong with allowing a three-year old to starve to death, because if I proceeded to force feed the child, it would violate the right to not eat. A person is attempt ion to commit suicide out of desperation, but they are forcibly restrained, this is a violation of the NAP and therefore it was ethically correct to always let that person commit suicide. But survivors of suicide attempts have exclaimed that as soon as they have jumped off a bridge or a building, they instantly feel deep regret and as though all their problems are easily solvable. How do you distinguish between ephemeral, impulsive wishes from long-term rational decisions? I have come to think that as a concept the NAP is heartwarming and gives you a sense of self-righteousness. But it is incredibly hard to sensibly apply in real life cases, it’s generally more prudent to take every situation individually rather than try to straitjacket them to fit certain ideologies without considering the consequences.  It is much like the idiom “do as you would like to be done unto you” but then this is never really acted upon in reality, and furthermore, people’s wants are subjective.

Say that an anarchist society was established, and private property reigned, I think it would be sensible to say that as long as the society constituted the same people before anarchism was established than many of them will have the same characteristics and propensities as before. The evil that lingered within the minds of criminals will remain imminent. The sociopathic tendencies of certain members of society will also remain, there will be some with a propensity to gathering power and control, there will also be others who have stronger territorial instincts than the rest. Government is not the problem, rather, bad governance is a microcosm of the problem. I cannot help to think that due to the disposition of certain members of society to gain control over others, even if a state was formally abolished other informal modes of governance will quickly materialise and be of similar effect. It is worthy to note there have been many attempts to create an anarchist society, such as Robert Owens, which rather swiftly descended into abrupt failure. I see little pragmatism in removing government, furthermore, the findings of Piketty strongly suggest the need for an organised framework of income and wealth redistribution to halt the avaricious tendencies of the ‘free market’.

It would be more effective for libertarians to specifically target the sorts of ideologies and philosophies which induce bad governance and more generally the ethical systems which encourage violence and the other evils which they condemn in place of crudely castigating the medium (government) for evil people to conduct evil actions. Libertarians should seek to identify and attempt the implementation of good governance, which can occur with the existence of a state formally and without. One may argue that being raised by your parents is in itself a form of government, parenting isn’t inherently bad as we know, but certain types of parenting do in-fact yield malicious effects.

Libertarianism in my eyes is another case of a flagrantly bad overgeneralisation of societies problems and a poor attempt to unify these problems into a single philosophical theory which hold almost no practical use whatsoever, while we do not know if government is the answer; we definitely cannot attest that no government is.

 

 

 

Thoughts on an innate appeal to political sensation rather than political objectivity

While browsing through Instagram a couple weeks back I was momentarily nauseated by an image uploaded of a hospital bed-ridden Palestinian baby with half his face mutilated insofar to remove any possibility of identification, in the background of the picture you can see the baby’s father uncontrollably crying in despair and disbelief. The emotional turmoil in Gaza was so vividly conveyed to me that it inspired me to write my previous post, despite having knowledge on the crisis for many years prior. I then realised through personal reflection and after some observation of human behaviour around me and on social media that the majority of the populace is not galvanised by the objectivity of statistics or the cold expressionless commentary you will find on the news but rather the more relatable and easily comprehensible images, sounds and personal account.

Why is this? Perhaps it is our innate disposition to sensation, to richness, to being immersed into a scenario in ways which words cannot convey, or numbers cannot convey. It is far easier for the mind to comprehend pictures and emotion in relation to our ability to comprehend numbers. I will find it hard to visualise a thousand dead bodies in a battlefield through acknowledgement of a statistic, firstly because I have not and most of the population have not seen this personally. But if shown a picture of 10 dead bodies, I will be far more compelled to change. It is the inability of our minds to truly comprehend the grand statistics you will see on international conflicts and the like; I read an article on the effect of manipulating numbers of deaths of birds from oil spillage on donations, it was found that after a certain threshold the larger the number of deaths of birds from the spillage the less the donations people were willing to give. This is counterintuitive at first, but the economists suggested that it was due to the inability of the mind to comprehend such large numbers into a visual, intelligible and emotionally charged format necessary for incentivising donation. Try to visualise 1000 homogenous objects, then try to visualise 10000, I cannot visualise that many objects, it’s simply too hard and something you will most probably never come across in reality. This gives me and politicians reason to neglect statistics, especially complex ones for the sake of rhetoric, it provides a real incentive to stray from the truth and rely on sensational topics or things which are directly and easily relatable to the intended target, I consider this malignant.

