Headline: Hard for board to be brake and accelerator
Author: Lawrence Loh
Source: The Straits Times, 18 June 2011
Quote1:
The proposals in the Consultation Paper on revisions to the Code of Corporate Governance … drill down to the very mechanics of corporate supervision. … One issue that bears more discussion is the philosophical one of what the role of a company board is, in the context of corporate governance. …
Comment1:
This sets the context for the ensuing discussion, and pinpoints the matter of interest – the philosophical issue of the appropriate role of a company board. This falls clearly into the area of philosophy known as Business Ethics or Philosophy of Business.
Quote2:
In an entrepreneurial context, the board is often a vanguard, a torchbearer and a scout for the company. … The board assumes a key business function and helps to create value for the company. … But the worry is that boards may be constituted too much for control functions, and too little for value creation. …
Comment2:
This introduces the disjunction (an either-or situation) between a “value creation function” and a “control function” for the company’s board of directors. With reference to Quote1, the philosophical issue is clearly the relation between these two functions.
Quote3:
At its heart, there is an underlying tension in conceptions of the role of a company board. Is it meant as a control function (like a watchdog) or as a value creation function (to drive business)? A watchdog board will provide checks and balances on the management. … But there is a risk that this may impede agility that drives responsiveness and success. …
Comment3:
The disjunction is now clearly stated: Either (control) or (value creation). The stated risk suggests that the disjunction is exclusive (they cannot be both adopted). We now expect to see arguments for and against each disjunct.
Quote4:
No thanks to the recent spate of financial crises, the pendulum may have swung more towards control rather than value creation. Whether this is desirable is debatable. …
Comment4:
The disjunction, and the philosophical issue, is once again stated.
Quote5:
It will be hard to have a two-in-one role. It is like a car. It will be hard for a board to be both a brake and an accelerator at the same time.
Comment5:
The exclusive nature of the disjunction is repeated. It is a case of “either but not both”.
Quote6:
I am not advocating that we disregard the need for codes of governance in their current forms and thus throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Comment6:
The author does not completely reject the control function. Some control (the baby) is still needed. No explicit argument is presented for this. However, we can intuitively see that a company with no control function is untenable.
Quote7:
The more important consideration is to promote a code purposefully without losing sight of the essence of the business corporation. A code should not be so stifling as to kill the goose – the company – that lays the golden eggs.
Comment7:
On the other hand, ignoring the value creation function will result in the collapse of the company, and hence obviate any role for the board. This is an argumentum ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity), leading to the conclusion that the value creation function must also be served. So we need some control (Quote6), and some value creation (Quote7). How much of each?
Quote8:
There may not necessarily be a conflict of interest between the control and value roles of any board in itself.
Comment8:
In Quote3, the author says there is an “underlying tension” between the two roles. In Quote5, he says “it will be hard to have a two-in-one role”. Now we learn that this tension and difficulty is not necessarily so. Now it turns out that the disjunction is inclusive (either and possibly both).
Quote9:
The tradeoff has to be weighed intelligently and justified by its context, for any company to define the posture of the board.
Comment9:
It is possible to have both roles present, but they have a “zero sum” (tradeoff) relation. More of one will mean less of the other. Certainly the optimum must be sought intelligently. I am, however, perplexed by the phrase “justified by its context”. If each company’s optimum (between the board’s control and value roles) is particular to each company, then there is not much that a Code of Corporate Governance can specify.
Quote10:
The best prescription for companies is to do more with less, and create more value with less control.
Comment10:
The author’s philosophical position is now made clear: Boards of directors should play more of a value creation role than a control role. Given Quote9, the specific optimum point for each company is particular to that company. While the philosophical position is now clear, what about the supporting arguments? We have intuited an argument for the control role (Comment6). We have seen an argument for the value role (Comment7). We have not seen any argument supporting the claim that there is a tradeoff between the control and value roles. We have not seen any argument for the value role superceding the control role. The philosophical discussion is incomplete.
END
Monday, 27 June 2011
Wednesday, 22 June 2011
Should we seek or lose our selves?
Headline: Losing yourself in the pursuit of life
Author: David Brooks
Source: The Straits Times,1 June 2011
Quote1:
If you sample some of the commencement addresses … these days, you see that many graduates are told to: Follow your passion, chart your own course, march to the beat of your own drummer, follow your dreams and find yourself. This is the litany of expressive individualism, which is still the dominant note in American culture. But, of course, this mantra misleads on nearly every front.
Comment1:
This is Brooks’ thesis: that the mantra misleads. His argument is inductive – it takes the form of several examples. We consider each in turn.
Quote2:
College graduates are often sent out into the world amid rapturous talk of limitless possibilities. But this talk is of no help to the central business of adulthood, finding serious things to tie yourself down to.
