Is that an Elephant in the Room, or is it my gargantuan shadow?

As we near the end of the semester, if I had to select one fundamental principle; it is precisely that; fundamental principles.  Many authors embrace topics yet negate first principles.  E.g., whenever we are discussing how to make changes or improvements to an existing system or infrastructure, we want to examine the nature of the act in question.   E.g., in a recent article on CNN entitled, “Skip the Meat on Earth Day” John Sutter discusses the efficiency of animal agriculture absent any consideration for the animals.  As for this idea of first principles, he dismissed any such concerns with one sentence; “Animal rights aside.”  This is unsatisfactory; grossly deficient.

We cannot be flippant on matters of life and death.   It is the duty of all rational beings to thoroughly examine first principles in all facets of our day-to-day lives.   In the above example, billions of thinking and feeling animals are slaughtered every year for our tastes.  Human ingenuity seems to have outwitted us.   Before we invent and implement self-described, clever solutions to our current practices - it behooves us to examine necessary antecedents; i.e., ought we to be killing animals at all?   In the above case, we have to ask, (i) ought we to be negating the lives of animals, and (ii) do we negate our own lives, limiting our potential in the process?

How much of what we think we think is really what we think?

Is advertising simply a means of entertainment, or is there something more psychologically sinister at work in the day to day jingles, images, and slogans, that permeate nearly every facet of our lives? 

More than 30 companies spent over 1 Billion on advertising last year.  Proctor and Gamble alone spent over 4 Billion.  Common sense and inductive reasoning confirms that advertising works.  So, who creates all the ads that blur by our Humean ‘bundles of perceptions’? 

It’s slightly more complex than a group of art students with an idea.  Psychologists, Neuroscientists, and lawyers, construct the ads we view and hear daily.  The following is from Nielson Inc.

“When time is money, every second counts. Our brains react to marketing in milliseconds. They’re so in tune with what’s going on around us that the feelings that guide our behavior exist within our subconscious well before we’re even aware of them. Since time is of the essence, it’s important to pinpoint which aspects of your marketing materials are the most provocative. Through our comprehensive, consumer neuroscience research, we do just that.
By studying people at their most fundamental level—by measuring brainwaves—we provide a real-time view of their subconscious reactions. Using proprietary technology that applies neuroscientific techniques to market research, we provide insight into every aspect of your marketing material. We measure real-time responses at both the conscious and subconscious levels, resulting in specific and actionable recommendations that can be implemented immediately.
The value of this research extends across the marketing spectrum—from ads to aisles and from food to finance. Our work for a broad cross-section of Fortune 100 category leaders speaks for itself, demonstrating the value that consumer neuroscience can have for virtually every business.”

How does this type of invasive technology, (if we deem it so), influence how we think and feel? 

This kind of research begs many questions, e.g.,
What precisely is the difference between a ‘food animal’ and an ‘animal’?
Have advertisers systematically disenfranchised the self from the self; have they duped us into consuming subscriptions of artificial and empty designations?

Active thinking is a rigorous process of examination and inquiry into the origins of all things.   Advertisers are betting on us to abandon logic and common sense in favor of passive receptivity.  Are we a nation with schizophrenic tendencies gambling away our free-will, liberty, impulse, and desire, in exchange for stuff?   

Elizabeth Kolbert at Williamstown College of Art 4/24

Kolbert read parts of her book, The Sixth Extinction, and opened up the floor for a very brief question session.   Someone asked, if she could recommend three steps to President Obama, what would they be?   Kolbert said, carbon tax, get rid of oil subsidies, and when pressed for a third, do not build the pipeline.   There was also of course a resilient member of the climate denial team present.  His comments are not worth repeating here as we have heard the ‘arguments’ many times already.  

Kolbert’s response was swift, and no doubt well-rehearsed, she said, “well, you and I are not going to solve that today”, fine, next question.   What was striking was the absence of students.   Though it was standing room only, my best estimate is that students accounted for roughly 2-5 percent of the audience.   At one point when Kolbert said that it was up to you the students.  The “you” which should have been a resounding call to arms resembled more of a whisper.

The most intriguing statement by Kolbert, for me, was “We don’t have any initiative.”  Then she began to suggest ways that the government might extend subsidies and add more tax breaks for solar panels and other green initiatives.   Her suggestion was that we did not have enough outside stimulation for internal motivation.  In other words, human action needs reward in the form of external benefits for any real positive gains. This is a key point as this represents extrinsic motivation and not intrinsic motivation.  

What I argue (like Naess and others) is that we do have intrinsic motivation in the form of our character; the person we want to be.   Success in this sense is not represented by material wealth but by spiritual wealth and genuine concern for the well-being of others and ourselves.  (By spiritual I am not referring to any of the new wave spiritualists that seek (selfishly in my view) the “I” or “One” at any costs.)  By spiritual wealth I mean the physical nature of human character. 

The question that comes to mind in this scenario is a practical one given the world as it is.

