Author: Andrew Fiala

Andrew Fiala, Ph.D. is an expert on ethics and political philosophy. He is the author or editor of more than a dozen books and more than 50 scholarly articles. He has published hundreds of op-ed essays and newspaper columns. Fiala is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Ethics Center at Fresno State. He gives frequent public lectures on topics related to ethics, ethical decision-making, ethical leadership, peace, politics, and religion. Fiala is past President of Concerned Philosophers for Peace. He is an internationally respected expert on the philosophy of peace, nonviolence, and pacifism; and a strong advocate for civility, religious liberty, and freedom of thought.
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

Posted on

Ethical Lessons From the Sierra Nevada

Fresno Bee, August 11, 2016

While this tumultuous summer unfolded, I was high in the Sierra Nevada. Former President Donald Trump survived an assassination attempt. Current President Joe Biden gave way to Vice President Kamala Harris. The stock market tumbled, but in the great mountains of California, the rocks and rivers took no notice.

The majestic indifference of the wild is humbling. In the backcountry, ethical wisdom teaches modesty, moderation, compassion, and courage.

The primary lesson is that nothing human lasts. We are temporary visitors on this planet. The mountains were here before our species evolved. They endured while wars and revolutions passed. They will remain when we are extinct.

Wild nature mocks our hopes and dreams. The ice that carved Yosemite over millions of years was a thousand feet deep. The planets move in a cycle that lasts 26,000 years. But human civilizations only appeared 6,000 years ago. And every human being we know will be dead in 100 years.

The scale of the wild can overwhelm. But in being overwhelmed, we can also find freedom and inspiration. Nature transcends the buzzing clamor of political life. In the human world, each moment appears as a crisis. The news assails us with tales of mayhem and wickedness. Our screens flash and whine. And we find ourselves seized by anxiety and seduced by passion.

But the rhythm of the seasons is steady and true. The melting ice flows down familiar channels every summer. And the snow returns in the fall. Human-generated climate change may impact this relentless cycle. But even if the waters dry up, the granite will endure.

The wild reminds us that everything human is shallow and fleeting. Only when we acknowledge the vast indifference of things can we think clearly about what counts as living well.

Out on the trail, an ethic emerges. Its first commandment is humble self-reliance. Once you leave the trailhead, you must be self-sufficient. Every choice you make is your responsibility. No one will save you if you fall. You must understand your limitations. Be prepared. And keep your wits about you.

You carry your means of life on your back. What you can’t carry, you must leave behind. And so, simplicity emerges as a commandment. Our closets and minds brim with unnecessary stuff. But on the trail, spare socks are a luxury. And cold, clear water is as good as wine. What do you really need?

There is also friendship on the trail. One of the great joys of hiking is the camaraderie of those who walk together. And the strangers you meet in the outback are almost always kind and joyful. Compassion emerges easily in the backcountry.

But this friendly sociality also respects solitude. Be kind. But mind your own business. Keep your voice down and leave others alone. If someone is lost or in trouble, help them. But don’t insist. Everyone hikes at their own pace.

Remarkably, those who are hiking the farthest appear to be the happiest. In my relatively short trips this summer, I met a handful of hardy souls walking the entirety of the Pacific Crest and John Muir Trails. They were almost always smiling. When the rain and lightning come, they laugh. Good humor is as much of a necessity in the mountains as are courage and fortitude. Without a smile and the will to endure, the trail is punishing and a tent becomes a prison cell.

Finally, as every backpacker knows, you should leave no trace. Humans tend to want to leave a mark. Civilization is a kind of graffiti that has slashed and burned across the planet. The wild places are special because they remain unmarked. Don’t cut the switchbacks. And leave the campsite better than you found it. The next group of hikers, and next generation, will appreciate your moderation and self-restraint.

These same lessons apply in the city and everyday life. Seek to understand the bigger picture. Be humble and self-reliant. Simplify your needs. Be friendly and kind. But also mind your own business. Be courageous and quick to laugh. As you wander this planet, try not to leave a mark. And do your best to leave this world better than you found it.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/article290916454.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on

Beyond Blood and Iron: Pacifism and the ‘Blood-Swollen’ God of War

Blood and Iron

Published at FreeVoice, August 1, 2024

Iron and blood may be the grease that enables the gears of history to grind, but only hearts and minds can change ideas and beliefs.