Comment2:
The mantra says “limitless possibilities” whilst the reality is “seriously tie oneself down”. What is a possibility? The word “possible” means “it can happen”, not “it is very likely to happen”. Thus, while the statistical probability is that new graduates will quickly begin to “seriously tie oneself down”, it can still happen that others will pursue their “limitless possibilities” – and some will succeed in their pursuit.
Quote3:
Today's graduates are also told to … find themselves first and then … live their quest. But … most people … are called by a problem, and the self is constructed gradually by their calling.
Comment3:
The mantra says “find self, then live” whilst the reality is “live, then find self”. Brooks says most people are called by a problem. Problems are neutral. Any given problem will call some people, and not others. Who feels called by a problem is a function of the person’s self, not a function of the problem.
Quote4:
The graduates are also told to pursue happiness and joy. But … when you read a biography of someone you admire, it's rarely the things that made them happy that compel your admiration. It’s the things they did to court unhappiness.… It's excellence, not happiness, that we admire most.
Comment4:
The mantra says “seek happiness” whilst the reality is “we admire excellence, not happiness.” This reminds me of the hedonic paradox: that happiness cannot be pursued directly, only indirectly. Perhaps excellence is an indirect way of achieving happiness. Surely we cannot take the quote to mean that these people that we admire went actively in search of unhappiness – and that excellence was a by-product of that search.
Quote5:
Finally, graduates are told to be independent-minded and to express their inner spirit. But … doing your job well often means suppressing yourself. … Being a good doctor often means being part of a team.
Comment5:
The mantra says “be independent minded” while the reality is “don’t”. Progress is possible only if initiated by people sufficiently independently minded to go against the wisdom of the day. Witness Galileo, Edison, the Wright Brothers, Steve Jobs etc.
Quote6:
Today’s graduates enter a cultural climate that preaches the self as the centre of a life. But … they’ll discover that the tasks of a life are at the centre. Fulfilment is a by-product of how people engage their tasks, and can’t be pursued directly. … Life comes to a point only in those moments when the self dissolves into some task. The purpose in life is not to find yourself. It’s to lose yourself. -- New York Times.
Comment6:
The mantra says “self at centre of life” whilst the reality is “dissolve self into task”. Workaholism is a huge contributor to mid-life crises – when people suddenly realize they do not really know what they have been doing with their lives.
Comment7:
Taking an overall view, we must note that this is an inductive argument. It says that because the mantra misleads in so many cases, the mantra therefore misleads in general. I have considered the examples, and I am not convinced the mantra seriously misleads in these cases. But even if it did seriously mislead in these cases, there can still be uncited examples where the mantra does not mislead. What is needed in this argument is the additional premise that the cited examples cover the entire span of the mantra. However, such an additional premise is not provided.
END
Author: David Brooks
Source: The Straits Times,1 June 2011
Quote1:
If you sample some of the commencement addresses … these days, you see that many graduates are told to: Follow your passion, chart your own course, march to the beat of your own drummer, follow your dreams and find yourself. This is the litany of expressive individualism, which is still the dominant note in American culture. But, of course, this mantra misleads on nearly every front.
Comment1:
This is Brooks’ thesis: that the mantra misleads. His argument is inductive – it takes the form of several examples. We consider each in turn.
Quote2:
College graduates are often sent out into the world amid rapturous talk of limitless possibilities. But this talk is of no help to the central business of adulthood, finding serious things to tie yourself down to.
Comment2:
The mantra says “limitless possibilities” whilst the reality is “seriously tie oneself down”. What is a possibility? The word “possible” means “it can happen”, not “it is very likely to happen”. Thus, while the statistical probability is that new graduates will quickly begin to “seriously tie oneself down”, it can still happen that others will pursue their “limitless possibilities” – and some will succeed in their pursuit.
Quote3:
Today's graduates are also told to … find themselves first and then … live their quest. But … most people … are called by a problem, and the self is constructed gradually by their calling.
Comment3:
The mantra says “find self, then live” whilst the reality is “live, then find self”. Brooks says most people are called by a problem. Problems are neutral. Any given problem will call some people, and not others. Who feels called by a problem is a function of the person’s self, not a function of the problem.
Quote4:
The graduates are also told to pursue happiness and joy. But … when you read a biography of someone you admire, it's rarely the things that made them happy that compel your admiration. It’s the things they did to court unhappiness.… It's excellence, not happiness, that we admire most.
Comment4:
The mantra says “seek happiness” whilst the reality is “we admire excellence, not happiness.” This reminds me of the hedonic paradox: that happiness cannot be pursued directly, only indirectly. Perhaps excellence is an indirect way of achieving happiness. Surely we cannot take the quote to mean that these people that we admire went actively in search of unhappiness – and that excellence was a by-product of that search.
Quote5:
Finally, graduates are told to be independent-minded and to express their inner spirit. But … doing your job well often means suppressing yourself. … Being a good doctor often means being part of a team.
