Does The End Justify The Means?

There was an unsuccessful attempt on Hitler's life (one of many) on July 20, 1944. The motives of the participants in the plot may have varied, but there was agreement on one point – the end justified the means. Hitler was on a path to destroy Germany and all of Europe – and ultimately the entire world. If he could not be convinced to cease his actions by rational debate he had to be stopped otherwise.

One of the oldest questions mankind has asked itself is “Does The End Justify The Means?” Are there situations which merit our violation of “absolutes.”

"If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all them even in a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." -- Winston Churchill

There are many considerations. The issue posed looks like a “yes-no” question, but I don't think it is, although I don't know how to categorize it. I'll list the considerations as I see them just below in outline form, with some questions about them. Perhaps you'll understand my quandary.

1. Absolutes. What are they? What's their derivation? Are there penalties for violation?
2. Ends. What are they? How important are they?
3. Means. What are the means? Whom do they affect. Involved people or onlookers? Who pays the price?
4. Letting everything be. What are the implications of not acting? (See Churchill quote above.) How bad is the status quo?
5. What are the implications for those who act? Does the action benefit them?
6. Who decides all of the above? If it is not a personal choice, whose input, if anyone's should be sought? How much time is needed for a decision? Who participates in the decision-making?
7. I'm sure that more is involved, but that's all I can think of at the moment. I leave the rest to you.

The original question can only be answered “sometimes,” although it's not always clear when. It's not always an easy decision. Was ending the second world worth the cost of those civilians who died in Dresden and Hiroshima, or should other means have been found? Should a police officer always be barred from using lethal force on someone who is unarmed? Is self-defense justifiable notwithstanding the reality that it may be applied out of fear rather than reason? Where does it start and where does it end? And who decides? And when?

Simply proclaiming that the end never justifies the means is virtuous, but it doesn't take into consideration that virtue is not the goal of all mankind?

The hard part is deciding what answer to use when.

It depends on the end and the means. Most (but not necessarily all) would agree that ending WWII justified whatever steps were required. Tens of millions lost their lives in that war because of the insanity of a few.

Do the ends justify what may seem mean? Do we punish children of illegal immigrants in order to demonstrate the intent to follow our own laws? Do we forbid abortion because killing the fetus is the means to the end of happy women? And do we recognize that “ethicists” who claim to know right from wrong are simply acting on their own prejudices.

It's an old but persisting question because it has no answer. We cannot settle it. One size does not fit all. But the knowledge that there is no single formulaic solution gives us room to invoke our own sense of right and wrong irrespective of the certainty of others. As long as that sense is based on full consideration of the situation and its implications, not just on what sounds good at the time.

December 24, 2017

Death, Ethics, And Education

Triaging has been a feature of medical care for a long time. It's a method for sorting patients so as to make the best use of limited resources. According to the usual pattern, patients are sorted according to the following plan:

           Those who are likely to live, regardless of what care they receive;

           Those who are unlikely to live, regardless of what care they receive;

           Those for whom immediate care might make a positive difference in outcome.

Medical attention is initially addressed to those in the third group. They're likely to be the most “productive” recipients of the limited resources.

Ethicists have discussed the proper husbanding of medical resources in view of the costs that have a significant effect on society. Sarah Palin, on her Facebook page, raised a sensitive issue, fearing that the Affordable Care Act would lead to “death panels” which would decide where limited funds would be used, and deny care to some elderly patients. Denials followed immediately, but the issue, once raised, concerned a lot of people. The patients, especially the grandmas, for whom most of the fear existed, were often those who would best fit into the third category: immediate care might make a positive difference. Whether true or not, it raises serious questions about our use of funds.

I'm 78. I have no school-aged children. But I pay school tax. Long ago I had such children and paid the Day School where they were educated. And I paid the school tax in addition to the tuition. And I've paid ever since although I've never had children in public schools. That allows schools to collect money from all of us for students it doesn't educate. (Actually, international statistics suggests that it doesn't do a very good job for those it does try to educate.) Attempts to get “vouchers” authorized, so those who wished to send their children to private schools would not have to pay twice to improve the quality of the learning in general, and in particular areas, were always opposed by teachers' unions, and always failed to get approval. It was maintained that they'd take funds away from public education. (As does the Department of Education – bureaucrats who supervise the states.) That's true, but vouchers would probably allow children to get a better education – rich and poor alike – if they could choose the school they attended. But besides acting as a prod for professional improvement, such a system would also cost the jobs of some union members, and this would be intolerable, despite the fact that some teachers were not up to the job.

The complaint was also made that vouchers would aid parochial schools and thus constituted a violation of the first amendment by destroying the separation of church. The Constitution, of course, has no such mandate – only against the establishment of a state religion. That, however, doesn't stop opponents of vouchers from protesting. And it doesn't stop them from bowing before the god of public education.

(The ante has been raised. Because those with college degrees earn more, and there is a history of free municipal colleges, there is a movement to once again offer free education for almost everyone. Who pays for that? And do we need more cabbies with college degrees? )

Suppose the ethics panel considered the use of public money for an educational system that was functioning poorly. Would they approve the use of limited resources for a failing system when other options existed? Would they pay for the education of all comers, irrespective of qualifications or interest?

