Jefferson on Epicurus

Posted on September 25, 2008 by shaunmiller

Thomas Jefferson took his political writings from John Locke.  Locke said that we have natural rights to life, liberty, and property.  Well Jefferson liked that but he changed it to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Where did he get this “pursuit of happiness” from?  He got it from Epicurus.  Indeed, Epicurus has influenced Jefferson so much that you can see the influence in Jefferson’s other writings like documents and letters.  Jefferson has also said that if the world reads Epicurus, the world would be in a much better place.

Posted in Epicurus, Jefferson, Locke, Politics | 1 Comment

Contract vs. Communicative Sexuality

Posted on September 22, 2008 by shaunmiller

I’m re-reading Lois Pineau’s article entitled “Date Rape: A Feminist Analysis.”  It talks about date rape and the legalities of the procedure.  The thing that really interested me was the end of the article where Pineau describes the difference between Contract and Communicative Sexuality.  Pineau says that contract sexuality is biased towards females, especially in the context of date rape, but I’ll focus on these two models since that’s what my interest is.  What’s the difference?

Contract Model of Sexuality: When a woman behaves in a sexually teasing, tempting or open way, she is implicitly committing herself to having sex with the man she is with. She is entering into a non-verbal contract to have sex, which she is not entitled to break. The reason this contract is binding is that it is unreasonable to expect a man who has been sufficiently aroused, to respect any subsequent verbal or even physical protestations.   Now this doesn’t have to be during foreplay either.  It can be in the middle of the sex act.  So if the individuals involved are having sex and one decides to change her mind, under the contract model, the other individual has been “cheated” because there was some contract that suggested that there’s a plan of action and that action hasn’t been completed yet.  The one who changed her mind broke the contract, in other words. The idea is that if a woman is acting in a certain way, then she is making an implicit contract and she must fulfill her duties under the contract.  And so the argument has these premises

1.   People should keep their agreements.

2.  Sexually provocative behavior is making an agreement.

You can think of it in a silly way from this website that one of my students, Jory, has provided for me here.  If you look at the contract, we obviously don’t do sex this way.  But in a way, we implicitly do this by looking at the body language (or perhaps verbal language) of the partner and from that language, that’s a signal for the “go ahead” signal and you are aloud to do that activity under that contract.  With this, this is the model we’re in right now according to Pineau.

Communicative Sexuality: Both people are responding to the other.  They don’t overwhelm each other with desires.  They will treat the negative emotions such as boredom, anger, or fear as a sign that something needs to be cleared up first before they continue.  It’s an ongoing state of concern instead of a “let’s make a deal” mentality.  There’s no talk of duties, rights, or consent, but merely an awareness of mutual desire.  An analogy is friendship.  We don’t call upon our friends based on duties, rights, but merely fostering an interaction and the quality of the relationship.  After all, there’s a significant difference between our friends and our business contacts.   Likewise, we should look at our sexual encounters like that. So this isn’t a “scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” that’s a contract.  It’s more of a mutual satisfaction.  We respect the dialectic of desire.

Ok, so then under the communicative model, all that is needed to show that it was indeed rape is that the woman can show a lack of interest, indifference.  So even when a woman acquiesces to aggressive noncommunicative sex under pressure, she should not be seen as having consented to it. Pineau is saying that even when a woman goes though with sex without explicit protest and refusal, she may not have consented to it. So on her view, even that would count as rape.  This is because there was no communication going on. Thus, if there was no communicative sex, this is already a presumption that there was no consent; whereas in the older, traditional view (the contract view), there was consent.  Thus, consent is an ongoing process, an ongoing cooperation instead of a one-shot deal like the contract view. So in the end, the woman would not consent to certain sexual acts (or even sex at all) because it can be aggressive, non-communicative, and unpleasurable; the man is pushy, and silence replaces the discussion, she feels no desire towards him.

When I first read this, I was thinking “interesting, but I don’t think it’s feasible.”  But then as I was doing more research, it turns out that a university has adopted this model, Antioch University which you can read here.  I will give a summary of their policy below, (the quotations are their actual policies, without quotations means it’s my take on that policy):

1.  “Consent must be obtained verbally before there is any sexual contact.”  This means no implicit body language.  You must say “yes.”

2.  “Obtaining consent is an on-going process in any sexual interaction.”  This means you must consistently say “yes” to each sexual interaction.  As you progress to a different move sexually, you must still obtain consent.

3.  “If the level of sexual intimacy increases during an interaction. . . the people involved need to express their clear verbal consent before moving to that new level.”  Any new interaction (removing of clothes, new positions, etc.) need verbal consent before hand.

