Humanities desk
< September 22	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 23

Non Aggression Principle

How well regarded is the Non Aggression Principle among mainstream philosophers? I'm looking more for an overview of expert opinion, rather than specific arguments. Benjamin (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to Non-aggression principle? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Benjamin (talk) 05:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks less like a principle but more like contradicting splitting hairs since aggression is also almost always backed up by some point of view moral reasoning. Pacifism is a principle. "Situation dependent non aggression rule" seems a much to flexible concept to justify the term principle. --Kharon (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Non-aggression principle is a term d'art used by right-leaning libertarians because they resent having to pay their fair share for things like roads and fire departments and food safety inspectors. It's used by the "taxation as theft" crowd, and they're the only ones who take it seriously. Philosophers who would either use the term directly or would take it seriously include people like Benjamin Tucker, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, etc. As for philosophical schools where it will be used, see Objectivism (Ayn Rand), Anarcho-capitalism, Paleolibertarianism, etc. --Jayron 32 12:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rothbard was a dilletamte student of Rand who stole some of her pronouncements without accepting her principles. Rand thought eventually moving toward a fully voluntary system was a goal, but did not think taxation for defense and roads was theft per se, and it is unfair to characterize her thus. (Breitbart's "culture is upstream of politics" is from Rand) Rand thoroughly castigated the Libertarians whom she saw as unprincipled anarchists, note the 2012 election, where a woman who would allow children to use heroin came in second place for the party nomination. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most annoying things about Rand is that she seemed to think she had invented the whole idea of freedom, and it was her intellectual property or something. --Trovatore (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean. Is intellectual property annoying? Or is Freedom annoying? If you actually read Rand she credits Isabel Paterson, Rose Wilder, John Locke, Nietzsche, Aristotle, and a whole bunch of other people, including Aquinas. But it is quite easy to dismiss her if you don't actually bother to read her. Her big fault was not using other thinkers, but not adding appendices to her collected essays to mention them, when she should have. μηδείς (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual property is indeed annoying, and in principle I do not believe in it. The moral basis of property is that one person's use of a physical object deprives other persons of being able to use it as they desire. Ideas have no such restriction and therefore cannot morally be property. But that is not really my point.

What is annoying is that she takes umbrage at thinkers who believe in freedom, if they don't also believe in her gobbledygook about how it all follows from A=A. --Trovatore (talk) 07:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's only one such definition of property. Other workable definitions are possible, especially where "effort = ownership", that is a person is allowed to profit from their labor. If I take a chunk of wood and carve it into a table, I own that table, and most importantly, the extra value I have added to that wood by carving it is value I am entitled to (for example, I can sell it for cash, or I can rent it to people who get to use it only for the agreed-upon times and uses). The notion of intellectual property comes NOT from the notion that property is an object, but from the notion that property is ultimately the product of labor. Where the product of that labor is intangible (such as a song or story or novel plans for a new type of device), that person who created that product is due the same right to disposal of that product, and to deny the person owns that product that right is no less theft than it would be to deny the person who owns the table those same rights. --Jayron 32 12:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was making a moral assertion, not attempting a definition. --Trovatore (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very well versed in philosophy, but it seems clear that most academic philosophers don't take Rand all that seriously. As for the "Non Aggression Principle", I find it it rather tiresome how many different ways there are of arriving at the predetermined conclusion that the main purpose of government is to protect the riches of wealthy people (all of these "Scrooge McDuck bodyguard" theories of government seem pretty equivalent). AnonMoos (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rand did have a weird quirk in that she was least tolerant of those living people who were closest to her philosophically. She could get along with avowed marxists, but excommunicated people from her circle for their tastes in classical music. In any case, she most certainly did not "derive everything from A=A". (The purpose of that abbreviation is simply to emphasize that there are no contradictions in reality, and if you derive a contradiction you've made a fatal flaw in your reasoning or assumptions.)

