utilitarianism as a moral criterion

Utilitarianism seems simple at first, but when considered in depth, complicated issues arise. Here are a few thoughts on the subject.

If you're thinking of using a form of utilitarianism as your criterion for the Sept. / Oct. LD permissible killing resolution, or for any other resolution involving morality, consider these issues.

1. Utilitarianism offers a clear standard for what counts as moral--do what maximizes the good--but not what counts as good. In fact, for utilitarianism as a theory, no specific conception of the good is required. [After Daniel E. Palmer's "On the Viability of Rule Utilitarianism," found in the March 1999 edition of the Journal of Value Inquiry, pp. 31-42.]

2. Similarly, utilitarianism as a theory can tell us how we ought to make a decision, without giving a clear indication as to what decision we ought to make. In come the Rule Utilitarians, who ask us to consider our actions in the light of the rules we do--or should--follow. What consequences do those rules bring about?

3. But this is problematic as well. According to many critics, "[T]he set of rules that would bring about the best consequences if people actually did conform to them would consist of only one rule, the rule that states that we should act to produce the best consequences." In other words, Rule Utilitarianism is "extensionally equivalent" to Act Utilitarianism, and therefore suffers from the same shortcomings. [Palmer, op. cit., p. 33]

4. Thus, some Rule Utilitarians focus only on the rules that are normally and generally recognized by actual moral agents. Richard Brandt's "ideal moral code theory" and Brad Hooker's "distribution-sensitive rule consequentialism" are two such methods.

5. Brandt's version can be summed up, in his words, thusly:

[A]n act is right if and only if it would not be prohibited by the moral code ideal for the society.

[qtd. in Palmer] The ideal code is that which produces the best consequences when followed by the preponderance of society. An immediate question: how and why is the societal boundary drawn?

6. Hooker's formulation is slightly different, and combats some of the weaknesses in Brandt's:

An act is right if and only if it is forbidden by the code of rules whose internalization by the overwhelming majority of everyone everywhere in each new generation has maximum expected value in terms of well-being (with some priority to the worst off).

[Brad Hooker, Ideal Code, Real World, 2000, p. 32]

"Has maximum expected value" is another way to say "maximizes utility," but with an important distinction: the reasonable expectation of a payoff, rather than the post-hoc determination of a payoff, is sufficient to justify a rule. This is critical for anyone who attacks utilitarianism on epistemic grounds--in other words, by arguing that we can't know the precise consequences of our actions, so we are paralyzed in the face of a difficult choice. Hooker's rule avoids that objection.

If you have any good ideas about using utilitarianism in a round--in any variety--leave them in the comments.

Jim Anderson of Olympia responds

Blog-pal Emmett O'Connell links to the video embedded below, in which Jesse Thorn interviews intertube-renowned vlogger Ze Frank. Emmett writes, "I just thought of you when I listened to it this morning / last night."

Why? He's not sure.

I think it might have something to do with this. It's as Web-2.0 as I'm gonna get.

For the record, I don't really listen to podcasts. I know, lame.

Anyhow, check it out: the interview is funny and at times profound. It takes about a half hour.


Ze Frank on The Sound of Young America from Jesse Thorn on Vimeo.

lowest of the low

The lowest possible tally in a football game that doesn't end in a tie, and both teams score, is 3-2. Doesn't happen often. But it does happen:

Wes Byrum kicked a 36-yard field goal in the second quarter and that was all No. 9 Auburn needed to defeat Mississippi State 3-2 on Saturday night.

The Tigers (3-0, 1-0 Southeastern Conference) committed three turnovers, missed two field goals and handed the Bulldogs their only points with a safety.

But Auburn allowed only 116 yards to Mississippi State (1-2, 0-1).

Wonder if anyone in the stadium asked for a refund.

another tough CHS loss; Oly wins Spaghetti Bowl

This one was tougher to stomach than the last: by a 7-0 score, Olympia edged out a gutsy Capital crew, taking yet another bite from the Spaghetti Bowl.

The wife and I arrived late, missing the entire first quarter. We didn't miss any major action--I'm guessing--since it took over two minutes into the second quarter until the Bears crossed the goal line for the first and only time.

Though Olympia committed more turnovers, an interception and a fumble that killed threatening drives, the Cougars could never take advantage. Oly's speedier secondary never let Riley Wall completely evade their grasp, even after he blew through the D-line on more than one occasion.

Olympia missed its own opportunities, though, including a Cougar turnover on downs deep in CHS territory when going for it on 4th and inches. Capital's defense held, turning back the Bears' best chance to put the game out of reach.