The progenitor of this incentive for politicians to veer from the bigger picture and rely on emotionally charged topics to acquire votes isn’t necessarily their greed or venomous personalities, it is also down to the way we as humans interpret information. As people partaking in a democracy, we are whether we like it or not, having some influence on the perpetual and chaotic development of society. We therefore need to be make it a priority to not fall for rhetoric, in the case of the example above,  I believe its insinuations are accurate; I would much rather prefer my decision not to be morally correct in the face of luck, it could have easily been an Israeli child, but rather through more reliable and objective means. But it many cases they will be not, being reliant on a single picture or striking anecdotal evidence will not provide the bigger picture, it is very important that everyone learns how to interpret and effectively comprehend data and statistics in order to make informed and accurate decisions on political happenings. These skills are important for decisions to made from the closest possible objective truth rather than decisions based off spontaneous revolutionary fervour due to a misleading Facebook post.

The reason behind many political parties previous and current popularity in the UK isn’t down to intellectual brilliance and sensible policy making, but rather appeal to emotions and an attempt to pin down all the worlds problems into a small subset of the characteristics society possesses, such as UKIP with the EU (arguments that are not grounded in logic or reliable statistics but merely ridiculous claims on ‘sovereignty’ ), or BNP with Immigration (unsubstantiated indigence against foreigners that lingers even in the face of conclusively contradictory evidence). Another saddening disposition is the tendency for people to want to root out the sole cause of a particular humanitarian issue, for simplicity and also for the ‘Che’ factor of having singled out an incredible omnipresent evil. It makes people feel a sense of importance and belonging. But in reality problems are complex, the cause of a particular behavioural phenomena cannot be simplified to a single phenomena but is instead due to the interactions between different phenomena with dynamic characteristics.

If what I say is indeed true, a propensity to sensation will prevent objectivity and evidence being conveyed honestly in media. It will let lies and trickery be immortalised whilst the often ugly and confusing truth is left in the dirt simply for the reason that sensation is what provokes a reaction and also because the common person is un-equipped to research for evidence and apply scepticism in order to make a better decision. Dishonest politics persist because we indulge in simplistic dishonesty, we indulge in sensationalism and rhetoric, we have an innate attraction to territorial claims and fervent commentary on the existence of a common enemy to humanity. We let our Hollywood-esque ideas of evil get the better of us and we should now proceed to reverse that trend. Reversing this trend involved paying close attention and avoiding persistent, subconscious, and extremely harmful cognitive observations such as confirmation bias.  I also believe it is of great importance for people to realise when to say they do not know, you shouldn’t feel the need to hold a position on every political occurrence, especially if you do not have enough evidence to make a decision. Beliefs are powerful things and falsely based beliefs, seemingly innocuous enough, can influence someone else and so forth. Having a political orientation should only be a possibility if you have complete certainty in that particular orientation.  I also want to note the importance of resisting the need to find ONE cause of a problem, as this is often a fallacious method and highly distracting to identifying the true nature of the problem at hand.

In conclusion it is my belief that my thought experiment and anecdotal finding have shown the irrationality deep inside me and exposed me to some of the flaws I myself make when forming political orientations. I hope that in general, we become more resistant to political rhetoric and sensationalist appeal from our surroundings and rely on more objective means in the future.

Thoughts on Palestine

If Mr Balfour, with knowledge of current affairs, miraculously arose from the dead and re-read this letter he would be disgusted provided that his exclamation on the protection of Palestinian rights was sincere. The purported initial success of the Balfour Declaration in 1917 as a means of emancipation for the victimized Jews, and a charitable gesture to inhabit the weak by the Palestinians, is now nothing but a series of ghastly violations of humanitarian rights on both sides; although it is the Palestinians bearing most of the oppression. The whole situation strikes me as a guileful and legalised colonial manoeuvre that has left the Palestinians with but a fraction of what they initially inhabited for two millennia. While the Palestinians fight with rocks to save what little they have, the Israeli side uses highly sophisticated technology designed for the facilitation of death, they are effectively bullying the Palestinians. I cannot comprehend how anyone can warrant for such behaviour, it is disgraceful and shameful to think that in the age of technology and reason we are still yielding to our merciless animalistic instinct, giving way to the territorial monster within us. Anyone with a shred of humanity will recognise the absolute ridiculousness of the situation, moreover, the existence of Israel is founded off archaic and extremely immoral claims for ‘Holy Land’.  Yet certain politicians want to brand Hamas terrorists and a danger comparable to the Israeli forces, I find that absurd, one only has to look at the statistics. Hamas is the physical actualisation of years and years of merciless oppression and frustration due to a gross negligence of human rights.