Another question that comes to mind is based on the reality that there seems to be no limit on the resources used to save a preemie or an otherwise damaged newborn. No expense is spared and publicity is extensively lavished upon successes. Thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars may be expended. An additional result may be the markedly increased expenses required to educate these children, which come from the costs of educating others – including the disabled. Do panels of ethicists ever ponder the morality and the wisdom of using limited medical and educational resources this way? I don't mean to suggest that we should withhold care from those who need it – preemies, the disabled, or grandmothers – only to raise the question of how we choose to use our limited resources.

It's basically a political issue. There are repeated and angry demands from all interest groups for the funding of their needs. Where do the funds come from? The treasury that contains our tax money. And the two opposing views of what funding should take place are those of ideologues.

Liberals: We are obliged as a society to care for our most vulnerable citizens, if that is possible. If it's not possible our ethicists will tell us what to do.

The costs should be born by the rich.

Conservatives: You get what you pay for.

They get what we pay for.

Perhaps we should reconsider, or even triage, taxpayer expenses with the aid of ethicists who consider all our problems, and all aspects of each of them.

The Means

What does it all mean? Should we cheat to win? Is it legitimate to mislead the enemy in time of war? Even more basic – is war itself justifiable under any circumstances? What are the rules and the roles of morals and ethics in decision-making?

First of all, let's deal with the question at hand: does the end justify the means? I'm not even sure I understand the question. I'll come back to that later.

When I was growing up the double feature at my local movie theater was accompanied by cartoons, a serial (cliffhanger), coming attractions, and a newsreel. It was during World War II and one of the terms I remember from the newsreels was “The Big Picture.” Somehow everything that our country did was justified in relation to The Big Picture. We had a world to save and a war to win, and we won the war and saved the world. Hooray for us.

In retrospect, however, some of our actions raise questions in my mind, but we did what we set out to do. And I realize that we did some things which may have been contrary to the rigid principles to which I like to believe I adhere. Right is right and wrong is wrong. I'm not alone in this philosophy. While so many praise diversity and remind us of that morality is relative, though, I don't buy.

Like the ACLU, I believe in absolutes. For them,ⁱ however, the absolutes are Man's laws – at least the ones with which they agree. They claim to be limited in what they can do so they don't do everything; like defend the second amendment. They declare the flawlessness and unchangeability of the Constitution only up to a point. My absolutes are “right” and “wrong,” although they may be more difficult to define. I don't accept the “slippery slope” argument because I believe that intelligent people can differentiate between cases, and don't need absolute laws to decide for them – to deprive them of the opportunity to judge. The ACLU's absolutes would put a computer in the jury box instead of thinking people. At least for the carefully chosen cases they decide to defend.

But if I praise, yet wonder about, our actions in WW II, (and, as it turns out, in other situations as well) I need to examine my concept of absolutes, at least in regard to means and ends. And that examination yields the obvious: the means – the variables for which justification is sought – are the most important consideration. We allⁱⁱ believe the ends we desire to be desirable. As far as we're concerned they're justified, even if others might disagree. So the first question relates to the means. And it also relates to their alternatives. And to how I define “absolute.”

Starting with the last of these considerations, the “absolute” is that the least intrusive method of achieving a justified goal should always be the method used. Since I've already stated that we all consider our goals to be justified, we'd probably be loath to have an outside party make that determination, but that may be necessary (a board of “independent thinkers” – perhaps ethicistsⁱⁱⁱ would be empaneled to make such determinations). In addition, unless you believe that “all's fair in love and war,”^iv you'll probably object to using means which are contrary to your goals.

But there will be times when “the least intrusive method” is intrusive. And there will be times when you may validly question whether you're using “wrong” means to attain a “right” end; are you using fire to fight fire?; will your enemy be “hoist by his own petard?” Would the assassination of Hitler been justified or would it have been an immoral violation of the injunction against killing? It's not so easy.

That raises questions about the end. How important is it? Is it more important than the proposed means – and if so, according to whom? As far as you're concerned, are the means helping someone get away with a crime if that's what you're getting paid for? Or perhaps the use of “technicalities” to achieve that aim? Is it involvement in vigilantism to act against someone being aided by those technicalities to redress a wrong? How pure should you be when facing evil? Must we always turn the other cheek and shoot ourselves in the foot?

The reality is that there are bad people in the world. Allowing them free rein may not be the best approach to deal with them simply because the use of necessary measures to limit or eliminate the damage they do may be viewed by some as a violation of that purity. As I noted above, I don't believe in the concept of a slippery slope. I believe in right and wrong. Defining those ideas may be more slippery than the slope, but the idea is based on the idea that the pursuit of justice is more important than a mindless adherence to rules.