In the end, Oly's size and speed advantages were just enough. In his second year as Capital's coach, John Johnson has nearly turned the tables on our crosstown rivals. Next year's matchup may finally be the one that puts the Cougars back on top.

Added: Congrats to Olympia coach Bill Beattie--who was at Elma High School when I attended--on his 100th Bear victory.

Update 9/13: The Olympian call us potentially "the best 0-2 team in the state." Also, learn that J.D. Johnson called for a punt when his team went for it on 4th-and-1 later in the game. Whoa.

I am a lying liar

"Are you going to the game tonight?"
"You going to the game?"
"Mr. Anderson, are you going to the Spaghetti Bowl?"

No.

That's what I said, thinking I was headed to Seattle for a housewarming party. No, I said, sorry. I'd hate to miss it--especially when we have our best shot at winning it in the last four years--but family is family.

Turns out I was wrong: sick relative, party canceled.

So, to Mike, you won't have to cheer twice as hard. To Brett, I'm sorry I won't be sporting your jersey. Next time, promise. To everyone else, mea culpa, and Go Cougs!

piled higher, deeper

Three 11th-grade IB classes means 90-odd papers every time I craft an assignment for that prep.

Let's just say I'm thinking much, much more carefully about assessment. And, sadly, blogging much less than I'd like. Here's the week in neckwear.

moral agency and the permissible killing of an innocent

A reader writes,

I was wondering if I could pose a question that doesn't seem to be being talked about very much right now...

The resolution for September/October doesn't specify an agent, one who will be doing the killing of the innocent. From this, can you fiat anything concerning who the agent might be? Is there an agent or is this an absolute kind of deal? Because if it means anyone can kill in innocent to (in their eyes) save more innocents, then I see some serious problems for Aff. Is it possible to say that the government, or society, or something to that effect is the agent? Then that opens up several more VC options than just utilitarianism. If the government is the agent, you could use the harm principle, the veil of ignorance, those kinds of things...

I don't think either side can presume a specific agent of action. The verb phrase "to kill" is simply not agent-specific. However, since one isn't specified, the Neg can raise that particular fact, either in CX or in a Resolutional Analysis, and use it to launch several lines of attack.

1. One attack depends on what is known as "role morality." When a person adopts a specific role--doctor, soldier, lawyer--they also adopt a specific code of ethics. In certain situations, for example, lawyers are required to keep a client's secrets, even if that information could, say, convict someone else. (This is called "attorney-client privilege.") The Neg can attack by claiming that the resolution cannot be applied across all (or even most) roles, and the Aff is stuck conditionally affirming.

2. Governments, according to some theorists, act according to different moral rules--or are not beholden to moral rules at all. Since the resolution doesn't specify an agent, then the affirmative might be caught conditionally affirming if their V/C doesn't apply to a governmental entity. As an example, consider a situation like 9/11, where the president has ordered fighter jets scrambled to intercept an airliner full of innocents, an airliner about to be used as a weapon against (potentially) even more innocents. Should the president have the authority to order the plane shot down--to kill innocents to save more? Is the president's moral calculus different from any average citizen's? If not, why not? More generally, consider a program of inoculation against measles. If 1 in a billion people will die from the injection, but it will save 30,000 children from death, is the government permitted to make the vaccination mandatory?

3. One Neg argument could be based on a slippery slope scenario: if we affirm, we allow citizens or governments carte blanche when it comes to terrifying moral decisions. Even if the moral rules are the same for governments and regular folks, each also provides a means to avoid the slippery slope.

a. Governments codify rules in the form of laws, and (potentially) have a deliberative nature that mitigates a potential slippery slope. In fact, we usually expect a governmental check against individuals taking others' lives into their own hands.

b. On the other hand, individuals, unlike governments, feel the sting of guilt, which has its own preventive effect. Even if the Aff argues that killing an innocent to save others is morally permissible, the choice to act in that situation is no less difficult for the person making it--and will likely haunt that person for years to come. As a result, people will never make that decision willy-nilly. (If the Neg attempts to bring up a depraved sociopath, the Affirmative should gently remind all present that the Aff is required to affirm the resolution true as a "general principle," not to defend it against any conceivable exception. Beside, sociopaths aren't bound by moral rules anyhow, so they're a problem on either side of the resolution.)

4. So, what's an Aff to do? Like my reader suggests, it's important to consider whether your V/C truly can apply to all agents in the vast majority of situations where the resolution might be instantiated.

5. As an aside, rule utilitarianism is likely better at covering individuals and governments than act utilitarianism. I leave it to the reader to determine why that might be.

These are disjointed thoughts that could use refinement, or maybe a good bashing. Have at 'em in the comments.

