Posts

Posted on

Hope and Courage in Tough Times

Fresno Bee, October 13, 2024

In these tumultuous times, it is easy to become fearful and lose hope. Wars are spreading. Hurricanes and heat waves show that climate change is happening. The vitriol of the fall election season portends an ugly winter to come. People seem angry, grumpy and mean.

In dark times, it is tempting to abandon hope and retreat in fear to a bunker. But if we do that, things will surely get worse. When the world turns nasty, good people need to remain engaged, hopeful and courageous.

Hope alone is not sufficient. In a recent column in the LA Times, Anna Jane Joyner pointed out that hope is not a strategy for dealing with climate change — hope won’t reduce emissions or heal the atmosphere, nor will it bring back lives lost in wars and hurricanes. Joyner concluded her piece with a quote from climate scientist Kate Marvel: “We need courage, not hope, to face climate change.”

But rather than saying we need courage instead of hope, we should emphasize their interconnection. Courageous people hope that their bravery will pay off. And hope can help us discover the courage to struggle on.

This point is well known. In the 19th century, the British critic Matthew Arnold said: “Wise men everywhere know that we must keep up our courage and our hope.” And Martin Luther King, Jr. explained: “If you lose hope, you lose that vitality that keeps life moving, you lose that courage to be, that quality that helps you go on in spite of all.”

Without courage and other virtues, hope is feckless and naïve — it can imply a kind of passivity. An optimist who relies entirely on hope may do nothing to make the world better. Too much hope can undermine agency and responsible action.

But if an overabundance of hope is problematic, so, too, is hopelessness. Hopeless people also fail to work responsibly for the future. Gloomy pessimists mope about expecting things to fall apart. And since the pessimist does nothing to make things better, the world usually does end up worse.

Virtuous hope lies somewhere in the middle, occurring at the right time, and in the right amount. Some of this depends on the world. Virtuous hope should respond to the facts. False hope denies the facts. False hope can be dangerously disconnected from reality. But the same is true of false despair, which fails to see opportunities for change in the world of facts.

Rather than letting the facts be a drag on the spirit, virtuous and hopeful people imagine what is possible.

Virtues do not occur in isolation. Rather, they are part of a complex web of habits, attitudes and values. In an emergency you need courage, strength and quick wit in addition to hope. In life as a whole, you also need honesty, moderation, compassion, good humor and a sense of justice.

The virtuous duo of courage and hope are essential in business, sports and education. They are crucial for social movements and important for human health and well-being.

In his book, “Man’s Search for Meaning,” Viktor Frankl recounted how, after losing hope, his fellow concentration camp inmates fell sick and died. Frankl explained that “those who know how close the connection is between the state of mind of a man — his courage and hope, or lack of them — and the state of immunity of his body will understand that the sudden loss of hope and courage can have a deadly effect.”

Hope and courage don’t come easy in trying times. To develop them is a lifelong task. It helps to learn from role models like King and Frankl, and it to surround yourself with courageous and hopeful people. Remember that, ultimately, your virtue is up to you. The world is responsive to hopeful, courageous and creative energy. This does not mean that hope magically makes things better, but reality can be changed by intelligent and responsible people who apply their agency with courage and hope.

Retreating to the bunker won’t make things better. For things to improve, we must confront the facts courageously, and get to work creating the kind of world we hope for.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article293773979.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on

Flags and signs and the need for dialogue

By politicizing our front yards, are we increasing polarization and isolation?

Fresno Bee, Sept. 7, 2024

Flags, signs and bumper stickers are expressive. But they are not persuasive. The slogans and symbols of the campaign season risk driving us deeper into our silos.

In my neighborhood, political flags are popping up like mushrooms. A house on a corner lot flies two large Trump flags, one on each side. Across the street, a Harris-Walz yard sign glares back. Around the corner, another yard sign says “Country Over Party.” Every so often, you still see those “Science is Real, Black Lives Matter” signs. Some houses wave the rainbow flag. And on a main street nearby, a “God, Guns and Trump” flag plays in the breeze.

I worry that by politicizing our front yards we increase our polarization and isolation. In a typical California neighborhood, folks go from car to house without talking to one another. Fences and hedges keep us apart. Flags and yard signs are often the only form of communication between neighbors. But rather than inviting conversation, political placards act as cudgels and shields.