Bullying

The problem isn’t only confined to the two nationalities, it is humanitarian misconduct, when civilians and children are being slaughtered. Children without dogmatic beliefs or ideologies to fight for. Innocent children that bear no relevance to the current political situation are being punished for the actions of their forefathers. We then know that there is an entrenched fault in the human psyche. While I want the slaughter of Palestinians to come to a halt, I yearn more for the slaughter of humans to come to a halt. I think it is imperative that we as people with the liberty of free speech, the liberty to sit here and voice our opinions in the comfort of our own homes, the liberty of not being constantly under the traumatic fear and anxiety of being victim to the ruthless acquiescence to politics of an enemy soldier but a fellow human. We must capitalise on this freedom, before we’re stripped of it, we must do our utmost to ensure that our humanity is preserved, that our morality is intact, that people aren’t still suffering from dogma and ideology. That the calamitous concept of holy land isn’t intruding human rights. So please, sign petitions, engage yourself in political activity, utilise what democracy you have. Make yourself heard, but also understand what is really happening, and don’t let yourself be made malleable to propaganda. Furthermore, this isn’t about religion or race, it is about mistreatment of humans in general. I have the exact same thoughts for those Israelis who have been victim to Palestinian attacks, but the nature of Israel and the nature of its conception is coercive and structurally oppressive it is akin to a crusade and belongs to a set of ideologies which should be permanently and ceremoniously banished.

It’s frustrating that although I can easily outline the problems of the conflict mentioned, I cannot easily provide a solution that will satisfy both parties. This is because both states are clouded by dogma, and their territorial egotism will prevent the chance of any reasonable compromise. While I can coolly churn out musings on the ideal situation of peace and the need for co-operation, I am not the one who is directly suffering, I am not the one who has personal reason to despise a race or nationality, but the Israelis and Palestinians do and such hatred is hard to rid. It is therefore imperative that the prevention of such conflict in the future is thought about, but that itself is a task as the wars of the previous generation leave a nasty stain and new structural hostility of previous enemy nations or ideologies on the current generation. Wars are not ephemeral, they have devastating long-lasting effects and we must do all we can to prevent such tragedies happening once again, furthermore we need to build strong ethical foundations for the future generations which prevents the mindless and primitive behaviour we see happening in Palestine. I have the feeling that if the rights of the Palestinians were initially honoured and their land respected, the subtle indignation would not have turned into full-scale violence and ethnic cleansing.

I believe that the process of war and the violations of human rights that we have seen has been the result of a string of successive minor violations and disregard for the rights of one party, which has led steadily exacerbated indignation, the formation of stereotypical ideologies and harmful premeditated beliefs which enhance the divisiveness of a community, and then eventually leads to violent uproar and thus complete breakdown of the normally peaceful functioning of society. Violence is the most crude form of expression and to me a representation of an absence of rights or the absence of the respect for rights, we must therefore in the future uphold rights wherever we can in order to prevent such casualties. We must also not stand by when others are being persecuted wrongly, for one day it will be us facing persecution whilst others shamelessly look on.

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

– Martin Niemoller

Thoughts on: the roots of income equality, sadness and the class struggle

The foremost problem inequality engenders is one that transcends the struggle for subsistence, it is not necessarily the result of an inability to survive, in many of the developed economies anyway. Inequality represents a far deeper irritation persistent in the collective conscience of society, inequality brings out the voracious anger contained within the egotism western society possesses. First and foremost the inequalities of wealth and the resultant inequalities of income that result from the interest wealth provides are far beyond our control, we are not responsible for inequalities individualistically, it is something deep-rooted in the economic machine and is also a self-reinforcing function, wealth creates more wealth. It is an ignorant fallacy arising from aristocratic hubris to mistake the wealth one receives from inheritance or from mere positioning in society as of birth as the fruition of their own labour or as their rightful heir proportionate to their superiority in relation to the rest of society. Inequalities become a problem when the wealthy subconsciously, or consciously associate their riches with superiority. The superiority complex pervades throughout society, and wealth becomes the ultimate and only societal goal, wrongly synonymous with success.