Comment5:
The mantra says “be independent minded” while the reality is “don’t”. Progress is possible only if initiated by people sufficiently independently minded to go against the wisdom of the day. Witness Galileo, Edison, the Wright Brothers, Steve Jobs etc.
Quote6:
Today’s graduates enter a cultural climate that preaches the self as the centre of a life. But … they’ll discover that the tasks of a life are at the centre. Fulfilment is a by-product of how people engage their tasks, and can’t be pursued directly. … Life comes to a point only in those moments when the self dissolves into some task. The purpose in life is not to find yourself. It’s to lose yourself. -- New York Times.
Comment6:
The mantra says “self at centre of life” whilst the reality is “dissolve self into task”. Workaholism is a huge contributor to mid-life crises – when people suddenly realize they do not really know what they have been doing with their lives.
Comment7:
Taking an overall view, we must note that this is an inductive argument. It says that because the mantra misleads in so many cases, the mantra therefore misleads in general. I have considered the examples, and I am not convinced the mantra seriously misleads in these cases. But even if it did seriously mislead in these cases, there can still be uncited examples where the mantra does not mislead. What is needed in this argument is the additional premise that the cited examples cover the entire span of the mantra. However, such an additional premise is not provided.
END
Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Patriotism and a political dilemma
Someone recently asked me what patriotism is in the context of a general elections. I answered that it is voting in the interest of the nation. This is in contrast to a commonly held view of voting in one's own interest. Voting in this latter way results in the interest of the majority being served, which is not necessarily identical with the interest of the nation being served. One key difference is that minority interests may be ignored or sidelined -- which is not in the nation's interest.
Now we come to the political dilemma.
When one is caught on the horns of a dilemma, one has to choose between two undesirable options. This is true by definition. There are several ways of dealing with a dilemma. One can show that one of the two options is not undesirable (swallow a horn), or one can find a third option (go between the horns).
The presented dilemma is: Some voters have to choose between "losing a capable minister" and "having no opposition in parliament".
Swallowing the first horn can take the form of "the capable minister can be profitably re-deployed". Swallowing the second horn can take the form of "there can be alternative non-ruling-party members of parliament". Taking either route will render that option no longer undesirable, and hence may be chosen without discomfort.
Going between the horns can take the form of spoiling one's vote. Unfortunately, this means dropping out of the political process, as spoilt votes are not counted towards any candidate winning a seat.
There is a final way to deal with a dilemma -- choose the less of the two evils. Here, the voter has to ask himself or herself which option is less undesirable in the nation's interest: "losing a capable minister" or "having no opposition in parliament" -- then vote accordingly.
END
Now we come to the political dilemma.
When one is caught on the horns of a dilemma, one has to choose between two undesirable options. This is true by definition. There are several ways of dealing with a dilemma. One can show that one of the two options is not undesirable (swallow a horn), or one can find a third option (go between the horns).
The presented dilemma is: Some voters have to choose between "losing a capable minister" and "having no opposition in parliament".
Swallowing the first horn can take the form of "the capable minister can be profitably re-deployed". Swallowing the second horn can take the form of "there can be alternative non-ruling-party members of parliament". Taking either route will render that option no longer undesirable, and hence may be chosen without discomfort.
Going between the horns can take the form of spoiling one's vote. Unfortunately, this means dropping out of the political process, as spoilt votes are not counted towards any candidate winning a seat.
There is a final way to deal with a dilemma -- choose the less of the two evils. Here, the voter has to ask himself or herself which option is less undesirable in the nation's interest: "losing a capable minister" or "having no opposition in parliament" -- then vote accordingly.
END
Friday, 29 April 2011
Can consent be withdrawn?
Headline: The purse on the park bench
Author: Ong Soh Chin
Source: The Straits Times, 14 April 2011
Quote1
In her 1991 essay, Rape and the Modern Sex War, controversial feminist writer Camille Paglia infamously blamed women for rape, citing the now well-known analogy of the purse on a park bench: One would not leave a purse unattended and expect it not to be stolen. Likewise, if a woman decides to get stonking drunk, wears a skimpy outfit or flirts excessively with a man, she should not be surprised if she gets assaulted.
Comment1
This is an argument by analogy, the weakest form of argument there is. It is based on similarity, and will break down once similarity no longer obtains. The relevant question of logic here is: Does the similarity hold up long enough to arrive at the desired conclusion?
Quote2
In 2008, actress Helen Mirren ... added that if a woman voluntarily ended up in a man's bedroom and engaged in sexual activity, she still had the right to say "no", but that if a man ignored that request it should not be considered rape. Mirren said: "I don't think she can take that man to court under those circumstances. I guess it is one of the subtle parts of the man/woman relationship that have to be negotiated and worked out between them."
Comment2
Mirren makes a hypothetical (if-then) statement: If ((a woman voluntarily enters a man's bedroom) & (she engages in sexual activity)), then (the man cannot be accused of rape). We are not told of any argument supporting this statement. However, we are told that Mirren also simultaneously says this is a negotiable understanding between the woman and the man. Thus, no moral rule is laid down.
