Nostalgia poor guide for politics

There’s no going back in world affairs

Fresno Bee, July 8, 2016

Nationalism should give way to cosmopolitanism
Globalization benefits us all
Nostalgia is poor guide to politics

After Britain voted to leave the European Union,Donald Trump explained, “People want to take their country back. They want to have independence in a sense. You see it with Europe, all over Europe.”

I’ve been traveling in Europe this week, on my way to a conference in Poland. There is resurgent nationalism in some countries. Anti-immigrant sentiment exists. A few right-wing parties are gaining strength.

But European society is deeply cosmopolitan. In the streets of Munich, Bavarians in lederhosen mix with Turks in headscarves. African men in flowing white robes stand on subway platforms with German soccer fans. American brands – McDonald’s, Pizza Hut, Starbucks – compete with German beer gardens, sushi restaurants and falafel stands.

The same is true in the U.S. We enjoy German sports cars, Indian cuisine and Mexican labor. And we profit from the global economy. The Apple store in Munich is around the corner from the cathedral and old city hall.

THE GENIE OF GLOBALIZATION IS OUT OF THE BOTTLE.

And yet, politicians appeal to nationalistic nostalgia. In a recent speech supporting Trump, Sarah Palin said, “We’re going to take our country back, and you are either with us or against us.”

But what would we go back to? Contemporary nation-states are modern inventions with a complex and often ugly history. And nationalism creates strife. Each nationalistic line in the sand comes at the expense of someone else.

This is obvious in central Europe. Poland, Lithuania, Hungary and other nations have come and gone, swept along by the tides of history. Some countries have disappeared entirely.

The Kingdom of Bohemia was swallowed up by the Austrian Empire. In the 20th century, Bohemia became Czechoslovakia. Then the Nazis invaded. And the Soviets. After the Cold War, Czechoslovakia broke in two. The Czech Republic was formed in 1993. The country recently adopted a new name, Czechia.

North American history is also full of conflicting identities. Europeans stole the continent from native peoples. The United States was formed out of English, French, Spanish and Russian lands.

THE PAST WAS OFTEN WORSE THAN THE PRESENT.

Alaska was purchased from Russia. It joined the union in 1959 along with Hawaii. What would we say if native Hawaiians wanted to take their country back?

Some people long for the good old days of homogeneous national identity and nationalistic pride. But there never were such good old days. Nostalgia is a poor guide for the present because it is not based in reality. The truth is that political life is constantly changing. Ethnic, racial, linguistic and cultural identities are fleeting realities.

The dangers of nationalistic identity are obvious in central Europe. Concentration camps dot the landscape, along with memorials for those killed in the nationalistic wars of past centuries. Here in Munich, Hitler began the process of transforming Romantic German myths into the monstrous deeds of the Third Reich.

Nostalgia can be fun. My American passport contains inspiring scenes from the American past. There is a picture of a pioneer plowing with oxen and another picture of cowboys herding cattle. But no modern farmer would trade his tractor for a team of oxen. And it’s no longer common that cowboys ride the open range.

The past was often worse than the present. And it was at least as complicated. The reality of the past included dysentery, racism, war and the subordination of women.

THE TASK OF THE FUTURE IS TO DISCOVER AND CELEBRATE OUR COMMON HUMANITY.

There is no going back. We can only move forward. We are in the middle of an unprecedented economic, cultural, technological and ideological transition. We are moving away from isolated nations toward a global society based upon shared notions of human rights.

Not everyone likes that development. But the genie of globalization is out of the bottle. Most of us benefit from it. Open travel, free trade and cultural admixtures make life profitable and interesting.

The Czechs, Poles and Germans seem to have discovered a way to coexist. Despite the atrocities of the nationalistic past, they are participating in the cosmopolitan European experiment.

We ought to embrace the cosmopolitan future, while defending human rights and a global ethic of compassion. That requires an educated understanding of history. Superficial slogans mislead us. Nostalgic myths are dangerous and divisive. The task of the future is to discover and celebrate our common humanity.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article88483562.html#storylink=cpy

July 2, 2016

Partisan Division, The Founders, and Moral Philosophy

Search for common ground this Fourth of July

Fresno Bee, July 2, 2016

Partisan division is explained by philosophy and psychology
Founding Fathers warned against factionalism
Solution to partisanship is friendship and respect for liberty

Our country is seriously divided. A recent Pew Center report indicates that we distrust and fear one another. Among committed partisans, “70 percent of Democrats and 62 percent of Republicans say they are afraid of the other party.”

