Friday 19 June 2009

What is marriage?

This is the second question that we discuss in my philosophy cafe session of 17 June 2009.

This question is one of definition. We distinguish two types of definition: descriptive vs prescriptive. A descriptive definition says what is the case. A prescriptive definition says what should be the case.

We tackle the descriptive definition first.

A marriage is defined as a legal union of two persons, a man and a woman. No, there are polygamous societies, both in the past and at present. So, a marriage is defined as a legal union of two or more persons. What about the phrase "legal union"? What does that feature? A legal union creates a claim over property, money, children and social recognition.

We move on to the prescriptive description.

There is great controversy here, centred around the gender composition of the union. Some say marriage should be between men and women, that is, heterosexual. Some say marriage should also be allowed between persons of the same gender, be it male-male or female-female. We need to inquire into the reasons behind each prescription.

Man-woman marriage is because of procreation, societal norms, children's legitimacy; as well as for love and sex. Man-man and woman-woman marriage is for love and sex.

But which standard qualifies as an appropriate prescription? That is a meta-ethical question. We decide to end the discussion at this point.

The next philosophy cafe session will be on 15 July 2009. Place: Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road. Time: 8-10pm. Free admission, but personal expenses for food and drink. All are welcome; just bring an open mind. [In general, we meet every third Wednesday of the month, same time and place.]

Is capitalism good?

This is a report of my philosophy cafe session on 17 June 2009. A popular vote decides the Question of the Evening: Is capitalism good?

We define "good" as "that which promotes the general advancement of mankind".

Capitalism is good because it allows the best to prevail, and having the best prevail advances mankind. Capitalism is good also because it enables a country to work (that is, to not fail). Examples are China and Vietnam. This too advances mankind.

Capitalism is not good, because it promotes elitism and segregation, which do not advance mankind. This is just the flip side of allowing the best to prevail -- some must die out. It is not in the interest of capitalism to kill off the common man -- who are needed as the customers of capitalism. However, the worst will be driven out. This is the price of advancement; it does not mean there is a lack of compassion. To cultivate a garden of roses, it is necessary to remove the weeds. We do not lament: "poor weeds".

But what about the example of the US? It is the foremost capitalist country in the world, and it is also the origin of the current global economic trouble. How is that good? Well, this is a small step in the evolution of mankind. Capitalism does not allow stagnation. The capitalist world will move on, and it will advance. It is good.

We still have time. We take on a second question: What is marriage?

[Please see other post.]

On workers who "job-hop"

One letter writer comments on a news story about workers from China who change jobs. We analyse the comment.

Source: The Straits Times, 18/6/9, p.A25 (letters)
Headline: Why can't they job-hop?
Writer: Stephanie Chok (Ms)

Quote1
I refer to Tuesday's article, "Quit a job, fly home ... then return to a higher paid one", which describes foreign workers from China embroiled in wage disputes as "job-hoppers".

Comment1
This tells us the topic to be discussed: foreign workers from China who are called "job-hoppers". The writer's position is not revealed.

Quote2
First, the article neglects the underlying push factors workers cite when leaving such exploitative jobs. [A list of push factors follows.] ...

Comment2
Many of these workers leave their jobs because of various push factors. What follows from this piece of information? The argument is not completed. We shall not speculate on the intended thrust.

Quote3
Second, glibly describing foreign workers as "job-hoppers" ignores the fact that the work permit system makes this a difficult and expensive task. [A list of difficulties follows.] ...

Comment3
The phrase "glibly describing" suggests that the intended conclusion is that these workers are not "job-hoppers". We are given a second piece of information: the work permit system makes job-hopping difficult. So, here's the argument:

Reason: The work permit system makes job-hopping difficult.
Conclusion: The foreign workers are not job-hoppers.

Does the reason entail the conclusion? The fact that some action is difficult does not entail that no one can do it. There is nothing in the concept "job-hopper" that says it must have been easily achieved. The reason does not entail the conclusion. The argument fails.

Quote4
When white-collar professionals leave one job for another, whether due to better pay, career enhancement opportunities or greater job fulfulment, this is viewed as pragmatic and reasonable. ... Yet when foreign workers on work permits leave jobs with poor working conditions and low pay to seek better opportunities, this is viewed as unreasonable.

Comment4
A contrast is drawn. The argument is not completed. We pend this.

Quote5
Instead of treating workers fairly and paying them better, companies cite cash flow problems and logistics. While such claims may be true, this should not excuse violations of employment law such as withholding pay.