Which brings us back to the original question. Does the end justify the means? And my answer is sometimes – but not as often as that excuse seems to be used. It depends on the importance of the end and the intrusiveness of the means – with a healthy dose of absolutism to leaven the mixture. How do you balance the various factors that affect it? It depends. How right is the end – or how wrong? And the same decision has to be applied to the means. Money certainly is not justification for performing or aiding an evil act, but poverty and the risk of starvation cannot be dismissed as irrelevant. Was Jean Valjean's act necessary?^v Or was Inspector Javert justified in hunting him.

There's no easy answer. But that's the case with so many of our problems. We have to work them out ourselves. We cannot depend on machines to do so for us. And since we write the laws, we have to be sure they're flexible enough to deal with difficult moral problems. Leon Trotsky came as close as anyone to clarifying the issue: “The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end.”^vi The rest is up to us.

Next episode:  "Nota Bene 5" -- Here we go again.

I        And for many others as well.

ii       That certainly includes me. My ends – as well as my sides and middle – are always justified.

iii      “Ethicists” are no less prejudiced. But these opinionated people usually have taken at least one course in philosophy, and have the backing of some media body to broadcast their opinions. And all they are, are opinions which are loudly stated. They're no more valid than what you think, but they have someone's seal of approval all over them.

iv       From “Frank Fairlegh: Scenes from the Life of a Private Pupil” by Frank Smedley. A similar sentiment had been expressed two-and-a-half centuries earlier by Cervantes in Don Quixote, but the wording was different.

v        In Les Misérables by Victor Hugo.

vi       Their Morals and Ours, 1938.

 

One, Two, Three … Ten

It's time for a little musar.ⁱ

I try not to be preachy. Even though I know that I'm always right, I try not to sermonize. I try not to guilt the reader into following “the true path.”

Today,ⁱⁱ however, the format changes. Today I'm a sentimental do-gooder. A few days ago I didn't do something that I knew was wrong.ⁱⁱⁱ Instead I did something I should.^iv It wouldn't have made a difference to anyone else but, while avoiding it made things a little more difficult for me, doing “the right thing” made me feel better. My “good angel” won out over the bad.^v

It will help to back up a little. Actually, more than a little. Nearly four millennia. Back to the time of Abraham who, according to the Bible, was the first to formulate the concept of a single G-d. That idea led to the establishment of Judaism, and from that sprang Christianity and Islam. In the first book of the Bible is a description of the “sacrifice”^vi of Isaac by Abraham. G-d “tested”^vii him, but when it became clear that he would carry out the command, an angel was dispatched to stop him. It was the last of ten tests, and Abraham passed them all.

But a better word to depict the situation would be “challenge.” A “test” usually has unknown results and is employed to demonstrate ability, or something else, to a third party – an outside judge. In this instance it seems clear that the point was to demonstrate to Abraham that he would obey G-d's commands. It was a challenge to him. The omniscient G-d knew what the result would be. He didn't need a test to determine that, but Abraham needed to gain the insight. He had to face up to the challenges put to him, and to be aware that he had done so.

And so do we. Whether in school or on the job, in a house of worship with a clergyman or at home with a spouse, or just among friends, we're challenged every day. Often the challenges represent goals set for us by others, sometimes they're just tests. I don't mean to minimize the significance of the expectations of others – often goals that they'd like to see us fail – but sometimes they're valid challenges. More important, though, are those we put to ourselves.

Perhaps we make resolutions each year that we're quick to violate – usually without much thought. All that's likely to cross our minds is that the resolution itself was dumb, ill-conceived. We should never have made it. It's impossible to keep and not really worth the effort. We lack discipline. We cannot achieve the important, but daunting, goals we set for ourselves. We aim high, but that may be the problem. It's easier to lower our expectations.

None of us is Abraham. Not even close. We'd never be able to confront the challenges imposed on him, but we don't have to. The ones that we can set for ourselves, our personal challenges, however, are difficult enough. They don't seem very exciting. And they sound like Sunday School lessons, but there's no minimizing either their difficulty or their importance. And even if they seem self-evident – things that everyone does – the chances are good that they don't do them, and neither do you.

Sometimes they're difficult, but often they're easy. Do you see a piece of paper on the floor? Pick it up. You don't have to tell anyone that you did it.^viii You know, and that should be enough. Or perhaps a closet door is open or a light has been left on in a room that's now unoccupied. Dealing with both those situations, and many more like them, is easy enough and helpful to someone. You may not know who, and that's not really important. You know that it is. When my children were growing up I made a list for them. It was a list of jobs that had to be done before Shabbat.^ix There were many specific jobs enumerated, but at the end of the list was one that was a little more free-form: “Whatever isn't on the list but you know deep down has to be done.” They had to identify the problem and solve it.

Some of the things that ought^x to be done provide a little more of a challenge. The temptation to cross the street against the light when there is no traffic is great. And you may feel like a fool for not doing so, especially since the purpose of any such law is to guarantee your safety and you know that it's safe. However the law is the law.^xi It's more difficult to make a full stop when you see the sign, to stay within the speed limit, and to remember to signal every time you change lanes or turn, but that's the law too. No matter how careful you are, breaking the law is, in its way, an act of anarchy.