This crisis of trust threatens the fabric of civil society. But partisan conflict is not new. The Founding Fathers understood its dangers. Ancient philosophers warned against it. And psychologists have explained it in modern terms.

In the Federalist Papers, James Madison warned against “the violence of faction.” He called this a “dangerous vice” and a “mortal disease.” Partisan division inflames us with “mutual animosity.” We would rather “vex and oppress each other” than cooperate for the common good. Madison located factionalism deep within human nature, as a product of self-love.

George Washington agreed. He warned against “the baneful effects” of the “spirit of party.” In his Farewell Address, he said, “This spirit is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human Mind.” Washington connected partisanship with the spirit of revenge and the lust for power.

Two thousand years prior, Plato offered a similar diagnoses of partisan politics. We wrongly think that might makes right. We believe our primary duty is to help friends and hurt enemies. And we lose sight of the common good.

One recent book uses brain science to explain partisanship. In “The Righteous Mind,” Jonathan Haidt traces partisan zeal to the brain’s pleasure centers. Partisan behavior unleashes a rewarding blast of dopamine. This reinforces preconceived notions and our sense of righteous superiority. Noting that cocaine and heroin operate on those same pleasure centers, Haidt concludes, “Extreme partisanship may literally be addictive.”

Sigmund Freud directs our attention to the power of love and aggression. We love those who are similar and hate those who are different. Our desire to belong to a group of worthy people leads us to exaggerate the positive aspects of our comrades. This also leads us to inflate the negative features of those in the other party.

Partisan fanaticism often occurs among those who share much in common. Freud calls this the narcissism of minor differences. When our differences are minor, we amplify them in order to gain power and prestige.

With this in mind, we ought to note that the differences between Republicans and Democrats are mostly minor. A few differences get magnified. But no mainstream party is advocating a truly radical alternative to the status quo. No one in either party offers a radical revision of the constitutional system.

Republicans and Democrats each represent a different side of the same American coin. But, of course, the philosophy and psychology of partisanship predicts that partisans on each side will deny that this is true. Each side vilifies the other. The result is distrust and fear.

Our nation’s founders realized that you cannot eliminate factionalism without undermining liberty. They designed the Constitution to moderate its pernicious effects. The Constitution prevents tyranny. The rights of individuals are protected. Power is distributed. The nation’s size and diversity makes it tough for any single faction to gain complete control.

This approach is pragmatic. It does not hope for a radical change in human nature. Instead, it seeks to minimize the negative effects of our factional affliction.

Let’s hope the Constitution is strong enough to weather the current partisan storm. And yet, partisan hatred leaves us unhappy. And it causes moderate people to disengage. That’s unfortunate, since partisan rancor is curbed by the common sense of the moderates.

One solution points beyond politics to friendship. The Pew Center report suggests that those who have a friend in the other party are less fearful of the other party.

But our polarization makes it difficult to be friendly. We do not socialize in mixed political company. Our preconceptions are reinforced by a closed loop of one-sided media choices and self-selected social networks. This allows self-love to grow – and with it, distrust and fear.

Here is a suggestion for the Fourth of July. Befriend someone from the other party. Search for common ground. Our disagreements are nothing to fear. We should accept them as part of human nature. And celebrate them as a sign of our freedom.
Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article87055787.html#storylink=cpy

June 25, 2016June 26, 2016

Assisted Suicide, Living, and Dying Well

Assisted suicide and the ethics of living and dying well

Fresno Bee, June 25, 2016

Assisted suicide law prompts legal challenge
Suicide points toward important religious and philosophical disagreement
The meaning of life includes thinking about dying well

California’s End of Life Option law went into effect June 9. The law permits a physician to prescribe lethal medication to a patient with a terminal illness.

The law defines a terminal illness as “an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, result in death within six months.”

For some, this is a welcome expansion of the right to die with dignity. For others, it is a sign of a “culture of death.” In any case, the new law invites reflection on the meaning of dying and living well.

As the law went into effect, a lawsuit was filed aiming to block it. The plaintiffs include the American Academy of Medical Ethics, a conservative group that also is opposed to abortion and homosexuality.

The lawsuit contends terminal diagnoses often are not reliable. It states, “The business of prognosticating a patient’s future lifespan is inherently limited, if not altogether flawed.”

The lawsuit also worries that interested parties may coerce people into taking the suicide medication. Health care facilities or legal heirs may have a vested interest in seeing people die.

But the law makes it a felony to force someone to take the lethal medication. And it stipulates only one of the two mandatory witnesses can be an interested party.

The lawsuit views suicide as a mental health problem, connected to depression. From this perspective, suicide is irrational and people requesting it need psychological help, not access to deadly medicines.