The anatomy of the capitalistic society is such that money talks, the concept of gift and selflessness is demoted to rarity as people’s mentalities slowly and surely become more and more individualistic insofar that trade is purely a materialistic/individualistic action that holds no metaphysical significance whatsoever; this differs to ancient and more sustainable societies in which gifts formed a large part of economic activity. Since in capitalism it is through money in which actions are carried out and it is through money in which safety and shelter is ensured, it is surely reasonable to associate money with the concept of power and dominance. Furthermore, it is the rich who command wealth, they therefore command the functioning of society, they are the consciousness of society, they dictate the ideals and norms through advertising, media and other formats of expression. It is no surprise that materialism dominates the media that is owned by the wealthy who themselves consider their superiority to be rooted in riches. The ideals of the wealthy and individualist philosophy seeps through to the ideals of the layman. We adopt the egotistical and individualistic attitude of the avaricious capitalists that conceived it, the difference being that we have little wealth in comparison to them, therefore our adopted perception of societal success is unfulfilled and we are left with an unhealthy longing. Through individualism, we become selfish hedonists, we are concerned only with material desires and we do things on aggregate more for the individual in comparison to the collective.

The abstract and incomparable metric of spiritual fulfilment is replaced by the easily comparable and highly relativistic metric of material fulfilment. This is the birth of the ruthless competitive pressures capitalism induces. We are constantly made aware of the lives of the wealthy through media, we begin to idolize those who possess riches without actually taking time to analyse their personalities. It is this constant comparison of us to the wealthy which instigates the sadness of the first world, it’s the constant reminder that someone is more wealthy than you, and that someone possesses more material objects than you do, therefore by the current philosophy they are of more worth than you as a human being. This in my eyes is what leads to indignation, its part of our philosophy, surely there is nothing wrong with some being wealthy as long as people have their instinctive desire sufficed such as food and shelter. But our egotism doesn’t allow for this, the problem of inequality in the first world, is mostly a metaphysical one, its due to a sort of spiritual sickness and egotistical pettiness.  There is no ubuntu in our capitalism, there is only yourself and your close relations. Kindness doesn’t extend far beyond family purely for the fear that there is no immediate material return in it, but it is this kind of attitude that instills ruthlessness in modern society. Depression for those who have surpassed subsistence is the result of thinking relativistically, it is the result of imprudently associating absolute worth with wealth.

Perhaps if selflessness, non-coercive spirituality and the importance of suppressing the ego was taught in schools, people wouldn’t have a problem with inequality, maybe we would rear a generation beyond material desires. We would raise a generation that surpasses the struggle for power and dominance a society that is void of human suffering rooted in the protection of prejudices. Why should we suffer and compete in our ephemeral and frankly irrelevant lifetimes, as well as economic revolution and the upholding of moral principles, it is also time for spiritual revolution and a serious attempt to rid yourself of the hubris which causes you to feel indignation because one man is materially better off than you, or to feel superiority because you are materially better off than another man; It is in a society with these sorts of mores induced by a culture of selflessness that inequality will be eradicated, as people transcend beyond material satisfaction, they will feel no need to hold onto surplus and it will be voluntarily distributed to those with less in search of more profound satisfactions, this is my utopian ideal.

What we as a society and an economy produce in capitalism especially, reflects our innermost desires, our strife for abundance and reckless disregard for our environment is testament to the individualistic mentality we as a society possess. We see ourselves as separate from earth and nature, without acknowledging that in a few decades a majority of us will be biodegrading into the dirt from which we were previously contained. We are a truly myopic society, capitalism is prone to a wide scale ‘tragedy of the commons’ precisely because it lacks the collectivist mentality that other societal structures have.

But this implies a serious problem, it is incredibly hard to change the mentalities of an era deeply entrenched in individualism and selfish desires. Furthermore, it is far easier to redistribute income and anger a small proportion of society, making a few upset for the heightened happiness of others, concomitant with utilitarian ideals. This does nothing to remove the tension between classes, it only serves to further stratify society and only causes more social unrest, it is by no means targeting the root of the problem – our tainted idea of success, our false and inefficient methods to pursue fulfilment. By pursuing large-scale income distribution in societies immersed in personal selfishness is only taking one step further on the cycle of class warfare. The success of economic policies are contingent on the individuals that are the economy, it is contingent upon philosophical positions held by the individuals, it is contingent upon the nature of the culture of the economy, it is contingent upon all aspects of the collective characteristics a society possesses. Economists don’t account for this, you cannot translate culture into mathematics but it is nonetheless real and certainly intelligible. Economics as a subject needs to take notice of anthropology and try to break free from the thick intransigent chains of the utilitarian hedonist philosophy on which it is founded.