Quote3
While women should definitely exercise plain common sense when dating -- like not getting so drunk that she goes home with a stranger -- a purse left on a park bench in a truly civilised society should be returned undisturbed to its rightful owner. I once left a shopping bag in a Tokyo department store for five hours. When I finally returned, it was still there, leaning against the pillar where I had left it. We should aspire to a moral universe benchmarked by Japan and not by some unruly cowboy town.
Comment3a
What makes a society "truly civilised"? If we answer "it is a society that leaves intact purses on park benches", then this becomes a circular argument -- one where the conclusion is contained in the premise. The argument would go: "In a society that leaves intact purses on park benches, purses left on park benches will not be touched". I do not see that the author offers any other definition of a "truly civilised society".
Comment3b
In a society that leaves intact purses on park benches, there should be no reason for a woman to worry about "getting so drunk that she goes home with a stranger". The purse will by definition not be touched.
Quote4
What has not changed, however, are deep-rooted prejudices, chief of which is the notion that the woman is ultimately to blame. ... This line of reasoning is dangerous because it tacitly absolves men of their responsibility to practise self-restraint, tarring them as brutes with no self-control. This does a disservice to the many men out there who do treat women with respect.
Comment4
Here is the argument, formally presented:
Premise1: If (we say the woman is ultimately to blame), then (we absolve men of responsibility for restraint, tarring them as brutes with no self-control).
Premise2: If (we absolve men of responsibility for restraint, tarring them as brutes with no self-control), then (we do a disservice to men who treat women with respect).
Premise3 (implicit): "Disservice to men who treat women with respect" is an overwhelmingly undesirable consequence.
Conclusion (implicit): Hence, (by utilitarian ethics) we must not "say the woman is ultimately to blame".
This argument is a valid utilitarian argument: we should not adopt any course of action (or attitude) which leads to overwhelmingly undesirable consequences. Hence, we should examine the premises for truth, or the lack of it.
Consider Premise1. More simply expressed, it says: "If (we blame women), then (we say men need not hold back, cannot hold back)". But just because a man need not hold back does not mean he cannot hold back. The consequent (then portion) is false, making Premise1 false.
A sound argument must have every premise true. Since Premise1 is false, the argument fails.
Quote5
Men should be treated as people with the ability and desire for respectful behaviour to women. Rape prevention should include educating men that "no" means No. One should not fixate only on how women behave or dress.
Comment5
We need to recall Paglia's analogy: One would not leave a purse unattended and expect it not to be stolen. It is not a purse still hidden in the woman's handbag. We need to also recall Mirren's statement: If a woman voluntarily ended up in a man's bedroom and engaged in sexual activity, ... it should not be considered rape. She is not a woman who is merely walking along the street. The context of their views is significant and important. The woman had given every indication of interest and consent. It is in this context that she is "blamed" for what happens. Given this context, the question becomes: Can consent be withdrawn? Mirren clearly suggests the answer is "no, consent cannot be withdrawn". The author says men should be taught that "no" means No -- presumably even after having said "yes". In which case, the real question becomes: How is a respectful man in a civilised society to know when a woman's "yes" means Yes?
END
Author: Ong Soh Chin
Source: The Straits Times, 14 April 2011
Quote1
In her 1991 essay, Rape and the Modern Sex War, controversial feminist writer Camille Paglia infamously blamed women for rape, citing the now well-known analogy of the purse on a park bench: One would not leave a purse unattended and expect it not to be stolen. Likewise, if a woman decides to get stonking drunk, wears a skimpy outfit or flirts excessively with a man, she should not be surprised if she gets assaulted.
Comment1
This is an argument by analogy, the weakest form of argument there is. It is based on similarity, and will break down once similarity no longer obtains. The relevant question of logic here is: Does the similarity hold up long enough to arrive at the desired conclusion?
Quote2
In 2008, actress Helen Mirren ... added that if a woman voluntarily ended up in a man's bedroom and engaged in sexual activity, she still had the right to say "no", but that if a man ignored that request it should not be considered rape. Mirren said: "I don't think she can take that man to court under those circumstances. I guess it is one of the subtle parts of the man/woman relationship that have to be negotiated and worked out between them."
Comment2
Mirren makes a hypothetical (if-then) statement: If ((a woman voluntarily enters a man's bedroom) & (she engages in sexual activity)), then (the man cannot be accused of rape). We are not told of any argument supporting this statement. However, we are told that Mirren also simultaneously says this is a negotiable understanding between the woman and the man. Thus, no moral rule is laid down.
Quote3
While women should definitely exercise plain common sense when dating -- like not getting so drunk that she goes home with a stranger -- a purse left on a park bench in a truly civilised society should be returned undisturbed to its rightful owner. I once left a shopping bag in a Tokyo department store for five hours. When I finally returned, it was still there, leaning against the pillar where I had left it. We should aspire to a moral universe benchmarked by Japan and not by some unruly cowboy town.