Her system is largely (she would say wholly) inductive, starting with the needs and nature of man and arguing for a system of ethics of enlightened self-interest, then a political system that protects everyone's self-interest. As for the scrooge mc duck bullshit, Rand's position is classical liberalism, with government limited to protecting the border, fighting defensive wars, and prosecuting fraud, theft, and violent crime. Those protections apply to everyone, not just straw men. μηδείς (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, just as "the law in its majestic impartiality forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges", such theories protect both the wealthiest and those who have nothing from theft -- but does nothing to protect those without property from starving. If you don't like "Scrooge McDuck bodyguard theory of government", how about the "Javert theory of government"... AnonMoos (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not here to defend Rand; her works, during her life and posthumous, are fully published. You seem to not want people to read them, giving false summaries and insulting those who'd bother to actually read what she wrote. I don't care. The purpose of government is not to feed people, but to defend the right of charities to do so. Having lived in the poorest congressional district in the US, I can assure you, no one starved, and the Churches gave out so much food that the crack addicts would stand in line, get their weekly ration (on a daily basis) and sell the food door to door so they could buy crack with the cash they "earned". None of this concerns me. Your socialist tropes are silly. I will not respond to you further. There are scores of books by and about Rand and her theories. She is not ignored except by those who fear dealing with what she actually said. And, no, I don't agree with everything she said. But that don't befront me. μηδείς (talk) 05:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So replace starving with "living in violent South Bronx poverty". And those churches were very stupid for at least not making people getting free food wait on line every day for a daily ration. When people say she is ignored they mean (and often specifically say) by professors of philosophy or a close synonym (cause not enough original material or depth). Very not ignored by libertarians of course. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis -- first, you don't know enough about my political views to validly deduce whether or not I'm a socialist. Second, I don't know all that much about Ayn Rand in detail, and my remarks were not intended to be mainly about her (though she's certainly part of the spectrum of opinions which I find tiresome overall). Third, voluntary private and church charity can be fine in some times and places, but it was found to be quite inadequate during the Great Depression in the U.S. -- and in any case, many people who have been working most of their lives don't want any kind of charity at all, but rather a pension which will reflect their life of work (which is why we have Social Security). AnonMoos (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While our article on the non-aggression principle is rather awful in its coverage of pro and con arguments, the main problem is that the principle condemns "aggression" but approves of "forceful self-defence". Ayn Rand defined it as using force in retaliation against the ones who initiated force, and Murray Rothbard defined it as using violence against the one who committed violence. The idea could lead to an eye for an eye mentality (also known as the "law of retaliation"), which is typically the basic idea behind the concepts of revenge, feuds, and vendettas. Instead of a progressive idea, this regresses humanity back to the legal ideas of Hammurabi, where "the principle of exact reciprocity" was the entire basis of a legal code. The implications are not lost to opponents of libertarianism.

By the way "A is A" has long been the motto of comic book writer Steve Ditko (an Objectivist and a fan of Ayn Rand). He based his vigilante character Mr. A (introduced in 1967) on Rand's ideas. The entire ideology of the character is that "there can only be good and evil, and no moral grey area". In Ditko's stories, Mr. A uses this ideology to play judge, jury, and executioner, while feeling self-righteous about only hurting people who (in his view) deserved it. The character was later parodied in the vigilante character Rorschach (introduced in 1986). This character represents the idea of moral absolutism. He seeks to punish evil at all costs, uses excessively ruthless methods in his crusade, and he literally chooses to die rather than compromise his principles for pragmatic reasons. Basically he is a fanatic who is unable to recognize that he has committed reprehensible crimes in the name of justice. Dimadick (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a weird characterization of the NAP. As usually interpreted, self-defense has nothing to do with revenge. It's about stopping the aggression in progress, not punishing it afterwards.