4.  “The request for consent must be specific to each act.”  You must verbally say what you’re going to do and you must request a “yes” from the other person.

5.  “If you have had a particular level of sexual intimacy before with someone, you must still ask each and every time.”  So even if you’ve had sex with the other person and you’re expecting some sexual relationship, you must still verbally obtain consent from numbers 1-4.  This may also apply to married people as well but I didn’t have time to look into that, but I’m sure it still counts.

6.  “If someone has initially consented but then stops consenting during a seuxal interaction, she/he should communicate withdrawal verbally and/or through physical resistance.  The other individual(s) must stop immediately.”  If someone wants to stop, everyone stops because communication has stopped.  If it continues, there has been no consent which means it counts as rape.

7.  “Don’t ever make any assumptions about consent.”  A drunk girl passed out isn’t consenting.  Pressuring someone isn’t consenting.  And even if they’re “into it” during the sexual encounter, you must still ask verbal consent if you want to increase sexual intimacy.  Passive acquiescense does not count as consent (whereas in the contract model, it does).

This policy has been put in place since 1996 and it’s still in place.  So against what I thought, it actually is working.

I’m more interested in the differences between the two models and not much about the feminist applications (although that is interesting as well, I’m more interested in the models themselves).   Can the communicative model be applied elsewhere?  It’s indeed a paradigm shift in thinking of sexuality.

Posted in Ethics, Paper Topic, Sexuality | 9 Comments

On Discovering Nietzsche’s Values

Posted on September 22, 2008 by shaunmiller

One of my professors from Utah State University has come up with an interesting thought experiment of discovering Nietzsche’s values.  I think it’s pretty good.  If you want to read go to the site to see other comments made on it, go here.  I will post what he wrote below:

This distinction, between the life-affirming and the life-denying, is the basis for Nietzsche’s revaluation of values. To get a sense of how this revaluation works, imagine somehow being put in charge of some intergalactic zoo filled with all kinds of animals, including human beings. It is your job not just to provide natural habitats for the animals, but to showcase each species’ abilities and talents. Your employers, for whatever reason, want to see the most powerful specimens of all the species. When it comes to human beings, what will you do? You will have to examine what capacities for strength each human being has. Your concern is not simply physical strength, but intellectual and emotional as well. You will try to cultivate humans who are cunning, brave, unpredictable, stealthy, creative, tough, patient, and unrestrained by “dos” and “don’ts”. They will be at times violent and mocking. If the exhibit is to showcase all strengths, your humans should be artists as well, creating works that stand as emblems for the species. In all, you will want to know all the capacities humans can have, and find ways to strengthen those capacities in your specimens as much as possible. You will want to diminish and eliminate any signs of weakness, timidity, fear, stupidity, and passivity. Your sole standard will not be “Is this what God or the Church would approve?”, but instead: “Is this a strength?”

Posted in Ethics, Nietzsche, Values | 3 Comments

Compensating for Evil

Posted on September 22, 2008 by shaunmiller

An interesting article is at the Philosophers’ Carnival deals with compensating evil which you can read here.  The idea is this: if you’re working for an institution that makes you evil, are you aloud to get compensation because that institution made you worse off?  The example in the article is suppose you’re a police officer and because of that job, you now become racist.  Are you aloud to be paid in damages because you’ve been harmed?  Interesting topic.

Posted in Ethics, Race | 6 Comments

Working out at the Office

Posted on September 18, 2008 by shaunmiller

It’s a desk that’s fitted onto a treadmill.  Interesting concept.

You can see the article here.

Posted in Humor | Leave a comment

If only this advice could work. . .

Posted on September 14, 2008 by shaunmiller

Just STOP IT already!

Posted in Health | 1 Comment

Personal Morality and Public Morality

Posted on September 14, 2008 by shaunmiller

I am a demi-vegetarian.  If you want to know more about it, read my previous post here.  When I go out to eat, I try to find something that’s vegetarian or something as close as I can based on my personal beliefs.  When I’m with a group of people, they can get what they want.  I don’t look down on them for ordering something with meat.  I’m totally ok with them getting what they want.  For me, my vegetarian beliefs are personalized for me and I feel it works for me because it coheres with the rest of my attitude about the world.  Thus, demi-vegetarianism is something that’s part of my personal morality.

