Prudent, Pragmatic Pluralism

Human Studies Are Not Science

Increase Font SizeDecrease Font Size

Over at the ‘Flickers of Freedom’ philosophers’ blog, an intense and sincere dialogue about free will and the is/ought distinction. (sigh). My short comment:

“Determinism is a fact of science and free will is a fact of human nature, which is a study, not a science. They are a complement like the yin and yang, not the clash of opposites of a Greek agon or the compatabilist’s messy swirl of oil and water.

We try much too hard to make understanding free will difficult.”

[Email comments welcome: duoism(at)sbcglobal.net]

Happy Parents, Happy Children

Increase Font SizeDecrease Font Size

The Washington Post is running another article about the collapse of the middle class today, particularly mentioning the collapse of marriage since the 1960′s. The statistics are deeply worrisome, since family collapse falls upon innocent children. 40% of families have no father in the home, 50% of marriages end in divorce, and fully 70% of black children are born out of wedlock. It’s hard not to conclude that our consumer culture promotes sexuality while it derides family values.

Divorce rates are up, but then, doesn’t that also measure people breaking out of unhappy marriages? So perhaps the growing divorce rate is not the true problem. And children born out of wedlock does not mean that the parents are neglecting to raise the children, although certainly marriage represents a better measure of the commitment by parents.

But the worst problem of the multi-faceted sociology is fatherless families. Why do courts order sole custody to either parent in divorce cases where there is no threat or history of violence or abuse? Why is there no court-mandated counseling of the divorcing parents of the corrosive effect of ‘parental alienation’ upon their children? How many of abandoned children are originally unwanted pregnancies?

It’s not likely that the culture of sexuality is going to change soon. But preventing unwanted children–our prisons are bulging with adults who were unwanted children–should be as much a male responsibility as a female prevention.

Why not have vasectomies subsidized? Any male between the ages of 18 to 48 could have a taxpayer-financed vasectomy at a Planned Parenthood or university medical school clinic. The out-patient facility would have a relationship with a sperm bank which would charge the man $100 a year to maintain his frozen sperm samples, should he decide later to marry and have children. If he declines to pay the annual storage fee or when he reaches age 50, the sperm sample is destroyed.

It costs $1,000 to $1,500 for an out-patient vasectomy. The annual cost to taxpayers of warehousing felons is thirty to fifty times as much. So, for a one-time cost to the taxpayers of $1,500, they save upwards of $600,000 in future costs for each ten-year incarceration.

The man’s sexuality is not impaired in the least, women have confidence that birth-control is more than the ‘forgotten’ condom, the entire pro-abortion and pro-life political movements lose the air out their ideological balloons of bombastic hate, and the taxpayers save a fortune.

Best of all, in the entire culture the American children who are born are wanted. This suggestion will do nothing to solve the problems associated with divorce, yet educating parents about divorce’s dynamic of parental alienation–how about as part of the marriage licensing?–will definitely benefit the children of divorce. But just imagine what our culture would be like if every child was wanted by both loving parents, whether married or not?

[Email comments welcome: duoism(at)sbcglobal.net]

So Corrupt Only A Computer Will Do

Increase Font SizeDecrease Font Size

Steve Malanga has an article in today’s City Journal on gerrymandering political district boundaries across America. The Constitution requires a census every ten years and that Congressional districts be proportional by population, so the process of re-drawing political boundaries every decade is necessary. The accepted ideological process of ‘gerrymandering’ has as many variants as there are States, with Iowa as the standout for having the least corruption while Texas, California, and Illinois vie for which is the most corrupt.

Part of the problem with corruption in gerrymandering is the view that racial minorities in the United States should have their own representatives, so district boundaries are drawn into wildly fanciful, kaleidoscopic contortions which unite far-flung communities into racially-pure hubs. The alternative view of a pluralist–not a way of thinking used in current gerrymandering–is that dividing racial concentrations actually results in giving them more influence and power by having sizable presence in multiple districts with a racial mix, instead of concentration in just one. Gerrymandering by concentrating race is, of course, an example of the monism of racism.

The most basic problem of corruption in gerrymandering, however, is that it rewards and punishes according to ideology. Whichever member of the duopoly controls the State legislature re-draws the district boundaries to favor itself in the State, and to diminish the influence and power of its ideological competitor. The results are not just convoluted maps; the ideological gerrymander makes convoluted contortions of the body politic, where ‘communities of interest’ to create racial districts is legal language justifying ideological, legal political corruption.

The re-redistricting process should be taken out of the hands of fallible humans and put into the impartial, objective algorithms of computers. And especially, preference for, or discrimination against, race should be eliminated, to help achieve a ‘color-blind’ society.  Instead, redistrict by computers with just a few standards: 1. few counties are divided unless the population size requires division, or the number of counties is smaller than the allotted delegation; 2. districts are compact and contiguous before they extend to include remote populations; 3. 2% variance is permitted in populations between districts; 4. in addition to not creating districts for race, no district boundaries are to be established by computers according to ideological affinity whatsoever. There is no mention of political parties in the Constitution, so why permit them to insulate their permanent political class?

If one goal of a democratic republic is to reduce political corruption, then turning over the ideological redistricting process to impartial computers helps.

[Email comments are welcome: duoism(at)sbcglobal.net]

 

 

Dennett’s incompatability

Increase Font SizeDecrease Font Size

Andrew Sullivan, in his ‘Daily Dish’ blog, today quotes philosopher Daniel Dennett on clergy who have lost faith but continue to be priests. Professor Dennett is famed for being a compatabilist–someone who believes that free will and determinism are compatable–and for being one of the Four Horsemen, a group of prominent, intellectual, activist atheists.

Dennett’s compatability on free will and determinism fails him on religion and atheism. For Dennett, religious belief is irrational and self-limiting. To be a believer is to be in the clutches of superstition and subject to wild flights of emotional insensibility. Lapsed priests are rarely able to break free from the “tragic trap” of their religious career path.

Religiosity is not “tragic,” and it is not a “trap.” Religion will always be a normal, integral part of human socialization, just as atheism will always be a normal skeptical response to metaphysical claims. Neither is ever going to conquer the other; they both will endure forever as part of being a normal human.

That’s what compatability is: the eternal binding of complete opposites, like the pluralism of the Yin and Yang, where one cannot even exist without the presence of the other. Dennett’s religious/atheist incompatabilism is what is truly ‘self-limiting.’