While there is a range of views, as a general rule, libertarians are if anything less enthusiastic about punishment (even of genuine aggressions) than the general public is. --Trovatore (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the lex talionis and the non-agression principle are entirely separate matters, and if one has to allude to comic-book writers to refute Objectivism, one might as well look at RUSH who were sued by Rand for dedicating their album 2112 to her, or read Michael Schermer's retraction of his straw-man attack on Objectivism after he got a column as a "skeptic" in Scientific American. There's also Rand's influence in getting the draft repealed, but that on;y benefitted the Rich, as AnonMoos has made clear with his Disney allusions. Then there's someone called Jimbo Something, who is the essence of pure evil, as portrayed in the movie The Fifth Element.... μηδείς (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rush were probably sued for copyright infringement. Their concept album 2112 features a storyline about a 22nd-century dystopia. Most of the plot was lifted directly from the novella Anthem (1938) by Rand. As for Michael Shermer, the problem was not his straw-man arguments. His analysis of Objectivism basically characterized it as a religious cult, dedicated to the veneration and inerrancy of the leader, while having a hidden agenda of financial and/or sexual exploitation. He also called this cult "dangerous to individual freedom" and characterized it as having absolutist tendencies. Unsurprisingly, this was viewed as slanderous.

By the way, this is Shermer the so-called libertarian we are talking about. He has made other statements concerning American political ideologies that verge on extreme stereotyping. See this text from 2012: https://michaelshermer.com/tag/ayn-rand/

"In a nutshell, I am a libertarian because conservatives are a bunch of gun-totting, Hummer-driving, hard-drinking, Bible-thumping, black-and-white-thinking, fist-pounding, shoe-stomping, morally-hypocritical blowhards, and liberals are a bunch of tree-hugging, whale-saving, hybrid-driving, sandle-wearing, bottled-water-drinking, ACLU-supporting, flip-flopping, wishy-washy, Namby Pamby bedwetters. There’s a better way. Libertarianism." Dimadick (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Dimadick: that was a great link to Shermer. But I disagree, the Atlas Shrugged movies were perhaps the worst thing since Ed Wood. :) μηδείς (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that I am an Ed Wood fan, who has been trying for years to improve the Wikipedia articles on his films, right? I found sources on their production, their scripts, and how they compare with other films of their era. I find that his films often have better dialogue and more interesting concepts than many big budget films that I have seen. Though I prefer any other film by Wood to Plan 9 from Outer Space, where the alien plot is rather underwhelming. The aliens want to prevent humanity from self-destroying with its new advanced weapons, and from taking the universe with it. So in order to achieve that, they send a powerful army ... of 2 agents to San Fernando, California, and terrorize housewives, commercial pilots, and cops, who have no connection at all to Earth's Military–industrial complex. The actions of the cast are actually irrelevant, because the plan never had any possibility of working. I found it hard to overlook such a plot hole, though I enjoy some aspects of the film, and I appreciate its Cold War-related moral message.