On the other hand, there are ethical considerations that I think shouldn’t just be personal, but should apply to everyone.  I’ll call this public morality.  With public morality, since it’s based on the community, it’s more universal.  Thus, not only should you want people to believe in this type of morality, but you should somehow persuade or at least show them why they’re wrong if they don’t follow this type of morality.  A good example is murder.  I don’t know anyone who holds the attitude this:

Person A: Murder is wrong.

Person B: Murder is ok.

Person A: Well, then we just have a matter of difference.

If it were me, I would want to tell Person B that s/he is wrong in believing in that and that Person A is wrong for being too tolerant of Person B.  So public morality is more enforcable to everyone and you want to engulf the other person to join in on that morality.

Things get tricky when you can’t tell if it’s a personal or public morality.  Take abortion for example.  I’ve had many students that have thought abortion should be personal or public.

On the personal side: I’ve had students who’ve said that they personally don’t think abortion is moral, but they still want to allow other people to have that choice, or at least make it legal.

On the public side: there are many cases where people think abortion is immoral and they want to influence you into thinking that’s also immoral.  And if you still think there’s nothing wrong with abortion, that person simply thinks you’re not rational.  In this case, the having a belief isn’t something personal (like ice cream flavors), but it’s more outreaching for all of humanity (much like the murder example).

Let me give another example: go back to vegetarianism.  For me, my vegetarianism is a personal thing.  I don’t care if others eat meat or not.  However, there are others who think vegetarianism should belong in the domain of public morality.  PETA is a good example of this.  PETA really encourages people to be vegetarians and they feel that vegetarianism should be pubically moral.

A really good example that doesn’t deal with morality, per se, is politics.  There are a lot of people who are liberal or conservative and they take on those beliefs and philosophes as personal.  It’s the attitude of “I’m liberal/conservative, and if you’re not, that’s fine.”  There are those who feel that it should be a public thing: “I’m liberal/conservative, and you should be one too, and if you don’t believe what I believe, then you’re simply wrong, irrational, or you just don’t get it.”

Religion is a good example too.

Personal morality: I’m (fill in blank), and if you’re not, that’s ok.  I believe in what I believe and that’s a personal choice.

Public morality: I’m (fill in blank), and if you’re not, that’s not ok.  You should believe in what I believe because that’s the proper thing to believe.

So why do some people feel that issues should be public or private?  I think one characteristic is tolerance.  I’m tolerant of meat-eaters and people from different political perspectives, but I’m not tolerant of people who thing murder is generally ok.  People in PETA aren’t tolerant of meat-eaters.  Ann Colter isn’t tolerant of liberals.  Extreme Fundamentalists aren’t tolerant of people who are or believe in pro-choice.

Now I’m not saying we should be tolerant on everything.  After all, I don’t think we should be tolerant to people who believe murder is ok.  I think we should convince them and show them that they’re wrong.  But it gets tricky to other issues because it’s hard to find a good level of tolerance.  How much tolerance is needed?

I’m sure there are other characteristics besides tolerance, but I can’t think of any at the moment.

Posted in Abortion, Ethics, Paper Topic, Politics, Religion, Vegetarianism | 12 Comments

Art and Wonder

Posted on September 10, 2008 by shaunmiller

It’s a beautiful waterfall in Hawaii.

I went there for vacation last week and I saw some amazing waterfalls, lakes, the beach, the ocean, and other great pleasures. Throughout the trip, I learned a little about the history of Hawaii and was amazed that a group of primitive people could simply create this wonderful art pieces: they basically had to move waterfalls and create them so that they can irrigate their crops and get freshwater.  Now while I’m dazzled that people way back in the third through the seventh century can do this, I was also thinking about how beautiful their creation was.  Just look at it!  But then I thought to myself, “now wait a minute.  They probably weren’t thinking about something beautiful, they only made the waterfall in order to move the water for other purposes.  In this case, farming.  In fact, I doubt they intentionally made something beautiful at all.”  Can art be still art if there’s no intention behind it?  But then something else came to my mind: what if other art pieces are like this?  Think of the chair you’re sitting in, for example.  We think of this chair as a functional piece: it’s something to sit on.  But what if 1,000 years from now, a future civilization would look at the chair as an art object, and they considered it beautiful?  I don’t think I could consider my chair as an art object, although I could if I tried.  But this makes me think what art is.  When people create something, it’s usually for funtional or mechanical purposes.  I don’t think people intentionally create something beautiful but also functional at the same time.  Then it hit me.  Art is useless. Now I don’t mean to say that art is worthless.  Art is wonderful, check out a museum or listen to some great music.  What I mean is that art carries some characteristic where it’s no longer function, or it has no purpose.  Think of a regular baseball.  It’s purpose is to play catch with it.  But what if it was signed by Babe Ruth for example?  There’s no way you’d play with that ball.  Thus, the ball has lost it’s functionality and has become useless (note, not worthless).  Thus, we keep the ball but not for functional purposes, but for aesthetic purposes (or purhaps monetary in the case of the baseball).  So maybe art has that defining characteristic, it’s useless, meaning that it serves no function.