The cyclical melancholy as a result of being prisoner to materialistic desires through the cycle of inequality will only be perpetuated unless we aim to change mentalities rather than tax bands. In a society of abundance the only enemy to our welfare is ourselves and is rooted in the ideas we choose to inhabit.

Economics and the creation of an eudaimonic formula

Isotropic, homogenous and relatively predictable, this is a description of our universe in which we are contained. While the expansion of the universe is relatively predictable, the expansion of individual economies are not. This can be put down to the existence of ‘laws’, the laws of physics beautifully and effortlessly pervade the universe, and enable us to make predictions of its behaviour. These laws on a universal scale so far exhibit some useful properties, namely:

• Reliability, so far due to homogenous nature of the universe, we are able to apply our knowledge over, and over again. The results are that we have a relatively stable theory on the expansion of the universe and can predict the movement of the magnificent celestial objects it inhabits. The laws of physics are stubborn to change, and they work in a specific framework seamlessly, this is because the axioms upon which they are held also display obstinacy, they have pragmatic utility. On the contrary, economic theory is incredibly unreliable, there is no unifying body of knowledge from which we can make concrete conclusions. Moreover, the susceptibility of economics to political preference and moneyed interests over other sciences means that its hard to provide a positive theory, most ‘economics’ we read about is what subjectively ought to be rather than what objectively is. Maintaining a scientific method and simultaneously adhering to political preferences is impossible.
• Pragmatic usage, due to the reliability of laws, they possess pragmatic usage. We can make predictions on the basis of these laws and thus use them to our advantage. Possessing characteristics with resemblance to the free market model, the universe has a relatively evenly distributed density and mass, the behaviour of celestial bodies is often predictable and not governed by the whims of an irrational conscience but rather a predictable, orderly and emotionless interaction of empirically verifiable forces.
• Simplicity, this is not a strict requirement, but it makes some intuitive sense. Occam’s razor states that if phenomena are observable by two theories, one simple and one complex, it is wise to pick the simpler one as the correct explanation. I think this is a plausible heuristic because firstly, an incredibly complex theory can account for anything, just by altering the parameters or caveats to its usage, for example, if a recession is not explicable by a pre-existing theory, it is possible to alter the model to actually predict this recession after its occurrence. This isn’t of much use as there is little point in explaining a recession after its occurrence, the skill lies in prevention. Furthermore, the expansion of a theory or model will reduce its usefulness, for a theory like that to work in a subject such as economics, which perpetually changing actors/variables it means that the method mentioned above will instead of refining its predictive ability will instead just account for each ostensible anomaly as they come and therefore result in a bloated and imprecise tool for scientific reasoning.
• Verifiability/Testability, I cannot think of a sensible way to test economic hypotheses in a controlled lab environment. This thwarts the ability to use a posteriori reasoning from repeated experiments with the same variables and procedure which will instil some reliability into economic theory; we are therefore doomed to the romantic dogmatism of the armchair economist.
• Co-operation with other theories, I won’t even explain this one,  it’s clearly something economics doesn’t possess, there isn’t much in regard to a cumulative body of knowledge unlike other fields, such as biology. Everything seems to be incongruous.

My point is that economic theory lacks these qualities, it’s fallible, even the theory of supply and demand crumbles when fuzzily defined ‘property rights’ aren’t in place. There’s simply too many caveats. The fragility of economic theory is partly due to the fragility of the assumptions imbued in the models. The qualitative analysis does make sense and is comprehensible, but when you start trying to use this qualitative analysis in congruence with mathematics it all falls apart, the complexity of human nature at this moment is insurmountable by economists and cannot accurately be modelled. Perhaps it’s hopeless to search for a unifying theory; it may be wiser to look at each economy individualistically or to go even further and look at each town or city individualistically and tailor theory to suit the characteristics of its markets-but thats micro-economics, which actually works better and has some surprising uses. I think the first unifying theory economists need to pursue is a theory on how to theorise effectively, and when it is suitable to use mathematical modelling.