Google to store copies of absolutely everything

JIM ANDERSON

CORRUGATED TIMES-DISPATCH

September 8, 2008

Google, having run out of mainstream data to collect, now plans to store digital copies of your birthday cards, love letters, baby books, photo albums, refrigerator magnet poems, shopping lists, drunken apologies on hotel stationery, obsolete electronics manuals, luggage tags, and countless other artifacts.

The project announced Monday extends Google's crusade to make digital copies of content invented before the Internet's arrival, so the information can become more accessible and, ultimately, Google can profit from ads shown on its Web site.

"This is a radical, bold, exciting new step for the Information Goliath," said Jean-Paul Richter, editor of the Northern Arizona Restaurant Critic's Guide to Family-Style Restaurant Menus in Greater Flagstaff. "Niches can now open up to much larger... crevices."

Google is touting the program as a way to give people an easier way to find a rich vein of history. The initiative also is designed to provide a financial boost to independent publishers as they try to earn a little bread from the publications that once were considered too minor for the marketplace.

"Information should be free," said Larson Gerrymander, Chief Strategist of Google's Media Consolidation Division. "And it should also somehow make us money."

The data-vacuuming program, launched last month, has triggered a lawsuit from group that alleges it infringes on privacy - a charge that Google will fight in court, when it has finished uploading all of your old bank receipts.

enlightenment is copyrighted

No, really:

Trial is starting in Olympia in the lawsuit brought by the Ramtha School founder JZ Knight against another spiritual teacher called WhiteWind Weaver.

In the trial on today's calendar in Thurston County Superior Court, the Ramtha school in Yelm school accuses Weaver of using some of its teachings in her classes at Rainier.

Knight says she channels the spirit of an ancient warrior named Ramtha. Weaver attended a Ramtha seminar and signed a contract agreeing not to use the teachings for her own commercial purposes.

Weaver's defense: the teachings are either original to her, or in the "public domain."

I am looking forward to learning which principles of enlightenment are fully monetizable.

Olympia, late summer

A series of photos from a downtown jaunt. Taken by my wife, except one. Which one? Guess.

video voter's guide: Bergeson vs. Dorn

Watch Bergeson defend her record and tell of her plan to, among other things, reform education at the national level. Watch Dorn go into attack mode, especially when it comes to the WASL.

It takes 11 minutes of your time.

takin' it to the streets YouTube

While we're all Bellevue, all the time, might as well point out the unorthodox route the Bellevue teachers association has used to get its message out to the community:

The Bellevue School District teacher's strike just got more interesting as teachers started posting their side of the story on a popular video-hosting Web site.

And parents by the hundreds are taking notice of their online message as the strike enters its second week.

The Bellevue teachers union has posted at least three videos on youtube.com, each with its own theme.

You can view all three videos at the link.

"Legacy media" used to define the message; whatever biases they held determined how much, how often, and how favorably you would hear or see unions in the news. No longer.

more election rhetoric

Slate's Juliet Lapidos points out that antimetabole, right now, is hot:

John McCain, in his Thursday convention address, deployed the technique in this admirably honest line: "We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us." The audience roared. McCain's antimetabole echoed one used by his running mate, Sarah Palin, the night before: "In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change." The inversion of change and career, forming a crisscross structure, gives the line a powerful one-two-punch feel. During his speech last week, Bill Clinton recycled an antimetabole he'd first used in the 1990s: "People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." The turn of phrase pleased the delegates—they clapped and hooted—but a far less famous speaker can lay claim to the most successful rhetorical switcheroo of the Democratic Convention. Barney Smith, a regular guy from Indiana who lost his job to outsourcing in 2004, took the stage at Invesco field and produced this zinger: "We need a president who puts the Barney Smiths before the Smith Barneys."

It's nice to see rhetoric getting the attention it deserves during this election year. It probably stems from the fact that, for once, we have some halfway decent public speakers in the mix--Bush vs. Kerry was, rhetorically, a parched desert.

Added:Peter Wall makes his own observation.

this'd better not start a trend

A promise is a promise:

"I'm trying to avoid major freeways. I called a couple of bicycling groups in the area and asked for some route help so I'm driving on the least traffic highways," said Principal Mike Taylor, Columbia Burbank Middle School.

Taylor will leave tomorrow and when he arrives in Olympia 40 of his students will be greeting him there.

Why's he making the trip? Because all of his students improved their scores 4 out of 8 sections of the WASL. If it'd been 6 out of ten, Taylor would be wearing a pink suit as he crosses the Cascades.

Good luck, Mr. Taylor. You crazy, crazy man.

Capital Cougars can't seal the deal; lose to O'Dea

In a heartbreaking loss, the Capital Cougars, victims of a botched PAT and blocked field goal, fell tonight to visiting O'Dea, 14-13.