These political banners are prime examples of one-way communication. Like a sermon, they proclaim without listening. They broadcast an idea or an identity, and they make an argument. They do not, however, inquire into the ideas and identities of others. These are badges of a fixed affiliation. They are monologues that do not invite dialogue.

About a hundred years ago, the philosopher Martin Buber published a famous book, “I and Thou,” that celebrated genuine dialogue. Buber understood dialogue as a way of turning toward each other. The etymology of “conversation” is instructive — it means “turning with” or “turning together.” A genuine conversation involves reciprocity, hospitality and openness. It also requires a sustained face-to-face interaction that can’t be reduced to a slogan.

The art of dialogue and conversation is missing in a society of one-sided communication. Social media encourages this. As does a world of cars, fences and media silos. Instead of turning toward other people, we turn inward. We label others without ever knowing them. And we surround ourselves with like-minded voices.

Our political banners may also produce more practical problems. A recent column in “Money” asked whether political flags can affect real estate values. There is no hard data about this, but the column suggested that a political flag may influence a prospective buyer’s view of the neighborhood.

This could mean a variety of things: Some people will seek neighbors who fly friendly flags, while others may be scared away by a menacing flag. But given the housing crunch, many will simply grit their teeth and keep their heads down when they move in.

It is also possible to imagine some neighbors deliberately using flags to keep people out — or drive them away. Racists could fly flags intended to scare people off. Anti-racists could plant yard signs intended to intimidate those racists. And on it goes.

We might think that a solution is to ban such signs and flags. But in the United States, we have a right to freedom of expression. Autonomy is an important value. You are free to adorn your house or car however you want, unless your sign or flag is a true threat or outright menace.

But liberty is insufficient for a good life. Freedom ought to be understood in connection with other values. The point here is not regulation or limitation — it would be wrong to limit people’s autonomy. Rather, free expression ought to be leavened with compassion and hospitality. Decent neighbors should talk together rather than asserting themselves in a narrow-minded way.

We all ought to ask ourselves whether our flags and signs are friendly and inviting, or whether they are menacing monologues and one-sided sermons. In general, we need less isolation and more connection.

You are free, of course, to isolate and assert yourself. But genuine community occurs when you relinquish that kind of lonely liberty and turn your attention to the face of the other.

Buber suggested that mature human freedom should be responsive. This isn’t easy. It is simple enough to plant a flag and shut your door. It is much more difficult to open your door and invite your neighbor to have a conversation.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article291987905.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on

Alienation, Marxism, Trump, and Harris

Fresno Bee, August 31, 2024

Labor Day is a good time to reflect on ethics and the economy. Honest, hard-working people should be able to earn enough money to live decent lives. There is something corrupt about wealth that is divorced from work. And rich people don’t deserve more social and political power than the working class.

These common sense ideas might sound socialist. Unfortunately, the mere mention of the “s-word” or Karl Marx can provoke outrage. Socialism and Marxism are anathema to many Americans, having become terms of insult in our culture wars. And, recently, Donald Trump has repeatedly accused Kamala Harris of being a Marxist — he calls her “comrade Kamala.” “We’re not ready for a communist president, okay?” Trump recently said of Harris.

This is ridiculous. Harris is a mainstream liberal proposing moderate help for consumers on housing, health care and food costs — proposals that are popular among voters. Harris even seems to agree with Trump about eliminating taxes on tips.

Harris is not proposing a communist revolution that would abolish capitalism or centralize production in the hands of the proletariat. And yet she is absurdly accused of being a Marxist.

The accusation is occasionally linked to an insinuation about her estranged father, Donald J. Harris, a former Stanford economics professor who did, in fact, publish work on Marx.

But this kind of ad hominem and innuendo is silly. It’s as bad as the argument made against Trump regarding the fact that he inherited his wealth from his racist father. What matters is a candidate’s current views and policy proposals — not something dredged up out of their biography, over which they have no control.

At any rate, one wishes there were a candidate who addressed alienation and inequality head on. This would ring a bell for many Americans who feel that the economy is rigged against them, and who are disenchanted with the whole social and political system.