Perhaps the biggest challenges, however, are when it comes to money. Not just in business, but even when you're filing your income tax.^xii And they're also there when you get too much change when making a purchase. You may discover it after you've left the store, but returning and repaying the cashier who made the mistake will help that person to keep the books straight and to keep his job. You may feel dumb, but you'll have accomplished a lot.

And a smile. I know that sounds stupid too, but it doesn't take all that much effort to cheer up those around you, and that will cheer you up too. The way you relate to those people is probably the best benchmark for proper behavior. That means no gossip – a very difficult challenge. It also means that you don't trade insults with others, or even answer back to their comments when they say something dumb – especially when it relates to politics or religion. Remember that you won't convince them and they won't convince you.^xiii All they can do is cause ulcers and enmity.

Sanctimonious? Holier-than-thou? Yeah, I know. Preachy?^xiv Sorry I subjected you to it, but I feel better now. I got it out of my system.^xv It won't happen again. I'm cleansed. I know some of the challenges I have to meet. Perhaps I'll even be successful some of the time.

How about you?

Next episode: “What To Do When The Envelope Pushes Back” – Not that anyone cares.

I        Ethical teaching. The word appears in Proverbs, 1:2, and is translated as “discipline” in “The Stone Edition Tanach” published by Artscroll/Mesorah, Brooklyn, 1996. Google^® it for more information.

ii        December 9, 2014

iii      What it was is really irrelevant.

iv       “Should,” itself, is a preachy word, but it conveys the sense I intend.

v        In the Jewish tradition, the terms are “good inclination” and “evil inclination” – yetzer hatov and yetzer harah. Freud would know them as superego and id (sort of). Nowadays we talk about “executive functions” in the frontal lobes.

vi       “Tested” is probably not the best word that could be used, but it is the translation generally encountered.

vii      Genesis, 22:1. According to Jewish tradition the Akeidah was the last of ten tests of faith

viii     As a matter of fact, acts like that have a greater significance when you keep them to yourself.

ix       The Jewish sabbath.

x        Another judgmental word.

xi      There's a basic precept (which is often ignored, but that's for another time) in Judaism that “the law of the land is the [religious] law.” While the situation may become somewhat more complicated when there is a conflict between secular and religious law, in most cases no such conflict exists, and we are obliged to follow the local and national regulations.

xii      Or when you're paying cash in order to avoid tax.

xiii    And whatever you do, never back anyone into a corner. All that “gotchas” produce is enemies.

xiv      Actually, preachy is in the ear of the beholder.

xv       Now I can be a curmudgeon again.

Nota Bene 2

 

A few weeks ago I admitted that there were subjects that I had wanted to cover but lacked time. The list is long and it's growing. At that time I solicited your help but (no surprise) didn't get any response. That, however, won't stop me. I intend to continue every month or so (or at any other time I feel like shortening my list) by describing the areas of interest. As I noted last time,^I  it may be in the form of fiction or non-fiction (actually it may be a question or comment, or there may be a longer description of the issue).  I explained then that the kind of format for its use was up to you.  I also requested that you let me know if you were using one of the ideas, and what I said then applies here. I won't bother you with it now.
 

In any event, here are some of the topics I don't have time to cover at the moment:

1. It's said that a child who learns a second language while his first is developing may become fluent in both, but his vocabulary in each of the two is likely to be smaller than it would have been if he had only learned one language. I don't know the specifics for three languages, but it seems likely that all three vocabularies will suffer. He'll be able to think in all three languages, but, if the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesisⁱⁱ is correct, his ideas will be somewhat limited in all of them. What are the other implications of multilingualism? Although Americans tend toward knowledge of a single language,ⁱⁱⁱ elsewhere in the world it is common for people to be multilingual. Do Americans think differently or more expansively than others?

2. If you believe that there are absolutes (as opposed to culturally defined standards) which you must follow, may you choose the lesser of evils?^iv Is it ethically possible to compromise between right and wrong?^v Is your Representative morally bound to do what you think right or what he does?^vi If an individual considers himself bound to follow particular paths and not deviate from them, is he obliged to establish a third (or fourth, or whatever) party when no one is expounding the idea that he considers “right?” Is voting itself an absolute?^vii

3. What are the limits of peaceful and lawful demonstration? For example, the Brooklyn Bridge was closed on December 4, 2014 by demonstrations protesting the decision of a grand jury not to indict a white policeman who had killed an unarmed black man with an “illegal” choke hold. Whether or not he should have been indicted, do demonstrators have the right to inconvenience others? Are there times when they have the obligation to do so? What should protestors do and what penalties should they (be prepared to) face? Should the penalties be different for “agitators,” especially those from elsewhere, and especially those who go from demonstration to demonstration around the country in order to lead any fight that is in the offing?

4. Suppose an archaeologist discovered a scroll that either supported or cast doubt on an existing religious narrative. How should/would the new information be treated by a supporter or opponent of (any or of a specific) religion. Clearly the “right” thing to do would be to disclose the information whatever it is, but suppose the archaeologist feared that this would do more harm than good. Suppose he feared, for example, that the information might provoke a religious war, or that it would be the cause of prejudice.