While the behaviour of particles in a gas is relatively predictable and reducible to a few empirical observations, the behaviour of humans in an economy is not.  For a start, the economic agent, the consumer has preferences that extend far beyond moneyed interests and is prone to irrational behaviour as psychologists and sociologists are constantly pointing out. Irrationality is synonymous with impossibility in the economists dictionary, it’s a salient symbol of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias, we should be but aren’t incorporating irrationality of human behaviour into our economic theory, it’s merely a ‘oh trade is always good but maybe consumers hold entrenched patriotic beliefs which prevent them buying overseas goods’. Identifying irrationality is a start, but how to make use of it? My answer to that is that I don’t really know, except for sit back and contemplate the fallaciousness of free market fundamentalism, you can’t do much. Its incredibly hard to accurately model human behaviour, as we are responsive and intelligent beings, we have adaptive responses that extend far beyond Friedman’s theory. For example, how do you really, accurately quantify confidence? Even if confidence is estimated, how do you know it will stay that way? A momentary snapshot is of no use. How is a model meant to account for ‘black swans’, external and random factors which often change the trajectory of an economy. How does a model successfully incorporate the capricious nature of technological advances and tastes and preferences? Is it possible to incorporate corruption into a model? Furthermore, can we really rely on GDP as the metric for societal success, material welfare is but a fraction of the eudaimonic formula once the subsistence lifestyle is surpassed.  I think part of the problem is that economists don’t understand what society really wants, I don’t necessarily prioritise material welfare over other sorts, I prefer social co-operation and the growth and harmonisation of different cultures, I don’t look forward to a machine like meritocracy and a legion zero hour contract workers striving to satisfy the materialistic gluttony endowed on them through ingenious advertising and a capitalistic attitude. I’d personally rather have peace of mind. Economists need to do more philosophy, they need to explore other paths to fulfilment and welfare other than the materialistic path. Furthermore, it is easy to advise a politician to gentrify a particular area from the 30th floor of a monolithic skyscraper where the working class look like animate dots for the ‘greater good'; at least the nominal greater good. Economists don’t appreciate intangible costs, they might state it, but they don’t translate comprehension into action, take austerity as an example. They need to go out there and live, instead of blindly influencing the masses with ideas derived straight from the impeccable mathematics based of false premises and the absurd belief that you can quantify a quality as subjective and elusive as utility.

I personally don’t think economics qualifies as a science, a hard science at least. It is a young discipline that has a long, long way to go, but instead of economists adopting a paternalistic approach to their work, it may be time to step back and go to the drawing board to find some real substance. But remember, Chemistry started off as Alchemy. However theology has always remained the same, and from what I’ve seen, I liken macro-economics to a huge collaboration of furious theologians. The question therefore is: whether economist will take the positive path and make a concerted attempt to increase accuracy of  the disciplines theories, even if this means reducing the prominence economists have by abandoning their magnificent yet incorrect mathematical means of modelling ; or will economists continue to foolishly attempt to model a complex organism such as an economy without first trying to understand the individuals that constitute it properly? So far, there is no eudaimonic formula, there is only appreciation of the fact that ‘it depends..’.

 

To be an economist…

Detroit; testament to the effects of large-scale economic mismanagement.

Economics is a truly intriguing and highly demanding discipline. The economist needs to possess verbal fluidity to elucidate the workings of the masses qualitatively and truthfully meanwhile avoiding the temptation to initiate sophistry in order to promote personal ideologies. In addition to verbal coherence, an economist must also possess the ability to numerically reason. I like to think of economics as multifaceted: attempting to successfully fuse rigorous scientific methodology without a lab environment and daunting variables, whilst also qualitatively documenting a means of social engineering in order to achieve (often badly) defined objectives. Economic methodology is a magnificent and byzantine incorporation of skills acquired across all of academia.

The economist must have extensive knowledge on the nature of well-being and be cognizant of the trade-off between material prosperity and prosperity of other sorts. While studying economics it is essential to have an awareness of the philosophical foundations of which normative economics is based, much of economic modelling is based upon marginal utility theories which in turn is founded from the principles of utilitarian philosophy. It may be revealing to take a different philosophical standing and build utility maximizing theories from differing maxims to the mainstream and see the radical differences in policy. I think, in a way, this concept relates to my previous post on lateral thinking. In terms of taking a completely different starting point with completely different axioms and then beginning to construct testable hypotheses from that.