Comment5
This says that "cash flow problems and logistics" should not excuse "withholding pay". There is no supporting argument for this position. It is not connected to anything else in the letter.

Quote6
Moreover, there is a double standard at work here that requires deeper examination.

Comment6
The "double standard" appears to refer to the contrast drawn in Quote4, and to suggest that the same action (leave jobs) should receive the same evaluation (reasonable or unreasonable). The writer says this needs "deeper examination", but does not provide it. We shall attempt this.

The "double standard" charge relies on the principle of justice that says "equals to be treated equally". Let us compare the two groups. While they are equal in (leave job), they are different in other respects.

1. white collar vs blue collar (?)
2. pull factors vs push factors

These differences are clearly seen in Quote4. They have not been ruled out as irrelevant, nor are they intuitively relevant & significant. Hence, no conclusion can be drawn.

Conclusion
The only argument present is seen in Quote3; and that argument fails.

END

What rules for MPs and companies?

British MPs are caught in an expenses scandal despite a comprehensive code of ethics. What went wrong? We analyse one commentator's view.

Source: Today, 15/6/9, p.B5
Headline: Avoid the KPI trap
Writer: John Bittleston

Quote1
A 72-page guide tells MPs what they may charge the taxpayer. ... Why, then, are so many British MPs and Ministers having to repay money, with several resigning? ...

Comment1
This poses the question. Now for the answer.

Quote2
Seventy-two pages were ... too many. Any rule book incites us to find a way around those rules we do not like. ...

Comment2
Two answers asserted:
1. Too many rules.
2. People seek loopholes.

Quote3
To make measurement work for us ... requires that we know what measures are relevant. ... A frightening example is of an overseas hospital that met its key performance indicators (KPIs) consistently for several years but ... the hospital's KPIs did not include saving life or making patients tolerably comfortable or clean. ...

Comment3
A third answer is proposed:
3. Irrelevant rules (this is illustrated by an example)

Quote4
As soon as you draw up rules, everyone looks for what is missing as well as what is there. ...

Comment4
An earlier answer if re-asserted: People seek loopholes.

Quote5
Not all rules are bad; many are essential. The highway would become a battlefield if the rules of the road were not strictly observed. But no amount of highway codes can replace careful driving.

Comment5
The example if the highway is cited to show that it is essential to have some rules (but not 72 pages of them). Then it is asserted that nothing can replace "careful driving".

Quote6
No books of rules can substitute for a commonsense view of how we should behave.

Comment6
The analogy is completed: "careful driving" translates into "commonsense view of how we should behave". What is propounded here is a "commonsense ethics".

Quote7
Defining the line too clearly between honoured and broken trust is not the way to go. Let each person find the line for himself or herself, and let the courts decide if someone has stepped over it. Then let the penalty for a Breach of Trust be of such deterrence that we all keep well behind the line.

Comment7
"Defining the line too clearly" refers to "having too many rules". This is not the way to go. "Let each person find the line" refers to having a commonsense ethics. Courts should rule on possible transgressions, and penalties should be severe enough to be deterrents.

Notice that the points about irrelevant rules and highway rules do not figure in this solution. The basis of this solution is the analogy with highway rules. Analogies are the weakest type of argument -- and work only so long as the similarity stands. Does the similarity stand?

I have two further questions:

1. How is the court to rule on transgressions if we are to "let each person find the line"?
2. Once we have a collection of court rulings, do we not have a comprehensive set of rules?

END

Tuesday 2 June 2009

Invitation to philosophy cafe

What is a philosophy cafe?
Philosophy cafe is an event. The word "cafe" refers to its informal atmosphere (though the event can also be held in an actual cafe, as in this case). It's the "philosophy" part I must explain. Many today see philosophy as "pretentious stuff that nobody understands, or needs to understand". There is some truth in this. Academic philosophy has distanced itself from real people and their concerns. Many philosophers are now actively returning philosophy to the people, for example, through philosophy cafes. Philosophy is also a process, that of rationally and rigorously seeking the truth and right -- the process of clear thought. It is this process that underlies my cafe format (each philosophy cafe is uniquely designed by its philosopher/host).

Our format
I invite participants to suggest questions for discussion. A popular vote decides the Question for the Evening. (I have one taboo topic: Singapore.) Discussion begins. My job is to ensure the discussion is rational and rigorous (though less technical than my argument analyses in this blog -- that requires some training). My own participation is minimal. The session officially ends at 10pm, but participants are welcome to continue discussion, and socialisation. About a week later, I post a summary report on this blog (follow tag: philosophy cafe report).