I noted last time, “I suspect that some readers may have considered some of these issues, however I don't know to what degree. I know that I don't have immediate answers to the questions they pose, although they trouble me and I wonder about them. Perhaps someone else can resolve the issues in a satisfactory manner.”

The topics are not new. They've been discussed innumerable times. But I still find them vexing. There are so many other issues, however, that I don't expect to have time to expand and expound on these for quite a while. And there will be more to come. Perhaps someone can spend some time on one or more of them.

Next episode:  "I Am What I Am" --Whatever that is.

I        Nota Bene, December 14, 2014.

ii        Look it up.

iii       Usually the language is English, but for some immigrants who have not learned English, and who never studied a second language in their country of origin, their only language may be that of their native land.

iv        Which is, of course, evil.

v        To do so means that you're willing to accept something that is not completely right, even if it is not completely wrong.

vi       Indeed, representing hundreds of thousands of people, how can he possibly support all of their positions?

vii      Is it better not to vote than to support an individual or an idea that is abhorrent to your principles?

Richard Brodsky, Edward G. Robinson, General Patton, And Robin Hood

                                                           

Quite a collection.

It's hard to know where to start, so I'll begin with a little background on each before getting to the point: Richard Brodsky was a New York State Assemblyman (1983 to 2002); Edward G. Robinson (1893-1973) an actor; General (George S.) Patton (Jr.) (1885-1945) was a United States officer during the First and Second World Wars; and Robin Hood, who may have been mythical, but if he lived at all, it was probably some time between the twelfth and seventeenth centuries.

What have they in common? It was a noteworthy view of human nature, responsibility, and man's relationship with his fellow.ⁱ Interestingly, the most memorable of them is the least believable. In all likelihood, the Robin Hood we all know was a conglomerate of various different legendary characters, and the act for which we most remember him – stealing from the rich and giving to the poor – wasn't attributed to him until about the nineteenth century.ⁱⁱ Still, whether or not he ever actually existed, his name will always be associated with this particular version of resource distribution – a kind of medieval socialism that was instituted by an individual rather than by the government.

Richard Brodsky's view – actually it was proposed as a governmental policy – was that an individual's most personal physical resources – his organs – would be up for grabs after his death. It would be presumed that he wished to be an organ donor unless he specifically denied such a choice,ⁱⁱⁱ and his heirs couldn't overrule his “wish,” whether expressed or assumed. One might wonder if it is ethical to impose such a policy.^iv However the view that the resource should be shared – that there is no inherent property right unless it is demanded – is considered more pressing than views in opposition. And there are many ethicists who support that view.

The ideas of these two – Robin Hood and Richard Brodsky – would be imposed on people irrespective^v of their wishes. Their views might be wise policies in some sense, and ethical in the view of those who want a share of the resources, but they are not voluntary. They reflected the philosophy of those who favor “the greatest good for the greatest number” – which is, in essence, “Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen!” – “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”^vi That is another way of saying that we are may take property from those who have it, and we should give it to those who don't. It's up to us. We are entitled to dispose of the property of others if that is what seems fair to us. It's the philosophy of socialism and was the way Karl Marx viewed an individual's responsibility to his government and his fellows.

“No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.” That was General Patton's take on bravery and responsibility to one's country and countrymen. Patton was a soldier and a patriot. He knew about love of country, responsibility, and bravery. He knew of those who had died to protect their fellows and their country. But he also knew that such actions were not the general ideal, even if necessary in some cases. Better that the forces of the enemy die than that you do so; better to kill than be killed. Don't turn the other cheek or a blind eye to tyranny. Many might not view this as the ethical position, but they're usually those who preach from the sidelines.

Patton's position was more like capitalism than the others. His perspective was very different from that of Karl Marx, and from the way Marx viewed an individual's responsibility to his government and his fellows. Patton instead believed that the best thing you can do for your country was to keep and preserve it and your own most important property – your life; not only weren't you obligated to give your property for your country, but he discouraged it. True, there were times when it might happen, and they might be the result of governmental decisions, but they were “collateral damage” and were regrettable rather than the specifically desired outcome.

Sol Roth, the character played by Edward G. Robinson in the science-fiction film “Soylent Green,” had a different view from that of his society. Living at some time in the future,^vii he learned of a conspiracy which was contrary to his view of human behavior, and he related it to his friend, Detective Thorn (Charleton Heston). Both were appalled by it. So much so that Roth chose suicide (in the form of government-sponsored euthanasia) while Thorn was shot^viii trying to expose and stop what was happening. It was a time of overpopulation and food shortages. And, unknowingly, society had turned to cannibalism. There were forces^ix that took and processed into “vegetable” wafers the corpses of those who submitted to the euthanasia provided by government, though those who chose this option presumably trusted society and were ignorant of what would then happen.^x Almost no one was aware of the next step for them, and there was no knowledge among those others about the source of their food.^xi The conspirators, who made large amounts of money in the process, used human remains in place of other food sources – sources that had been exhausted. The entire body was the possession of the state and there were no property rights at all. And it is hard not to wonder if this is the direction in which we are heading.