For example, if the economics professions consisted solely of Buddhists, I know it sounds ridiculous and is admittedly a hyperbolic instance, but it provides a useful thought experiment on how our values of well-being affect the policies we construct. This is especially important considering the rising prominence economist have in running countries.

The economist must consider carefully the political implications of economic policy besides avoiding zealous attachment to baseless ideology which will proceed to cloud rational decision-making; this is essential if economics is to be considered as a science. The economist possesses cumbersome responsibilities: economists definitely need to learn when to say “I don’t know”. The intense hubris surrounding the profession engenders countless straw-mans and petty arguments only for the sake of argument in order to preserve what pride economists have left. Without proper education in critical thinking and identification of fallacious arguments, the layman is susceptible to the enticing rhetoric of the economist. Being an indignant teenager,  I myself nearly caught Friedmanitus, luckily I’ve recovered and now take a firm agnostic stance in the ideological spectrum until I have learned more.

I consider it essential that economics as a discipline encompasses a more empirical approach, that is, modelling based upon assumptions which have a scientific basis and are proven. This means that models will be constructed on sound  foundations thus removing some of the inaccuracies the butterfly effect poses. Encompassing a scientific approach involves economists putting their lofty models aside and delving into other behavioural sciences for more insight on the real nature of human behaviour. Mathematics on its own doesn’t constitute science, the essence of science is pragmatism, it is practicality, it is the ability to put discoveries to use. In my opinion, economics lacks this. This is of course easier said than done and it is worthwhile to note that economics as a discipline is relatively young. It’s still in its infancy, it would be inconsiderate to compare its achievements to that of the Natural Sciences furthermore I believe it to be simply wrong to try to aim for economics to become as objective as say engineering. The economist cannot take a one size fits all approach to economics as an engineer can take a one size fits all approach in modelling a plane’s flight in the earths atmosphere, there are too many irregularities arising from salient difference in the behaviour in economic agents across different economies.

Economists must be conscientious in applying seemingly successful western policies to countries with radically different cultural practices. The search for a silver bullet is a fruitless activity, it is non-existent; the subjectivity of utility ensures this. It is in this light that I suggest strongly that in most cases economists must try to illustrate what is as an alternative to what ought to be.

In conclusion I’d like to convey the responsibilities economists hold with a quote, I haven’t done this topic justice, I aim to write more on this topic as I believe it’s something worthy of discussion. I hope this post has however provided a gist of the challenges economists face due to the sheer complexity of the subject.

“The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist.”  – John Maynard Keynes

 

Scattered thoughts on thoughts

What distinguishes between a man such as Nikola Tesla and other, less successful graduates in their respective fields?

Here’s what he had to say about people using his ideas without providing him credit:

“I don’t care that they stole my idea  … I care that they don’t have any of their own” .

Nikola Tesla is an extraordinary human, he embodies accomplishment, he is the epitome of the selfless intellectual pursuit. Tesla has a plethora of achievements, he is said to hold 300 patents and also had time to learn 8 languages, fluently. He also had an extremely charismatic personality, in an obscure, introverted kind of way. In terms of raw intelligence, that is intelligence measured by IQ, he differs little from other academics. Yet his success in his field is so much greater, the cause therefore must be unrelated to the skills required for IQ testing, something different. Maybe Tesla thought differently? Maybe he thought laterally? Of course, there are a multitude of factors that come into play in determining ones success in a given field, such as ambition and drive, diligence, curiosity. But these things aren’t particularly rare so its plausible to suggest that they are less important factors, otherwise every hard working and intelligent scientist would be making groundbreaking discoveries, right?

 

Now you’ve got a gist of the sort of person Nikola Tesla is, what does this have to do with thought? Well, I’ve recently been reading a book called ‘The Use of Lateral Thinking” by Edward de Bono, it’s thoroughly thought-provoking. The basis of the book is that the characteristic that separates the creative from the less creative is founded upon their structure of thinking. You can think of lateral thinking, as thinking outside the box, it’s thinking past limitations and finding away around seemingly infallible problems. It isn’t necessarily logical and strictly rational, as it isn’t dependant on taking ”axioms” or given assumptions, which are highly improbable in our variable ridden lives, so the next best thing is the highest probability assumptions, and then making an attempt to achieve a given objective with actions based upon those high probability assumptions. In certain problems this won’t necessarily be the best path of action, and the choice logical or vertical thinking provides offer little help to solve them. Therefore in situations such as these, it is better to call upon lateral thinking.