The Cougars, powered by Riley Wall's quick feet and an experienced O-line's excellent blocking, were able to keep pressure on the Fighting Irish's bigger, faster squad. O'Dea appeared unfocused and undisciplined; I lost count at 10 penalties, including successive illegal man downfield calls. The only thing that kept O'Dea from blowing it was a lack of turnovers.

The Cougars led 13-7 with 1:29 left in the 3rd quarter, but couldn't keep the Irish from striking back quickly, edging ahead on a long touchdown pass when a Cougar defender fell down. Capital's attempt to come back was stuffed, but the defense held O'Dea in check, handing the offense the ball with just over 3:00 left in the 4th.

The rally was short-lived, as the Cougars marched backward 18 yards on a series of misdirection plays that didn't fool anybody. After a turnover on downs, O'Dea was able to run out the clock.

Last time these teams faced, in last year's state playoffs, O'Dea plowed through Capital's defense, racking up 46 points. To see our guys come within a field goal try of winning was simultaneously refreshing and disappointing. So close.

Up next, the Cougars face their crosstown rival, the vaunted Olympia Bears in a Spaghetti Bowl that promises to be one of the most competitive yet. If the Cougars can keep playing with this kind of fire, they're going back to state. O'Dea, on the other hand, had better get its act together, or there won't be a potential rematch in the playoffs.

Update: The Olympian's recap is now available. Their take is similar to mine, although they don't mention O'Dea's sloppiness, the major reason their offense never got anywhere and their defense couldn't keep the Cougars in check.

Lincoln-Douglas open forum

Have a question about the current resolution or debating theory and practice? Want to rant or rave about certain facets of LD? Want to share your email address with spambots? Consider this the place.

If you have a specific question about the "morally permissible" resolution, and it's really good, I might dedicate a post to answering it. Now that school's started, I'm a much busier man, but I'll try to make some time to blog about it, even though my team always starts with the next resolution.

second day done

1. Once again, I was able to wear a tacky tie all throughout the day without so much as a peep from students. I am not afraid that they don't understand irony; I'm just frightened that they think I don't.

2. Having taken the bus to and from school each day, for the low, low price of $1.50 per diem, I have become a public transit evangelist. Today I convinced the Tech Guy to join the fray. That in exchange for the spare laptop power cord to temporarily replace the one I left at home. Without it, I'd have been cooked.

3. Comments on the new spectacles:
a. "They look great!"
b. "They make you look smart! I mean, you're already smart, but you know..."
c. "Are those real glasses?"

4. Seen from the bus:
The woman kicking her legs on the front stoop.
The man carrying the guitar amp into church.
The child staring at the glowing fluorescent bulb.
The biker twirling his handlebar mustache.
The mother dangling at the end of a thin licorice rope.

the truth is too true to be true

Since many of the novels we read in the 11th grade IB curriculum involve the issue of truth in narrative (and I won't explain why or how, in case one of my students is reading--no advance notice, sorry), I started this year with an activity I've tried before. I give students one of four cards, and tell them to keep it a secret. Each has a code: T for True, E for Embellished Truth, F for Fictional, and OF for Outrageously False. Their task is to (quickly) write a story that fits the description, whether from their experience or of their--imagination.

Students then partner up, sharing, getting some tips if their story is too obvious or unrealistic (the last category excepted). Afterward, I let a few share theirs with the whole class, and we vote, which leads into a discussion of... readerly empistemology. Among other things.

I usually go first, telling a story from my life. Today, in each of my three classes, I shared an unvarnished, utterly factual version of my "scared of the mountains" story.

Every class voted it Embellished.

I think I know why.

assisted self-plagiarism

Compliments of the Comics Curmudgeon, a look into the creative process.

April 4, 2008.


September 1, 2008.


You can't entirely blame the cartoonist, can you?

expletive McCain

Slate's Paul Collins dissects one of John McCain's preferred rhetorical devices: "my friends."

McCain falls neatly into line: Roughly every generation since FDR, a candidate resurrects "my friends." But while used in its first few decades by good or great orators, it's notable that in the last half-century it's been exclusively resorted to by the worst orators in our presidential races.

Three observations.

1. Collins notes that "my friends" carries a vague notion of a threat, but "friend" is more threatening than "my friends" when coming from a stranger. Greg Behrendt's comments here are spot-on.

2. The phrase "my friends" is perfect for a candidate who is a confessed computer illiterate, and therefore has no idea how the phrase has gained currency and lost power via "social networking." These days, "my friends" means everything and nothing.

3. Collins misses the perfect chance to load up his "MF'er" pun. The use of a brief intervening phrase is called "expletive."