Comment3a
What makes a society "truly civilised"? If we answer "it is a society that leaves intact purses on park benches", then this becomes a circular argument -- one where the conclusion is contained in the premise. The argument would go: "In a society that leaves intact purses on park benches, purses left on park benches will not be touched". I do not see that the author offers any other definition of a "truly civilised society".
Comment3b
In a society that leaves intact purses on park benches, there should be no reason for a woman to worry about "getting so drunk that she goes home with a stranger". The purse will by definition not be touched.
Quote4
What has not changed, however, are deep-rooted prejudices, chief of which is the notion that the woman is ultimately to blame. ... This line of reasoning is dangerous because it tacitly absolves men of their responsibility to practise self-restraint, tarring them as brutes with no self-control. This does a disservice to the many men out there who do treat women with respect.
Comment4
Here is the argument, formally presented:
Premise1: If (we say the woman is ultimately to blame), then (we absolve men of responsibility for restraint, tarring them as brutes with no self-control).
Premise2: If (we absolve men of responsibility for restraint, tarring them as brutes with no self-control), then (we do a disservice to men who treat women with respect).
Premise3 (implicit): "Disservice to men who treat women with respect" is an overwhelmingly undesirable consequence.
Conclusion (implicit): Hence, (by utilitarian ethics) we must not "say the woman is ultimately to blame".
This argument is a valid utilitarian argument: we should not adopt any course of action (or attitude) which leads to overwhelmingly undesirable consequences. Hence, we should examine the premises for truth, or the lack of it.
Consider Premise1. More simply expressed, it says: "If (we blame women), then (we say men need not hold back, cannot hold back)". But just because a man need not hold back does not mean he cannot hold back. The consequent (then portion) is false, making Premise1 false.
A sound argument must have every premise true. Since Premise1 is false, the argument fails.
Quote5
Men should be treated as people with the ability and desire for respectful behaviour to women. Rape prevention should include educating men that "no" means No. One should not fixate only on how women behave or dress.
Comment5
We need to recall Paglia's analogy: One would not leave a purse unattended and expect it not to be stolen. It is not a purse still hidden in the woman's handbag. We need to also recall Mirren's statement: If a woman voluntarily ended up in a man's bedroom and engaged in sexual activity, ... it should not be considered rape. She is not a woman who is merely walking along the street. The context of their views is significant and important. The woman had given every indication of interest and consent. It is in this context that she is "blamed" for what happens. Given this context, the question becomes: Can consent be withdrawn? Mirren clearly suggests the answer is "no, consent cannot be withdrawn". The author says men should be taught that "no" means No -- presumably even after having said "yes". In which case, the real question becomes: How is a respectful man in a civilised society to know when a woman's "yes" means Yes?
END
Friday, 17 December 2010
To regulate synthetic biology?
Here’s a news item that caught my eye on 17 December 2010.
Quote1
WASHINGTON (AFP) -- A White House panel said on Thursday the controversial field of synthetic biology, or manipulating the DNA of organisms to forge new life forms, poses limited risks and should be allowed to proceed. … The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues “concluded that synthetic biology is capable of significant but limited achievements posing limited risks. … Future developments may raise further objections, but the commission found no reason to endorse additional federal regulations or a moratorium on work in this field at this time.” …
Comment1
This is a standard utilitarian approach to ethics: to consider the nett of pleasures and pains (in modern terms benefits and costs) when deciding if an act is moral. What is lacking here is anticipation – looking ahead to foresee that pleasures and pains could emerge from this new science, and then deciding which to permit or forbid. By the time the deed is done, it would be too late to forbid its doing. Ethics must stay ahead of technology, not bring up the rear when the genie is out of the bottle.
Quote2
The 13-member panel of scientists, ethicists and public policy experts was created by [US President Barack] Obama last year. Its first order of business was to consider the issue of synthetic biology after the J. Craig Venter Institute announced in May it had developed the first self-replicating bacteria cell controlled by a synthetic genome. Those opposed to Venter's techniques said the discovery was tantamount to “playing God.” … Announcing the creation of the “first synthetic cell,” lead researcher Craig Venter said at the time it “certainly changed my views of the definitions of life and how life works.” But the commission said Venter’s team had not actually created life, since the work mainly involved altering an already existing life form. …
Comment2
What is life? That is one question. The commission discounts “altering an existing life form” as creating life. Venter does not say what his new view of life is. Nor are we told what are the implications of "life".
Comment3
A second question arising from this quote is: What is the meaning of the phrase “playing God?” Life is created by God. So goes the Judaeo-Christian belief. Thus, if man can create life, then man has done something that thus far has been done only by God. Is there also a claim that only God can create life? Or can the status “God” be claimed by any entity that can create life?