Who is the host?
Mr Lau Kwong Fook holds an MA in Philosophy from University of Canterbury. His life mission is to promote clear thought.

Who can attend?
All are welcome. The only requirements are competence in English, an open mind, and curiosity.

When, where, how much?
Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road.
Third Wednesday of each month, 8-10pm.
Free admission.
Personal expenses for food & beverage.

Future dates
In 2009: 17 June, 15 July, 19 August, 16 September, 21 October, 18 November, 16 December.

Hope to see you there!

Are we recovering?

Source: The Straits Times, 29/5/9, p.B18
Headline: Stability returning to US economy: Obama

Quote
Mr Peter Morici, an economist and professor at the University of Maryland, said the Obama administration was overselling the gains from the stimulus. "My feeling is that it hasn't had much of an impact yet. That doesn't mean it won't, but I don't think it'll be very large." -- Reuters.

Comment
"The past does not guarantee the future" is precisely the weakness of the everyday belief that "the future will be like the past", but this belief is necessary for everyday life. We should be aware of this weakness, and be prepared for change -- but should not commit the fallacy of assuming that change will surely occur.

END

What's the cause of diabetes?

Source: The Straits Times, 29/5/9, p.B14
Headline: Young in Asia more prone to diabetes

Quote
A separate study on the disease in Europe showed that the incidence of Type 1 diabetes in children aged under five in Europe is set to double by 2020 over 2005 levels while cases among the under-15s will rise by 70 percent. ... The paper, published online by the British journal The Lancet, said the increase is so dramatic that it cannot be attributed to genes alone. Instead, "modern lifestyle habits" are the likely culprits, it said. -- AP, AFP.

Comment
Here's the formal argument.

Premiss1: If (just genes), then (undramatic rise)
Premiss2: Not-(dramatic rise)
Conclusion1: Hence, not-(just genes) [to Premiss4]

Premiss3: Either (just genes) or (lifestyle)
Premiss4: Not-(just genes) [from Conclusion1]
Conclusion2: Hence, (lifestyle)

END

On childcare centres

Source: Today, 29/5/9, p.32 (letters)
Headline: You want less time with your kids?

Quote
I disagree with the letters calling for the extension of childcare centre operating hours. ... I have two young children of my own and I do not see any problems. -- Lydiawati

Comment
This is a case of hasty generalisation. It goes from one (or a few) case to all cases. More often, we find letter writers arguing from "I have this problem" to "therefore thousands of others also have this problem". Both are fallacious arguments, and must be rejected.

END

Why so much?

Source: Today, 29/5/9, p.18
Headline: Made in China clothing unsafe

Quote
"The main reason for the excessive content of formaldehyde and heavy metals is the use of substandard raw materials and paints," Mr Lin Ruixi, spokesman for the province's product safety administration, was quoted as saying. -- AFP.

Comment
Is this an informative explanation? That depends on the definition of the term "substandard".If the standard stipulates a maximum level of formaldehyde and heavy metals, then saying it is substandard is merely saying there is excessive content. In such a case, the explanation is not informative.

Life's little nuisances -- or blessings?

Things do not always go according to plan. Should we be mad, or glad? One writer expresses his opinion. We analyse the argument.

Source: My Paper, 28/5/9, p.A6
Headline: Running late? It might be a blessing
Writer: Geoff Tan

Quote
It was just a simple text message entitled "The Little Things". The piece ... referred to the Sept 11 incident. ... It cited incidents involving "little things" that happened on the morning of the tragedy in 2001 which resulted in the people involved being spared a horrific death -- from an alarm that didn't go off on time, to missing the bus; from a car that wouldn't start, to not being able to flag down a taxi; from having to go back home to change a soiled shirt, to stopping to answer a telephone call. ... The email on "little things" has certainly put a whole new perspective on how I view less-than-perfect circumstances in my daily life. ... The next time I encounter similar situations, I am going to take it that that was where I was meant to be at that time. And to believe that positive outcomes would continue to emerge as a result of the inconveniences.

Comment
The writer is free to "take" and "believe" anything he wishes. The question is: Does the conclusion follow from the reason?

Little things prevented many people from being in the buildings when they were hit and collapsed. Can we then conclude that little (inconvenient)things always lead to blessings -- and thus adopt this as our attitude in life?

A little reflection quickly tells us that little things could also have kept many people in the buildings when they would otherwise have left them. Little things like a car that wouldn't start (in the car park), a soiled shirt (spilt coffee in the office pantry), stopping to answer a telephone call etc.

The same reason is compatible with a different conclusion. Hence, the conclusion does not follow from the reason.

END