I also try to find positive aspects to other underrated films, since I often work on film-related articles. The one film I personally hate, and I truly regret seeing is Gladiator (2000 film). I love Roman history, so I was excited to see a depiction of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus on film. Until I realized that the characters of the film don't have any resemblance to the historical figures (Marcus Aurelius was played by a 70-year-old actor, while the real Marcus was barely 59 at the time of his death), the political situation is overlooked (the film suggests that the death of Commodus will restore the Roman Republic, over 200 years following its fall. The political conspiracies against Commodus are nowhere to be seen.), the plot is nonsensical (a general considered a threat to the throne builds a career as a gladiator, instead of being executed right away), and the finale bears no resemblance to the assassination of Commodus. The man was first poisoned and then strangulated (while in his weakened state and unable to defend himself), not killed in a battle to the death in an arena (as in this crappy film). And the death of Commodus (the happy ending of the film), actually caused the Year of the Five Emperors, with chaos and civil war across the Roman Empire. I have not seen any Ridley Scott film since then, for fear of how the man handles historical fiction. Dimadick (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And libertarianism isn't as black-and-white how? And namecalling, very mature. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the 2112 issue was that she simply didn't want her name on the album. She disapproved of rock music and thought the use of her name was exploitative and implied her approval. In any case, her lawyer convinced her to drop the issue, and the dedication was still there when I bought the LP in the mid 80's, after her death in 1982. μηδείς (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not particularly familiar with Rand's views on aesthetics, the book "Progressive Rock Reconsidered" (2013) by Kevin Holm-Hudson ties her dislike for rock music to her political beliefs. She only started mentioning rock in her works in the late 1960s, while associating this genre with the Counterculture of the 1960s and with the idea of Collectivism then-popular in the United States. To Rand this was an anathema, since she thought that collectivism paved the wave for totalitarianism, through the subjugation of the individual to the group. To quote Rand: "throughout history, no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim of representing the common good." Dimadick (talk) 06:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which again only displays her completely illogical conclusions at the most basic level. If A then B DOES not imply "If B, then A must have occurred". That's like basic, fundemental logic stuff. Merely because tyrants use collectivism to further their goals DOES not then entail that collectivism leads to tyranny. Replace her terms with others and you see how fast the logic breaks down. "Tyrants grow from collectivism, therefore all collectivism must produce tyrrany" is the same logic as "Apples grow on trees, therefore all trees must produce apples". That's why her philosophy is so derided as nonsensical and silly. Not because she's an individualist or opposes collectivism. There's plenty of philosophers from whom you can find logically rigorous philosophies that would produce support for individualism over collectivism. It's not Rand's conclusions that are necessarily bullshit, it's Rand's methods that are bullshit, which then draws her conclusions into question. Doubly so that most of her later works consist mostly of attacks against people who tried to correct her methods and provide more rigorous defenses of her principles; anyone who disagreed with her was an enemy, and anyone who agreed with her and tried to improve upon her works was a thief. --Jayron 32 13:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As one of my old math teachers said, "If you start with incorrect assumptions, you're liable to get 'interesting' results." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Rand's assumptions which are the problem, it's that her conclusions do not entail from her initial presumptions. It's one thing to start with sketchy assumptions and proceed to conclusions using sound thinking; it's quite another to use gross perversions of basic logic to do the same. --Jayron 32 13:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unconscious bias

Many studies talk about unconscious bias in recruitment and preferences for candidates with certain attributes which has nothing to do with their suitability for a job but is this really true? Because in this competitive world, all candidates regardless of skin colour, age, gender, sexuality find getting a job challenging? Also there are plenty of from minority groups who are successful. 90.198.254.50 (talk) 08:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do know that interviewers make their minds up about candidates thirty seconds into the interview. 79.73.128.205 (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You probably mean Subconscious. Unconscious minds dont even dream, not to speak of choosing preferences or making decisions. Since we all know everyone is affected by bias, more or less, its simple logic that this has some influence on recruitment too. So yes of course its "true".

Also bias is by definition subconscious since people that take biased choices are by definition not aware of their bias - atleast not in the moment they choose. So "subconscious bias" is like "conscious choice", wrong double termed since both terms already imply their origin is subconscious or conscious.--Kharon (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the term is unconscious bias, whether that makes sense or not. A quick google will illustrate this. Fgf10 (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For once in my life, agreeing with Fgf10. The claim — I'm not saying whether I believe it or not, just that this is the claim — is that the unconscious mind is something we do not have conscious access to at all; this is distinct from the concept of the subconscious, which is the part of the mind we ordinarily have reduced awareness of, but not zero, and the awareness of which can be increased by deliberate effort. It's my impression that writers who discuss in the unconscious mind do not really believe in the subconscious, and vice versa, though I'm sure there are exceptions out there somewhere. --Trovatore (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't sleep an unconscious state? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what you mean. A dreamer has phenomenal consciousness, but the phenomena involved do not ordinarily correspond directly to the physical surroundings. He/she does not have sensory consciousness of the physical surroundings (is access consciousness a bluelink, or the right term?). --Trovatore (talk) 08:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word unconscious has 2 meanings [1]: 1. Not awake (sleeping, in a coma, etc) 2. Happening while you are awake but not being aware of it happening. Unconscious bias obviously uses the second meaning.--Lgriot (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think bias is by definition unconscious - several of the forms described in the article are things that people could be aware of (and think there is nothing wrong with), or aware of (and trying to avoid). Iapetus (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you think the fact that everyone finds getting a job challenging or there are plenty of from minority groups who are successful means there isn't unconscious bias? Nil Einne (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bias is the human tendency to perceive other people or groups based on our own irrational and/or self-serving viewpoint. That is why we often consider ourselves as misunderstood victims, but we are all too quick to judge others, to vilify them, and to demonize our opponents. Recruitment agents and interviewers may think of themselves as objective and rational individuals, while letting their own biases and preconceptions color the way they view and treat the candidates. They may quickly reach a decision, and only after the fact attempt to rationalize their own behavior. Dimadick (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A judge's mistake