Quote3
“We are disappointed that ‘business as usual’ has won out over precaution in the commission’s report,” said Eric Hoffman, biotechnology policy campaigner for Friends of the Earth and of the signatories. “Self-regulation equates to no regulation.”
Comment4
Generally, we trust individuals to regulate their own moral behaviour. We do not consider this to be “no regulation”. Thus, the claim that “self-regulation equates to no regulation” is simply not true. The question here is: Can scientists self-regulate? Or do they believe science is an amoral activity, and therefore exempt from regulation of any kind?
END
Quote1
WASHINGTON (AFP) -- A White House panel said on Thursday the controversial field of synthetic biology, or manipulating the DNA of organisms to forge new life forms, poses limited risks and should be allowed to proceed. … The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues “concluded that synthetic biology is capable of significant but limited achievements posing limited risks. … Future developments may raise further objections, but the commission found no reason to endorse additional federal regulations or a moratorium on work in this field at this time.” …
Comment1
This is a standard utilitarian approach to ethics: to consider the nett of pleasures and pains (in modern terms benefits and costs) when deciding if an act is moral. What is lacking here is anticipation – looking ahead to foresee that pleasures and pains could emerge from this new science, and then deciding which to permit or forbid. By the time the deed is done, it would be too late to forbid its doing. Ethics must stay ahead of technology, not bring up the rear when the genie is out of the bottle.
Quote2
The 13-member panel of scientists, ethicists and public policy experts was created by [US President Barack] Obama last year. Its first order of business was to consider the issue of synthetic biology after the J. Craig Venter Institute announced in May it had developed the first self-replicating bacteria cell controlled by a synthetic genome. Those opposed to Venter's techniques said the discovery was tantamount to “playing God.” … Announcing the creation of the “first synthetic cell,” lead researcher Craig Venter said at the time it “certainly changed my views of the definitions of life and how life works.” But the commission said Venter’s team had not actually created life, since the work mainly involved altering an already existing life form. …
Comment2
What is life? That is one question. The commission discounts “altering an existing life form” as creating life. Venter does not say what his new view of life is. Nor are we told what are the implications of "life".
Comment3
A second question arising from this quote is: What is the meaning of the phrase “playing God?” Life is created by God. So goes the Judaeo-Christian belief. Thus, if man can create life, then man has done something that thus far has been done only by God. Is there also a claim that only God can create life? Or can the status “God” be claimed by any entity that can create life?
Quote3
“We are disappointed that ‘business as usual’ has won out over precaution in the commission’s report,” said Eric Hoffman, biotechnology policy campaigner for Friends of the Earth and of the signatories. “Self-regulation equates to no regulation.”
Comment4
Generally, we trust individuals to regulate their own moral behaviour. We do not consider this to be “no regulation”. Thus, the claim that “self-regulation equates to no regulation” is simply not true. The question here is: Can scientists self-regulate? Or do they believe science is an amoral activity, and therefore exempt from regulation of any kind?
END
Tuesday, 7 December 2010
A new insight for philosophy cafe
I recently completed my best work to date: the formulation of an instrument to address any question whatsoever. Here's the basic concept. All questions fall into one or more of seven generic question forms, each of which can be addressed with an algorithm. The set of seven question forms and their associated algorithms enable us to address any question whatsoever.
Eager to test my creation, I asked several of my philosophy cafe regulars to try it out. They were nice enough to agree, and we gathered in a food court to do the needful. After some chit-chat, we began the experiment.
The two questions they tossed at my newly created instrument were: "Is a red apple a green apple?" and "Can a thing be also not a thing?" They said these were intended to stress test the instrument. When it produced the answers "no" and "no", the testers' reaction was less than enthusiastic. They seemed dismayed that the answers were what they were, and that the answers were so quickly arrived at.
I have long known that people like to jump to conclusions, with little or no concern for sound arguments supporting those conclusions. The work that needs to be done here is to slow their thinking down and to make them give due regard to supporting arguments.
This experience awakened in me a new insight. People interested in philosophy are reluctant to reach conclusions, regardless the supporting arguments. Certainly this is what I find in published philosophy -- endless hairs being split, and endless complications being introduced, with no end in sight. The work that needs to be done here is to persuade philosophers that answering one question does not entail the demise of all questions. There will be other philosophically interesting questions for us to examine.
The experience also makes me wonder about whether or not to resume my philosophy cafe sessions. Is there now no point in resuming it, or is there now an additional point in resuming it? What would Don Quixote say?
END
Eager to test my creation, I asked several of my philosophy cafe regulars to try it out. They were nice enough to agree, and we gathered in a food court to do the needful. After some chit-chat, we began the experiment.
The two questions they tossed at my newly created instrument were: "Is a red apple a green apple?" and "Can a thing be also not a thing?" They said these were intended to stress test the instrument. When it produced the answers "no" and "no", the testers' reaction was less than enthusiastic. They seemed dismayed that the answers were what they were, and that the answers were so quickly arrived at.