“Life, liberty, and property.”^xii These were the three legs of the stool on which our country was founded. They were the basis for our separation from Great Britain. Unfortunately they are no longer fashionable. Individualism and individual responsibility no longer exist. They are outmoded. General Patton spoke out for them and Sol Roth died for them, but Robin Hood and Richard Brodsky had other ideas and favored the redistribution of “resources” – society over the individual.^xiii

So always ask what your country can do for you. And whine about your need and the unfairness of someone else having what you want.

Never ask what you can do for your country. The politicians have already figured it out.

Next episode: “Sandy's Children” – First the bad news.

i      In Robinson's case he portrayed such an individual.

ii      J. C. Holt, Robin Hood, cited in Wikipedia.

iii    Actually, rather than his wish, it would be his denial in writing of a contrary assumption. If he disagreed with the policy he would have to opt out. But even if he knew about such a possibility, he might not take the time to act on his wish. So for most people the default position – one that could not be overridden – would hold sway.

iv     Is it ethical to impose such a policy? What are the ethics of preserving resources for future use and denying them to those not considered valuable to society? Is euthanasia ethical? Who decides in particular cases? Will presumption of wish to donate, along with the need for transplantable organs, lead to other medical decisions than would otherwise be taken? What are the religious implications?

v      Notwithstanding Mr. Brodsky's presumption, the failure to opt out of a program is not the equivalent of a decision to opt in.

vi    Karl Marx, “Critique of the Gotha Program,” (1875) – Many consider “ability” to mean property or resources. While this is not a precise definition, it expresses Marx's view.

vii    2022 to be precise. The movie appeared in 1973.

viii   And presumably killed, though this is not explicit in the film.

ix     It's never made quite clear who they are.

x      Roth did know, and it is ironic that he chose euthanasia. But it was an easy, and depicted as desirable, method of dealing with the intolerable situation. Both he and Thorn knew that irrespective of their efforts, there was no way to end the conspiracy. It was too profitable and too useful in wake of the overpopulation.

xi     In all likelihood they wouldn't have cared. Self-preservation was all that counted and as long as they had food it wasn't important where it came from. Dirty as they may have been, they were cleansed of morality.

xii    The “Pursuit (not achievement – emphasis added) of Happiness” – was the phraseology used in the Declaration of Independence instead of “Property” which had had been the term earlier, but it is clear that the Founders were referring to the right to own property which, at that time, was an evidence of liberty. Indeed, “taxation without representation” – the ability of a government to take your property without your consent – was viewed as tyranny.

xiii   Property rights no longer existed either for the deceased or his heirs. The dead gave all for society. It was the greatest good gone mad. Except for those who profited.

Richard

The Continuity Of Humanity

                                                                            

It is the “instinct” of living things to survive. The continuity of individual species is a primary part of the inborn “program” of all plants and animals. A species cannot evolve if it is extinct. We recognize this basic principal when we support efforts to label and preserve endangered species.ⁱ

For that continuity to take place – for the good of the species – it is important that reproduction take place. That reproduction should be in large numbers and with an emphasis on variation, since evolution, and the advancement both of individual species and life in general, depends on these fundamental building blocks. The greater the number of members of a species, the greater the possibility for superior examples to exist.ⁱⁱ The greater that number, moreover, the greater the possibility of new variations in the genetic pool which will allow advancement to take place.

With that in mind, a lot can be said in favor of rape and incest. Both of these practices increase the likelihood of additional pregnancies and additional progeny. What could be better devised to provide for species continuity? Society may not be sanguine about these methods, but that is an emotional rather than a rational reaction. Whatever yields a greater number of species members is advantageous to the species.ⁱⁱⁱ

A ban on homosexuality and abortions, therefore, makes sense – not for any religious reasons but because actions that decrease the number of species members are counterproductive. Similarly, the death penalty should be outlawed and all prisons emptied so that there will be more individuals – humans in the case under discussion – available to reproduce. These steps may not seem to be rational, but, in fact, they are – at least in terms of evolution. Evolution is a product of time and numbers. We may not be able to affect the passage of time, but we can increase the numbers. Any action that limits population should be abjured since it limits evolution at the same time. If those actions are not examples of the Law of Unanticipated Results, they have the same effect. However virtuous the goal of limiting numbers in the hope of improving the condition of humanity, that action will inevitably hamper our evolution to a better and more productive humanity.

We can also improve the quality of the species by a restoration of a limited form of the practice of eugenics. We have no compunctions about using selective breeding techniques to get better looking flowers or cattle with more meat and less fat, and similar methods designed to produce more intelligent and healthier humans make sense as well. I do not propose that we leave deformed babies on the mountain sides, or that we withhold treatment from the sick (especially those capable of reproducing) in order to rid ourselves of imperfect examples of our kind, but with the limitation of resources that seems to be an unavoidable part of our civilization, it seems counterproductive to use funds for the salvage of the infirm who may pass their own infirmity on to future generations.^iv It would be better to use the limited funds for the discovery of those with superior DNA, and the matching of those individuals for reproduction – as well as genetic manipulation, and also the cloning of superior specimens.