Is caring antithetical to capitalism?

 

Principle of Double Effect and Moral Indifference

The first of typically four principles in meeting the criteria for the Doctrine of Double Effect is 'The Nature of the Act' condition.  This states that the act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.   We may cause moral harm in the pursuit of a moral good, IFF our means of doing so are morally good.    This calls into question the intent of the action.   But what of our motives?   Are these such that we know with certainty our intent, or what is morally good in every situation?   What precisely does indifferent mean here?   What kind of attitudes do we adopt that might qualify as 'indifferent'?  In a Kantian sense this means removing our subjective selves from an objective aesthetic experience, yet in terms of moral concerns this seems lacking as it is precisely our moral subjective selves under consideration.  

Aquinas' in Summa Theologica (II-II, Qu. 64, Art.7) introduces the example of killing another person(s) as an unintended consequence as a justifiable means of self-defense.  But we sometimes understand our motives to be 'by whatever means necessary' in regards to protecting loved ones or ourselves.   And because of this deep seated intent or subconscious motive we may act in such a way that distorts what is morally good, or what is a moral harm.   Perhaps this is why Mill states that intent cannot be a factor as what we understand as being morally good may have questionable motives.   

The Doctrine (or principle) of Double Effect relies on the differences between intended and unintended consequences: under this criteria what is morally good in one context may be morally wrong in another. 

Are cases like Aquinas' example epiphenomenal in that new emergent phenomena arise in life or death scenarios - is this what we might understand as moral indifference?   

Is our current model of 'success' working?

One case scenario: Ought we to limit pay or create a maximum wage?  There is much talk about our minimum wage, not so much about maximum wage. Eg, Should we limit CEO pay (as some countries do) and going further do we limit the amount of money a person can earn?  Say we set a limit of 'ethical' capitalism (do these two terms fit together, they seem abrasive at first glance) at a generous 1 Billion.  Some will say this proposition in turn hinders individual initiative for great ideas or new technology; but, not when we consider that after a person earns his/her cutoff of 1 Billion they may display human ambition and ingenuity in other ways,  such as invention and creative work - (should Trump pick up a paintbrush?) all proceeds after that mark must be donated to legitimate charities.   Others may commit to genuine philanthropic work.   The Walton clan, and the other 1%  may respectfully disagree. 

Is an idea or invention everything?    The Hollywood adage says, "The Idea is King"; but there seems to be something missing here.  In reality many people make things happen or bring ideas to fruition - is it a healthy tendency to worship or idolize ideas?   

Does our inclination to secure workers or resources at minimum cost and maximize profits for a select few exploit people, animals, and the environment?  

Our psychological selves are entrenched in current modes of thinking and feeling (50); but we might extract something positive from this; consider that we invest our creative energies in things and ideas we believe in; and we also have the power to change things by re-examining our fundamental beliefs about how we live.

Is restructuring capitalistic attitudes a Utopian fiction? 

Genuine happiness and environmental responsibility

        What is the correlation between ethically doing the right thing and genuine happiness?   The top 10 happiest countries according to U.N. World Happiness Report, (USA 17), with the exception of one or two, are also the top 10 most responsible countries according the Environmental Performance Index (USA 49).    Does individual and social responsibility lead to happiness?    The World Happiness Report outlines many ethical factors that impact happiness.  This is intriguing as most persons in U.S. have a tendency to value material wealth over spiritual wealth or over all well-being.  Has anyone in the class traveled to Europe or any of the Scandinavian countries; if so what is it about the overall culture that struck you as very different from American "culture"?  

Logic deep down in the 'Rabbit Hole'

Envision a cascade of Chagalian like angels in corporate regalia descending upon infinite rows of corpulent insatiable mass appetites.   The nest-like babies widen their mouths to receive spoon fed portions of ‘junk science’ all the while humming along to mantras in the form of lullabies.   

The idea that the ‘denial industry’ is some other entity that we must overcome or plead with for transparency is a passive tendency masquerading as genuine concern.   In reality, there is no hard line between us and them, we are the denial industry; each individual, every one of us, matters as an instrument of change, we are both means and ends.  

(The above illustrates a reaction to an often frustrating issue; the absence of logic in everyday thinking - that thin line between knowledge and paralysis, between theory and practice, between 'what's it matter' and actual paradigm shifts in thinking, ethics and action   Though the lines above seemingly condemn persons that embrace the ignorance defense, they actually represent an honest examination into what compels people to act contrary to how they know they ought to act.   The idea is to empower all people and not alienate them through rhetoric.  In this way perhaps more people may feel compelled to act with common sense and responsibility.) 

We often use the argument from ignorance defense on vital issues that may involve compromise, or rethinking how we live our lives - creating a logic language barrier of sorts; we pretend not to understand the terms.   This adaptive technique may be predicated on arrogance as Sebastian suggests.   So what are some real life changes we can make to encourage all people (with the capacity) to embrace innate common sense and eschew 'junk science'?