Notably, alienation is a Marxist idea. A young Marx coined the term “alienated labor” in the 1840s to describe how labor produces surplus profit that goes into the capitalist’s pocket. Marx says this empowers the wealthy, while impoverishing the worker.

Things have changed for the better in the past centuries. Economic regulations prevent the kind of exploitation and miserable conditions that afflicted workers in the 19th century. But the general concept of alienation remains useful: Drudgery, poverty and inequality remain problems, and people are disillusioned with politics and the economy.

The Harris Poll’s “alienation index” has tracked this for decades. A majority of Americans report a deep sense of alienation when asked whether elites care about them or whether the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.

Hard-working people often can’t afford adequate housing or other basic goods. The working poor lead precarious lives, earning low wages doing unpleasant and dangerous jobs. They find themselves in debt, unable to get ahead or even imagine retirement. An accident or health crisis can throw them into homelessness.

Meanwhile, some lucky stiffs inherit wealth or otherwise hit the jackpot. The truly wealthy put their money to work in the stock market, earning millions without breaking a sweat. The wealthy are able to pull strings and gain access to a world of luxury and power that the poor can only imagine.

This difference of life prospects and social power produces instability and resentment. Different classes of people inhabit different economic and political realities. When social classes are estranged from each other, they grow suspicious. The wealthy pull away from the masses, retreating into gated communities and luxurious clubhouses. And those on the bottom are alienated from the system itself. They give up on voting or caring, since they think the whole thing is rigged by the rich at the expense of the poor.

To name alienation is to echo Marx. This is not to say that Marx was right about everything or that a communist revolution is needed, but alienation remains a significant social problem. Too many workers live precariously. The average Joe resents the fat cats in first class, and lots of people distrust the system. These are profound and perennial issues. Our leaders need to address these problems. And they might even learn something from reading Marx.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article291660565.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on

The wisdom of “very demure, very mindful”

Fresno Bee, August 23, 2024

It is best to be modest and mindful. The world’s wisdom traditions teach that a good life should be guided by simplicity and self-examination. But ours is an immodest and excessive culture. Humility and introspection are rare.

So, it is interesting to consider the latest craze on TikTok, where the phrase “very demure, very mindful” is trending. It was popularized by TikTok influencer Jools Lebron, who explained the ideal as “being mindful and considerate of the people around you, but also of yourself and how you present to the world.”

Most of my students laughed when I mentioned the “very demure, very mindful” trend. The whole thing smacks of parody. TikTok mindfulness is done for the cameras with the goal of going viral. Which is, frankly, not demure at all.

Many of the demure and mindful videos are silly and fun. The phrase has taken on a life of its own. For all this online chatter, when I asked my students what “demure” means or why it is important, they generally had no idea. For the record, demure means shy, reserved and modest. Genuine modesty and mindfulness are important for a tranquil life, and as an antidote to the excesses of our era.

Our culture is anything but demure and mindful. The Trumpian age is one of big egos, loud mouths and prominent tattoos. People display themselves in exaggerated ways: Some fly huge flags on cars and houses; everyone is striving to be noticed; and everyone has an angle.

We’ve lost the art of modesty, and we are often unable to tell the difference between dignified truth-telling and the parodies that proliferate on the internet. When everyone is grandstanding, we confuse showmanship with sincerity. If there really were a demure and mindful person in our midst, we might wonder what kind of game they were playing.

This is related to the problem of false modesty. If you brag about how modest you are, you are not really modest. And sometimes those who demurely say, “I’m not worthy,” are really full of themselves.

Genuinely demure people don’t show off. And mindful people are often inconspicuous. It may seem difficult, then, to find them and learn from their virtue. But decent and humble people are all around us. They are rarely the center of attention. If you look past the spotlight, you’ll see them, quietly taking care of business offstage.

Philosophers have often advocated avoiding the spotlight. The ancient followers of Epicurus retreated from public life. They warned that a life oriented toward fame and power was a danger to the soul. Epicurus’ motto was “live unnoticed.” He taught that tranquility and happiness were best found in quiet solitude with a few good friends.

Do what’s right, stay out of other people’s business, don’t insist and try not to attract attention to yourself.