How do you call it when a judge talks to the press and says something about an ongoing case (such as "I think that this man is innocent"), which is then understood as if he had improperly revealed the outcome of the case before he released the sentence? --Cambalachero (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an example in mind? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The terms used are either Judicial disqualification or recusal.--Jayron 32 15:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the possible result of such a situation. That's why we need an example; the OP doesn't provide enough information to determine the ethical status. Is it a jury trial? Is the jury privy to the judge's statement? What does "release the sentence" mean? Isn't there usually something in between trial and sentencing, like a determination of guilt or innocence? But I think the question is more along the lines of "what is it called when a judge offers an opinion out of court on a trial in progress". In California, doing so is proscribed under Canon 3B(9), but is not necessarily disqualifying under Canon 3E. Judicial Conduct and Ethics, Alfini (2007) §4.05C --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the term for when the judge gives the opinion before the trial has started [2]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.167.12 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the other commentators have said, can you explain further what you mean? The link you posted doesn't seem to discuss any such examples in depth. It does include a brief mention and a link to [3], but even that case doesn't seem to regard offering an opinion on a case, as several parties state that the ocomments referred to did not say the person believed any particular opinion was correct but rather laid out several possibilities. Or to put it in the OP's original example, it's like the judge saying "I think that this man could be innocent or they could be guilty and if they're guilty we could sentence them to home detention or we could sentence them to 2 years in prison, or anything in between". Several parties also suggest that these comments should not have been offered but not everyone agrees. Nil Einne (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mistrial, Venue. μηδείς (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's the possible result of such a situation. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how about Democrat-appointed federal circuit court judge? :) μηδείς (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There may not be a term for it. I suppose "misconduct" or "breach of ethics" might apply - but only if the conduct and ethics rules forbid such commentary. Blueboar (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is ethical may not be codified in law, and what is legal may not be considered ethical. Based on the limited information from Cambalachero, it is unclear whether said judge has violated any law by making public statements. Also if he/she has actually violated a law or set of rules, is there is anyone with the authority to act against them.

Last year, I read the biographical articles of the List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Due to their appointment involving life tenure, they have no term limits, nobody can force them into retirement, and they typically can choose the time of their own resignation or retirement. "No mechanism exists for removing a justice who is permanently incapacitated by illness or injury, but unable (or unwilling) to resign." Despite many of these justices getting involved in ethical controversies, there has been only one case where one of them was impeached. Samuel Chase was impeached in 1804, when it became clear that his partisan political views were affecting his behavior in court and when his opponents could no longer tolerate his “intemperate and inflammatory … peculiarly indecent and unbecoming … highly unwarrantable … highly indecent” remarks in court. He was acquitted in 1805 and kept his seat in the court. Several of the senators who voted in his favor considered him a lousy judge, but doubted that "the mere quality of his judging was grounds for removal." All later efforts to impeach justices failed. These justices are pretty much untouchable. Dimadick (talk) 00:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambalachero:, I would call it "extrajudicial commentary". Google scholar has a few results for "extrajudicial comments by judges". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)So watch out anyone who makes an obiter dictum! In England it has become easier to summarily remove judges. Proceedings issue out of the "Judicial Misconduct Office" which occupies the tenth floor of the Royal Courts of Justice in London. In recent years there have been many lurid newspaper stories about misconduct by judges, often in areas unconnected with their profession. This is not because our judges are becoming less trustworthy but because the definition of the term has been expanded. For example, various low - level officials formerly referred to as "registrars" are now titled "district judges". At the level of the High Court and above, it remains the position that judges can only be removed by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. 92.8.220.234 (talk) 11:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]