I have long known that people like to jump to conclusions, with little or no concern for sound arguments supporting those conclusions. The work that needs to be done here is to slow their thinking down and to make them give due regard to supporting arguments.
This experience awakened in me a new insight. People interested in philosophy are reluctant to reach conclusions, regardless the supporting arguments. Certainly this is what I find in published philosophy -- endless hairs being split, and endless complications being introduced, with no end in sight. The work that needs to be done here is to persuade philosophers that answering one question does not entail the demise of all questions. There will be other philosophically interesting questions for us to examine.
The experience also makes me wonder about whether or not to resume my philosophy cafe sessions. Is there now no point in resuming it, or is there now an additional point in resuming it? What would Don Quixote say?
END
A new life form found
Source: The Straits Times, 4 December 2010, p.A18
Headline: Bacterium in US lake unlike any other known life form
Quote1
WASHINGTON: All life on Earth ... requires the element phosphorus as one of its six essential components. But now researchers have uncovered a bacterium that ... has replaced phosphorus with its toxic cousin, arsenic. "What we've found is a microbe doing something new," said scientist Felisa Wolfe-Simon, ... who made the ground-breaking discovery at California's Mono Lake. ... "We've cracked open the door to what's possible for life elsewhere in the universe. And that's profound," [said Dr Wolfe-Simon]. ...
Comment1
A single incident of X is sufficient to prove that X is possible -- because it has happened. A single incident on earth implies nothing for the rest of the universe. It is not profound.
Quote2
Theoretical physicist and cosmologist Paul Davies [said]: "It defies logic to think she [Dr Wolfe-Simon] found the only example of this kind of unusual life. Quite clearly, this is the tip of a huge iceberg." ...
Comment2
Someone enters a darkened room 1,000 times and each time emerges with a white ball. These experiences lead him to declare that all balls are white. On the 1,001st expedition into the darkened room, he emerges with a black ball. It is logical to then declare: "A ball is possibly black." It is not logical therefrom to declare: "There is here a roomful of black balls." Doing that would commit the Fallacy of Hasty Generalisation.
Quote3
The discovery could also have a major impact on space missions to Mars and elsewhere looking for life. The experiments on such missions are designed to ferret out the handful of chemical elements and reactions that have been known to characterise life on earth. Scientists are now asking if the searches should be widened. -- Washington Post, AFP, NYT.
Comment3
Up until this discovery, all life on earth has had six essential components, including phosphorus. From this observation, we concluded that these six components are necessary for life, even equivalent to life -- which is why the hunt for extra-terrestrial life involved searching for these "elements and reactions". This new discovery presents one instance of one element (phosphorus) being not necessary. The necessity of the other five components is still intact. Hence, any widening should go only as far as to include arsenic as a seventh essential component. No further.
END
Headline: Bacterium in US lake unlike any other known life form
Quote1
WASHINGTON: All life on Earth ... requires the element phosphorus as one of its six essential components. But now researchers have uncovered a bacterium that ... has replaced phosphorus with its toxic cousin, arsenic. "What we've found is a microbe doing something new," said scientist Felisa Wolfe-Simon, ... who made the ground-breaking discovery at California's Mono Lake. ... "We've cracked open the door to what's possible for life elsewhere in the universe. And that's profound," [said Dr Wolfe-Simon]. ...
Comment1
A single incident of X is sufficient to prove that X is possible -- because it has happened. A single incident on earth implies nothing for the rest of the universe. It is not profound.
Quote2
Theoretical physicist and cosmologist Paul Davies [said]: "It defies logic to think she [Dr Wolfe-Simon] found the only example of this kind of unusual life. Quite clearly, this is the tip of a huge iceberg." ...
Comment2
Someone enters a darkened room 1,000 times and each time emerges with a white ball. These experiences lead him to declare that all balls are white. On the 1,001st expedition into the darkened room, he emerges with a black ball. It is logical to then declare: "A ball is possibly black." It is not logical therefrom to declare: "There is here a roomful of black balls." Doing that would commit the Fallacy of Hasty Generalisation.
Quote3
The discovery could also have a major impact on space missions to Mars and elsewhere looking for life. The experiments on such missions are designed to ferret out the handful of chemical elements and reactions that have been known to characterise life on earth. Scientists are now asking if the searches should be widened. -- Washington Post, AFP, NYT.
Comment3
Up until this discovery, all life on earth has had six essential components, including phosphorus. From this observation, we concluded that these six components are necessary for life, even equivalent to life -- which is why the hunt for extra-terrestrial life involved searching for these "elements and reactions". This new discovery presents one instance of one element (phosphorus) being not necessary. The necessity of the other five components is still intact. Hence, any widening should go only as far as to include arsenic as a seventh essential component. No further.
END
Tuesday, 9 November 2010
PIQUE
In this wondrous land of acronyms, here's one I thought up recently.
PIQUE stands for Philosophically Interesting Questions for You to Examine.