The wisdom of the modest life was a departure from the ancient Greek tendency to celebrate bold heroes like Hercules. But Greek tragedy reveals those god-like heroes as ultimately unhappy. The excessive nature of arrogant pride tempts fate, while undermining virtue.

A similar idea can be found in ancient China: A Taoist allegory tells of a wise man who spent his time fishing by a peaceful river. The emperor heard about the wise sage and demanded that he come and serve in the Imperial court. The sage refused. He explained that if he gave up his simple life on the river, this would show that he was not really wise.

With all of this on the table, it may seem that there is something pernicious about TikTok or the memes and trends that emerge there. But there is nothing wrong with having a little fun. And as Grateful Dead’s “Scarlet Begonias” says, “once in a while you can get shown the light in the strangest of places, if you look at it right.”

That’s the spirit of my advice about the “very demure, very mindful” meme: Use this as a springboard for deeper reflection. Beware those missionaries of modest mindfulness who are trying to sell you something. Wisdom dwells deeper than a viral meme. But it is freely available to those who cultivate a modest and mindful life.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article291306790.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on

Population Ethics: How Many Children are Enough?

Fresno Bee, August 18, 2024

Fewer people are having children. Some are warning ominously of an impending population collapse in Europe and North America, but the U.N. projects that the global population will continue to grow through this century to about 10 billion people.

The issue is polarizing and politicized. It is connected to J.D. Vance’s “childless cat ladies” remark, as well as concerns about global warming, women’s rights and reproductive healthcare. Young people are also confronting an epidemic of loneliness and fear for the future of the planet.

If human life is good, it’s good to have lots of children. Traditional religion says, “be fruitful and multiply.” If life is a gift of God, and God wants us to be fruitful, then we ought to multiply. But modern revolutions in agriculture and medicine have caused a population boom that archaic religions could not have imagined.

The ancient idea of fruitful multiplying is less salient in a hot, crowded world.

Ethical judgment often involves questions of quantity: How long is too long to live, or to serve in political office? How much wealth or freedom is the right amount? And what is the optimal number of people?

Quantitative questions quickly lead to questions of quality. In planning for retirement or thinking about healthcare at the end of life, the number of years of life is less important than the quality of those years. Something similar holds with regard to population: More is not always better when it comes to people. The ethical question is not merely how many people, but how to optimize the quality of life for children, parents and everyone else.

The question of optimal population is a concern for those who manage crowds. We understand this when we stand in line for a bathroom or a beverage at a stadium or look for a parking place in Yosemite National Park. At some point, the quantity of people ruins the quality of the experience for everyone. This is especially true under conditions of scarcity — basic carrying capacity can be altered with innovation and technology, but there are limits.

Stadiums could be built with more amenities, but there are costs and trade-offs. When the limit is reached, the crowds become unbearable. The natural world imposes objective limits. Yosemite Valley is a narrow valley bisected by a river. On busy weekends, traffic and parking are difficult. In response, Yosemite has imposed a system of reservations during the summer. Fewer people in the park preserves the quality of the experience for everyone.

In my own field of education, the quantitative issue concerns student-faculty ratios and class sizes. This depends on the quality of instruction, as well as the abilities and interests of the students. Kindergartens ought to be small. Private coaching is necessary for elite performers. But massive online courses can work well if the teaching is good and the students are motivated. This all depends on what we expect of the overall quality of education.

So, the more general population question is not merely quantitative, it is also qualitative. The snide remark about childless cat ladies is not about population size. Rather, it is about what counts as a good life. The question here is whether having children and raising a family are an essential part of the good life. For much of human history, this was taken for granted. But these days, there are alternative paradigms of human flourishing.

Other complex and contentious ethical questions involving optimizing quality of life emerge. Will there be adequate housing for 10 billion people? Should affluent countries with declining populations bring in immigrants from the developing world? How should we structure the economy to care for our elders? Do childless people have an obligation to pay taxes to support children? And how should we manage fragile ecosystems in a hot, crowded world?

The conversation about population and reproduction is ultimately about our basic conception of the good life, and deserves careful and critical thought. People will disagree about this topic, since it touches upon our deepest beliefs and commitments. But clearly polarization is not helpful. We need philosophers, theologians and political leaders to think carefully and critically about the quality of human life and the question of optimal population.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article291087225.html#storylink=cpy