When we go to museums, we see many tools that people in the past used.  But those tools (some piece of pottery, for example) served a purpose.  It was to carry things.  But now, it no longer serves that purpose, it’s lost it’s functionality and it’s now useless.  Thus, we call it art.  Are all useless things art?  No, a broken pen is simply a broken pen, and it will perhaps never be displayed in a museum.  But I do think that all art does have the characteristic of uselessness, meaning it serves no function.

Posted in Aesthetics | 8 Comments

Are military drafts unethical or immoral?

Posted on August 28, 2008 by shaunmiller

Someone posed this question to askphilosophers.com.

You can read the philosopher’s response here.  I thought the reply was interesting and I’m still pondering over it.  Basically, the philosopher replied saying that military drafts in democracies should be considered mandatory.  The reasoning is because if they are mandatory, then the people involved in the wars will definitely want to fight them (and will fight them) if they take the war to be just.  If they feel the war isn’t just, then the people in the military will fight back.  Vietnam is a good example of this.  But if the military is purely voluntary, then they can’t complain because they volunteered to be in the military, whereas the people who find wars unjust can’t really fight the system because they’re not within the system to fight against the injustice itself.  So instead, the people who find the war unjust can do nothing but sit idly by and watch.  But over time, the people become more apathetic and don’t really care about the justice or injustices of wars.

Posted in Ethics, Experts, Soldiers, War | 4 Comments

Epicurus on Politics: So What?

Posted on August 23, 2008 by shaunmiller

Epicurus, known as the founder of Hedonism, says a lot about how the meaning of life is to aim for pleasure.  But this isn’t crude pleasure, these are the finest pleasures: music, intellectual creativity, food, friends and family.  When I teach Epicurus, I basically teach this aspect of him but this year, I’m going to give a brief moment about his politics because I find it interesting.

Epicurus says to not get involved in politics or participating in it.  The reason is because it’ll get you into trouble.  Instead, just live a life of secret seclusion.  So what’s his argument for this?

Let’s use the 2008 election as an example:  Suppose that McCain won the election.  What would happen to you personally?  Well, you’d still have your job.  You’d still have your friends and family.  The state of your health would be the same.  Your economic situation would relatively be the same.  Everything that surrounds your life would practically be the same.  In short, your life doesn’t change.  Well, suppose that Obama won the election.  What would happen?  You’d still have your job.  Your friends and family are still there.  You’re health is about the same.  Your economic situation would be the same, and your life about you would be the same.  In short, either way, LIFE IS THE SAME.  Nothing changes!  Sure, things on a global scale might change, but nothing effects you as an individual.  You’re life is the same no matter which candidate is in charge.  Well if nothing changes, why get involved into politics?  That’s the question that Epicurus asks.

Now you might reply: “Ok, well there’s got to be some sort of change.  After all, I have an idea what should be the case politically so there’s must be something going on there.”  Epicurus would just reply back: “but your life individually didn’t change, just your attitude about the who’s in charge.  You either like the person in charge, or you don’t.  THAT’S IT!  It’s your attitude that changed.”  Well, if you have the potential of having a bad attitude toward a movement or a person, that surely isn’t going to make you happy, which is against the hedonistic code.  Thus, the best life is to not get involved in politics at all, don’t even try to gain knowledge about politics.  Instead, focus your life on the finest pleasures in life.

Now on the one hand, I find this argument important.  It’s a nice constribution to philosophy and it presents a picture that’s really against the tradition of how important it is to get involved in politics.  But Epicurus is basically saying “so what?”  Getting involved doesn’t do anything, so why get invovled?

But on the other hand, I feel that getting involved is important, even if it does seem trivial.  It seems that contributing does something that really speaks out your voice.  But Epicurus could easily reply back: “not really.  Your life will still be the same.  So why get involved in the first place?”

So is there any way to reply to Epicurus’ “so what?” answer?

By the way, whenever people reply back in philosophy, the reply is usually “oh, yeah” (with a sarcastic tone), or a “so what?” answer.  It’s the “so what?” answers that I find really hard to reply back with.

Posted in 2008 Election, Epicurus, Ethics, Government, Politics | Tagged | 14 Comments