The combination of rape, incest, ends to abortion, homosexuality, and the death penalty, the release of convicts, and the encouragement of cloning, multiple births and eugenics, then, should have beneficial effects on the evolution of humanity. That may seem counterintuitive, but the logic is unassailable. At least in terms of what we know about natural selection and evolution.

But for many, such steps don't make much sense. For them, evolution has more to do with ethics than with numbers and anatomy. However many members of humanity there are, we have a responsibility for them. The concepts of right and wrong take precedence over numbers, and the idea that the end – a larger population – justifies the means. The promotion of rape and incest, for example – makes a mockery of the whole idea of humanity. Perhaps many favor an end to the death penalty, but not the release of dangerous prisoners. And if they oppose eugenics and abortion, it is not in order to aid evolution. It is because they believe these practices to be wrong.

Interestingly, the ideas of right and wrong do not seem to be cultural, since they exist in almost all societies including isolated ones.^v They seem to be inborn. In a way, they are as much a part of human beings as arms and legs, a liver and a spleen. But the anatomical features may be found as well in what we view as lower forms. A hyena has legs; a rattlesnake has a liver. As humanity has evolved it has found ethical concepts as part of its makeup. From a violent past we have progressed to a present in which it is “human nature” to provide for the less fortunate; we all know without being taught that murder and theft are wrong. We seem to be evolving into a species that sees the Ten Commandments as natural and unassailable. As Voltaire put it in “The Three Impostors," "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him." Voltaire used the subjunctive because he believed that God did exist. But that view is not universal. Even so, it seems that if we don't kill each other off first, evolution will one day bring us to the point that we all accept the idea that there are rules as real as our organs, and those rules cannot be questioned any more than our lungs can be questioned.

Or, if we accept religious doctrines as they now exist, it is obvious that the proposals to aid evolution may be rational, but they're foolish and immoral. We don't need evolution to teach us these rules, we have them already.

Next episode: “Time In” – There's a time for everything.

i      I don't mean to suggest that all the efforts to protect endangered species are rational, but the reasoning on which such efforts are based has some internal logic. Arguments can be made, however, that the cost of saving some species is too high to justify any conceivable benefits that evolution may confer on them.

ii     Inferior ones will also be produced, but that's a risk worth taking. And they are less likely to survive in the long run.

iii    IVF (in-vitro fertilization) is developing and being utilized at an increasing rate as time goes by. I would be advantageous to the effort to ensure multiple pregnancies as often as possible to increase the numbers. “Octomom,” and the doctor who performed the procedure that resulted in that result, are to be congratulated for their work to enlarge the genetic pool.

iv     There is nothing to be gained by helping the survival of evolution's failures.

v      The ideas may not be identical. There may be differences in the details of right and wrong, but there are some ideas that bridge all cultures. And the very idea that there are certain practices that are wrong is common to all groups.

Soothing The Savage Beast

Soothing The Savage Beastⁱ

One of my wife's favorite compositions is “Symphonie sur un chant montagnard français,” (Symphony on a French Mountain Air). It was written in 1886 and was Vincent d'Indy's, best known work, his Opus 25. Also known as the “Symphonie cévencole,” it was named after the Cévennes Mountains in southern France. The chant montagnard français is a lovely melody, a folk song d'Indy heard while at Périer, overlooking the mountains. The entire piece lasts just under thirty minutes.

Just about the same length is a work by another of her favorite composers, Johannes Brahms. That work is his Opus 24, “Variations and Fugue on a Theme by Handel,” which he wrote a quarter of a century earlier. This particular composition is considered by some to be one of the finest sets of variations ever written.

What's interesting about these two works is that both rely on a prior musical idea.ⁱⁱ Put otherwise – more starkly, perhaps – they represent a form of plagiarism. In each case the theme used was very old – out of copyright in current terminology – but, in a sense, these were stolen ideas.ⁱⁱⁱ We don't view them that way, however it isn't clear to me why that's the case. Perhaps it's the copyright itself – however that is human law, and doesn't really tell us what is “right” and “wrong.”^iv

More and more we read about authors who have appropriated, without attribution, passages from other works. It's plagiarism as well, and, once discovered, it's scorned by all. That's an easy one. In principle, the distinction between that and a theme and variations seems less clear though. If the use of “stolen” goods, and the benefit from them, is “wrong,” what's the difference between these two situations? It can't be the age of the stolen material.