Why is vertical thinking not the optimal thought process for successful innovative behaviour?

Despite being slightly loosely defined, ‘vertical thinking’ can be thought as high probability thinking, what this means is that using logic and rational deduction, an attempt is made gathering the available information to purse the path of highest probability to the achievement of a given objective; thinking in a linear, sequential way. While this is good for capitalizing on newfound discoveries and improving on existing theories, it is not helpful for discovery, this is because the step by step methodology of vertical thinking means that even if a theory is not helpful or a method is not helpful for a given objective. The logical deduction derived from base the most highly probably base assumptions will veer the person thinking vertically away from trying another starting point, or proceeding from less probably assumptions. I guess It can be identified as a flaw of rationality which from my knowledge has a habit of being obsessive over probabilities and tends to be slightly scared of things that aren’t empirical. In my opinion, the infancy of our intelligence means that pure rationality isn’t a viable option, correct me if you think I’m wrong though.  De Bono likens vertical thinking to digging a hole deeper and deeper, making it a bigger and better hole. Of course if this is the wrong hole with no path to treasure, then no matter how deep the hole, there will be no success. In these cases De Bono suggests digging a different hole elsewhere, starting from a completely unrelated point, with lower probability assumptions. This is essentially what lateral thinking is. In my opinion the success of this method is dependant upon the belief that there is a solution to every problem, it’s just that rationality and the assumptions we sometimes take mean that the solutions to these problems are ruled out because these solutions are outside our sphere of comprehension given assumptions we falsely deem to be definite and thus cannot be identified through rationality and high probability thinking.

While many thousands of scientists were busy being confined by their university curriculum and outdated ways of thinking, their creativity was simultaneously being constrained.  They did not employ lateral thinking, they were stuck in the Newtonian model, that was seemingly perfect. Meanwhile, people like Albert Einstein took this model and thought, ‘its good, but what could make it perfect?’.  Being creative involves taking preconceptions and shattering them, it involves taking multiple angles to your approach, whether it be in business or science. While having a high IQ is indicative of your ability to apply logic and rationality to problems, it is truly intelligent to create problems that didn’t exist by conception of ideas.

Adopting a creative instinct is easier said than done. Since lateral thinking isn’t a precisely defined and therefore easily identified process. There is no simple way of modelling it, it isn’t an objective thing that can be converted into a magic formula that generates ideas. It is better described as a habit, it’s something you can somehow develop over time. This can be done by deliberately trying to find methods other than the most probably one, it can also be done by doing lateral thinking puzzles, generally it’s achieved by trying to suppress your logical instinct that attacks problems sequentially and trying to enable the lateral side of you to take its place. The root of creativity is situated in using truly unique thought processes.

While lateral thinking is a nice provocative idea. It has some problems, since it is so loosely defined, it is hard to properly develop skills in it, furthermore, it’s not a scientific idea, it’s merely a clever observation. Lateral thinking could be an amalgam of different thinking techniques under the guise of one name, it could even be the mere result of chance, or even the result of the divine influence of providence (haha).  Furthermore, because of its elusiveness and subjectivity, you cannot produce a formula or sequence of clear steps to develop it. Developing this unique thought process is impossible because each instance of lateral thinking is in fact unique by definition. It’s almost down to a case of taking a stab in the dark and fumbling for an answer with your thoughts. Its down to being adventurous with your methodology, perhaps lateral thinking is just another way to articulate a heterodox methodology for everything.

Some would argue that creativity is something strictly genetic and only possessed by a select few, I don’t side with this idea, firstly because genes are adaptive in nature and dormant genes flick on and off all the time. Secondly, this concept is highly regressive, it doesn’t foster for progression, and frankly isn’t verifiable. Furthermore, what’s the worst that can come out of trying?

To conclude, my badly structured ramblings have confused me, and I don’t know where I stand on this topic. I’m on chapter 3 of this book and I’ll write another post when I finish to clarify my thoughts. Right now, lateral thinking is just something cool I can talk about to my non skeptical friends, it has little practical use to me at the moment but that doesn’t mean it won’t in the future.