There is a tendency to think that history is made by iron and blood. There is some truth to the claim that the gears of history are lubricated by blood. But the ideology of blood and iron is fundamentally flawed. Critics of violence and war argue that we ought to develop our humanity beyond blood and iron, toward something more spiritual, reasonable, and enlightened. These critics hold that the materialistic logic of iron and blood ought to give way to spirit, reason, and law. . .

******

Militarism is a doctrine primarily in service to the blood-swollen god of war. It is indifferent to political ideology and can be employed by revolutionaries and reactionaries, fascists and free marketeers. Pacifists argue that it would be better for social and political reality to develop rationally and without the carnage. The pacifists suggest that human progress must be spiritual instead of sanguinary. Wars do not change hearts and minds; only other hearts and minds can do that. Blood and iron do not change ideas and beliefs. Rather, we need fewer weapons, less bloodshed, better beliefs, and more reasonable ideas.

Read more here: https://shuddhashar.com/beyond-blood-and-iron-pacifism-and-the-blood-swollen-god-of-war/.

Posted on

The Ten Commandments and the First Amendment

Fresno Bee, July 7, 2024

The Ten Commandments have long been controversial. So, it’s not surprising that Christians in Louisiana have resurrected this controversy with a law requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in schools. Oklahoma and Texas are following suit. Donald Trump recently posted, in all caps, “I LOVE THE TEN COMMANDMENTS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.”

This appears to violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits state entities from propounding religious doctrine. This does not mean, however, that schools and teachers cannot address the controversy.

At best, the text known as the Ten Commandments invites deeper conversations about religion, ethics, and political life. At worst, it becomes a meaningless idol, posted on the wall without thought.

Scholars refer to this text as The Decalogue, which means “ten sayings.” In the Bible, these sayings are not numbered and occur in slightly different forms in Exodus and Deuteronomy. The text has been interpreted in diverse ways. This includes a difference in numbering the commandments. Catholics think the sixth commandment is against adultery, while Protestants count that as number seven. For Catholics, the commandment against murder is number five. Protestants count that as number six.

Beyond the textual details is the deep question of whether morality must be grounded in religion. The first several commandments are religious, which may suggest that faith is before ethics. Does this mean that atheists cannot be ethical?

Another significant question is whether morality is negative, focused only on a few “you shall not” prohibitions. Should we donate to the poor, forgive our enemies, or give special consideration to the disabled?

The Decalogue is silent on these questions. It does not mention abortion, the death penalty, or war. Nor does it celebrate democracy or liberty. The Decalogue has always been the subject of interpretive disputes. When asked about these ancient laws, Jesus offered a succinct interpretation, suggesting that there are only two laws: love God and love your neighbor as yourself.

Of course, this did not settle the matter. Benjamin Franklin suggested the existence of twelve commandments, with the first being “to increase and multiply” and the twelfth demanding us “to love one another.” John Adams and Thomas Jefferson discussed the matter in letters the two ex-presidents exchanged about a German book of Biblical criticism. Adams suggested that the book showed that the Ten Commandments were “not written by the finger of God on tables.” Jefferson expressed doubt about the authenticity of the Decalogue since, as he put it, the history of these texts is “defective and doubtful.”

There are lots of interesting questions here for student research and reflection. Consider the third or fourth commandment—depending on your tradition—which focuses on keeping the sabbath day holy. Does this mean that businesses must close or that it would be wrong to watch football on Sunday? Students might also ask whether Sunday is actually the sabbath. Most Christians think so. But Seventh-Day Adventists maintain that Sunday was imposed on Christians by the Romans. They follow Jewish tradition and view Saturday as the Sabbath.

Critical discussions of the Decalogue should eventually lead to a conversation about the value of the First Amendment as a response to religious diversity. When a state authority picks sides in religious and moral controversies, it ends up violating the Establishment Clause. There is no doubt that the Decalogue is controversial. But does posting the text amount to promoting a religious viewpoint?

If the text were posted alongside similar texts such as Hammurabi’s Code, Buddhism’s Four Noble Truths, or the Five Pillars of Islam, it would be more obviously a stimulus for critical thought and lessons about history. Context matters. As does the intention of those who post such texts.

Christian culture warriors do not seem to engage in critical thinking about the Bible. Here is the irony: If the text isn’t used to spur critical conversations, it appears to violate the First Amendment. But once we engage in a critical conversation about the Decalogue, it becomes obvious that the text is controversial and that the Establishment Clause ought to prohibit it from being posted as an idol in classrooms.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/article289743274.html#storylink=cpy