I think it's quite nice.
END
PIQUE stands for Philosophically Interesting Questions for You to Examine.
I think it's quite nice.
END
Philosophy of religion
The cartoon strip "Non Sequitur" in The Straits Times of 6 November 2010 has Danae setting up her own church. She says: "I'm taking the doctrines from all the mainstream religions into one church to end all the fighting over who has the most peaceful religion."
It's a nice thought. Her strategy is that if all the main ideas from the mainstream religions are all incorporated into a single religion, then there will be no more reason for dispute -- since everyone would now agree on everything.
It's a fashionable thing to say these days: that all religions basically teach the same thing. It's nice diplomacy. Is it good philosophy?
I do not see how it is possible to integrate the various doctrines of a single God (eg. in the Judaeo-Christian tradition), multiple gods (eg. in Hinduism) and no god (eg. Buddhism). Or the various doctrines of going to a single place after death, returning to this earth in another life form after death, and passing into oblivion after death. These doctrines are mutually contradictory.
The mind is a voluntary organ. We let into it, or keep out of it, whatever ideas we choose. Those who wish to believe in a God or gods or no-god are free to do so. Those who wish to believe in a great posthumous reward or punishment, or reincarnation, or oblivion are also free to do so. Whether by reason of argument, faith or revelation, they are free to believe whatever they will.
The trouble begins when three additional steps are taken:
1. The religious doctrines I believe in are true.
2. You must also believe in the same doctrines that I believe in.
3. You must behave as my beliefs say you should believe.
Avoid these three additional steps, and Danae's ambition of peaceful religions can be realised.
END
It's a nice thought. Her strategy is that if all the main ideas from the mainstream religions are all incorporated into a single religion, then there will be no more reason for dispute -- since everyone would now agree on everything.
It's a fashionable thing to say these days: that all religions basically teach the same thing. It's nice diplomacy. Is it good philosophy?
I do not see how it is possible to integrate the various doctrines of a single God (eg. in the Judaeo-Christian tradition), multiple gods (eg. in Hinduism) and no god (eg. Buddhism). Or the various doctrines of going to a single place after death, returning to this earth in another life form after death, and passing into oblivion after death. These doctrines are mutually contradictory.
The mind is a voluntary organ. We let into it, or keep out of it, whatever ideas we choose. Those who wish to believe in a God or gods or no-god are free to do so. Those who wish to believe in a great posthumous reward or punishment, or reincarnation, or oblivion are also free to do so. Whether by reason of argument, faith or revelation, they are free to believe whatever they will.
The trouble begins when three additional steps are taken:
1. The religious doctrines I believe in are true.
2. You must also believe in the same doctrines that I believe in.
3. You must behave as my beliefs say you should believe.
Avoid these three additional steps, and Danae's ambition of peaceful religions can be realised.
END
Tuesday, 10 August 2010
When billionaires give to charity
Recently, several billionaires started a campaign to get other billionaires to pledge their wealth to charitable causes. This, of course, made the headlines.
When ordinary folk pledge their spare cash to charities, that is one thing. But when people whose individual wealth dwarfs the GNP of some countries want to give billions to charities, that is another thing.
In principle, it is the responsibility of a nation's government to look after the its poor, its illiterate, and its homeless. A government should not (but many do) abdicate this responsibility, leaving it to various charities to perform this function. If wealth of such magnitude becomes easily available to charities, that makes it so much easier for governments to ignore their responsibility.
More importantly, individuals do not have the political mandate to set the national agenda; only governments have that mandate. If these billionaires must give their money away, they should hand it over to the respective governments to dispense to their poor, illiterate and homeless citizens.
But there is a more basic question to ponder: Why must one become so rich?
Every person has the right to make a living, but this should not extend to crowding all others out of the jungle in the process. One should leave room for others to exercise their right to make a living as well. But, somehow, the quest for wealth recognises no limit.
Now some are perhaps finding their immense wealth a tad embarrassing. It's about time.
END
When ordinary folk pledge their spare cash to charities, that is one thing. But when people whose individual wealth dwarfs the GNP of some countries want to give billions to charities, that is another thing.
In principle, it is the responsibility of a nation's government to look after the its poor, its illiterate, and its homeless. A government should not (but many do) abdicate this responsibility, leaving it to various charities to perform this function. If wealth of such magnitude becomes easily available to charities, that makes it so much easier for governments to ignore their responsibility.
More importantly, individuals do not have the political mandate to set the national agenda; only governments have that mandate. If these billionaires must give their money away, they should hand it over to the respective governments to dispense to their poor, illiterate and homeless citizens.
But there is a more basic question to ponder: Why must one become so rich?
Every person has the right to make a living, but this should not extend to crowding all others out of the jungle in the process. One should leave room for others to exercise their right to make a living as well. But, somehow, the quest for wealth recognises no limit.
Now some are perhaps finding their immense wealth a tad embarrassing. It's about time.
END
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)