The bigger question – the one that governs this and numerous other issues – relates to the ethics of benefiting from any crime. Perhaps the other end of the spectrum that begins with variations on a folk song is the use of information that the Nazis gained during their infamous experiments. While current research facilities use ethics committees to help investigators avoid going off track, ethics was not a consideration for the Nazis. But are we justified in ignoring the results of their work, criminal as it might have been, if it can help someone now? How is the use of that information different from the transplanting of organs harvested from someone murdered in a robbery?^v

There is a concept in law which deals with the “fruit of the poisoned tree.” If information is obtained in a forbidden manner, anything derived from it is also illegal and inadmissible for use in a prosecution. Law enforcement, therefore, cannot benefit from the crime of gathering intelligence illegally. They won't be able to use it in court. And if leads were obtained from it, they'll be off limits as well. But a similar question is whether we should we listen to the “whistle-blower” who has pledged confidentiality to his employer. In reality the two situations have something in common. Both use nominally protected information. In both cases, notwithstanding any self-serving justifications, an individual tried to benefit from questionably gathered knowledge.

And there are numerous other examples of the same problem – the benefiting from a proscribed action. Can you torture one person to prevent harm to another?^vi Can you monitor “free speech” in order to gather information about planned crimes? What are the ethics of spying? Of “sting” operations? Is it justified to offer a reward or a bounty, since this will wind up with someone benefiting from the fact that a crime was committed? Is the lawyer who defends the criminal benefiting from the crime? Can the lawyer – or the criminal for that matter – gain by telling the story of the crime? And if the criminal has stolen something but has been found “not guilty,”^vii is he entitled to keep the booty?

What do you do about situations in which you're willing to reward the criminal? Gilad Shalit, a kidnap victim, was returned to Israel at the cost of over a thousand Palestinians who had had been convicted of committing crimes. An individual or a company may be willing to pay a ransom to obtain the return of the victim of a kidnaping. An insurance company may give a reward for the return of an item, “no questions asked.” And otherwise honest citizens are often willing to buy items that “fell from a truck” if the price is right. Not to mention, of course, when municipalities "buy" illegal guns to get them off the streets.

There are other situations, equally questionable from a moral point of view, but which don't seem to be of as great concern to the public – possibly because most of us can't relate to them,^viii but there are also those which are easily forgiven. If, for example, someone who gained some money illegally (perhaps by insider trading) gives that money to a charity desperately in need of funds, should the charity^ix,x and those it serves be penalized by a requirement to repay the donation? Should an antiquity or piece of art, obtained long before by unsavory means, that has been on display in a museum for a while – one obtained by the museum unknowingly and by legal means – be taken away? How shall we deal with a “legitimate” business, one providing numerous well-paying jobs, which is owned by a racketeer?

And there are questions for which, despite legislation, we have no satisfactory answers. At what point should a clergyman, a lawyer, a doctor, or a journalist have to reveal information relating to a crime? Should the criminal benefit from confidentiality? How shall we deal with “crimes” like prostitution, adultery, overcharging, the copying of products, and similar ones in which people benefit what many view as immoral acts?

These are some of the situations in which a crime^xi occurs and someone benefits. Where do we draw the line? No one has a problem with the folk song, but the prohibition of using illegally obtained intelligence is well established in law.^xii Many would argue that somewhere in between, along the “slippery slope” that separates them, though, that line must exist. Unfortunately they would all put it in different places. Shall we be absolutists like the ACLU, or practical people who do “what seems right at the time?” Where does intent fit in? Does it matter whether it's the criminal or someone else who benefits? Does it matter who that “someone else” is? And who decides where the line is and what's right and what's wrong?

Not all questions have answers. And not all answers are correct. I'm not an absolutist. I think there's a line, even if my location may differ from yours. I can live with that. Justice Potter Stewart said of pornography, “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.” It's not a very precise answer to the question, but it may be all we have in some circumstances.

As with beautiful music, we play some things by ear.

Next episode: “Morning Is Dawning” – What time does class start?

i    Yes, I know it's “breast,” but this seemed more appropriate since it extends well beyond music. We wrestle with the beast of conflicting values every day. And that's the real subject of today's essay.

ii    Actually the use of folk themes is common in classical music, as is the use of earlier themes.

iii    The same is true of music that is not “classical,” although it may be similarly be based on formal rules. “Popular” music may be derivative of classical themes, and a jazz performance may include bits and pieces of many melodies.

iv    My grandson told me that “Maoz Tsur,” a Hanukkah song, fit perfectly to the music of “Edelweiss.” He was right, but because it was protected by copyright, we couldn't do much with his insight.

v     Actually, the use of Nazi information, however inexcusably obtained, may be more justified ethically. It can be argued that although the information was obtained during a horrible sadistic exercise, the goal in some instances was to gain knowledge, even if the science was bad. In the case of the murder, however, there was no “worthy” goal. I doubt, though, that someone who needs a heart would quibble.

vi    The “ticking bomb,” who has information about a terrorist plot or the planned murder of many, is only one example of this phenomenon. But it raises the questions of torture and crime prevention. Can we benefit from the crime of torture, or is it proscribed irrespective of the justification offered? Must we let people die and then prosecute the murderer?

vii    Or if he has served his time for the crime, or if the statute of limitations has expired.

viii   Like industrial espionage leading to the introduction of new products, competition, and lower prices for the consumer.

ix    And those who might be helped by it.

x     Contributions may be given as well to political parties or candidates, and they may be accepted in good faith.

xi    Or an act which some view as a crime.

xii    Though many question it.