This may explain why the California law maintains that the end of life option is not suicide. The law states, “Self-administration of an aid-in-dying drug is not suicide.” It explains, “Action taken in accordance with the act shall not constitute, among other things, suicide or homicide.”

The word “suicide” is laden with moral, emotional and legal significance. It remains illegal in California to abet a “suicide,” though the new law allows a doctor to prescribe “end of life” medication.

The euphemistic language of the legislation is unfortunate. It avoids the main ethical question, which is whether suicide is ever rational and morally permissible.

Some think suicide is always immoral. The Catholic tradition teaches that suicide is as wrong as murder. It rejects God’s sovereignty and refuses the commandment of self-love. Pope Francis recently argued that physician-assisted suicide was part of a “throwaway culture” linked to the “triumph of selfishness.”

Others disagree. A variety of traditions connect suicide to self-respect and rational autonomy. The Japanese code of the samurai – the bushido code – included ritual suicide in the face of dishonor. The ancient Roman Stoics had a similar idea.

The Stoic philosopher Seneca advised against clinging to life. He said, “The wise man will live as long as he ought, not as long as he can.” He concluded, “ It is not a question of dying earlier or later, but of dying well or ill.”

There is no middle position in this conflict of morals. Some believe death should be freely chosen and that it is better to die well than to live poorly. Others view suicide as inherently sinful. On the one hand, we have rational autonomy and the attempt to die with dignity. On the other, we have an obligation to respect God’s will.

There is space for some agreement. Several of the points discussed above should be a concern even for advocates of assisted suicide. Coercion is a danger. Misdiagnoses are a problem. Suffering people need palliative care. And the dying need spiritual support.

We will continue to disagree about assisted suicide. But each of us only has one life to live and one death to endure. Regardless of the outcome of the legal dispute, everyone ought to think about the morality of suicide.

This issue opens deep questions about life, the universe, and everything. Is life a right or an obligation? Is life always worth living? Are you entitled to make decisions about the time and manner of your own death?

Those are not easy questions. A meaningful life involves struggling with them. A good death comes only after we’ve made peace with the question of what makes life worth living and what counts as living and dying well.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article85829697.html#storylink=cpy

June 18, 2016June 18, 2016

Disgust, Ethics, and Violence

Feelings of disgust can provide emotional cover for racism, homophobia

Fresno Bee, June 18, 2016

Negative emotions interfere with moral judgment
Hate and disgust directed toward homosexuals is wrong
Education opens the mind and subdues the emotions

Inside-Out-DisgustAF-crop Disgust is a dangerous emotion. Racism, homophobia and other kinds of hate are emotional responses, closely linked to feelings of disgust. Moral development requires the mind to break free of reactionary emotions and the violence they provoke.

The Orlando shooter supposedly was disgusted by homosexuality. He may also have been disgusted by his own homosexual tendencies. The result was atrocity.

While most of us shuddered and grieved in the aftermath, some applauded. A Sacramento preacher, Roger Jimenez,suggested the government should round up homosexuals and “blow their brains out.” He said homosexuality is “disgusting.” Another preacher, Steven Anderson from Phoenix, welcomed the Orlando shootings as good news. He said, “Homosexuals are a bunch of disgusting perverts and pedophiles.”

These preachers claim that their hate is grounded in biblical principles. But the use of the word disgust points in a different direction. Disgust comes from the body. It is not the result of rational argument or biblical exegesis.

DISGUST COMES FROM THE BODY. IT IS NOT THE RESULT OF RATIONAL ARGUMENT OR BIBLICAL EXEGESIS.

Some ethicists claim that disgust is morally relevant. In bioethics, disgust has been identified as a source of insight. Leon Kass, a prominent bioethicist, suggests that the “yuck factor” points toward what he calls “the wisdom of repugnance.” When discussing human cloning, for example, Kass warns, “shallow are the souls that have forgotten how to shudder.”

But the shudder of the soul is merely a gut reaction. Disgust can be traced back to the body’s flight-or-fight response. It is related to fear of the foreign and unfamiliar. It is connected to anxiety about contamination and the desire for purity. The phobic reactions of our bodies should not cloud the judgment of our brains.

There are lots of things that seem yucky at first but can be justified upon further reflection. Organ transplantation provides an example. This was once viewed as creepy. But now nearly 80 people receive some kind of organ transplant in the U.S. every day.

There have been face, hand and even penis transplants. A Chinese doctor, Dr. Ren Xiaoping, wants to sever the head of a quadriplegic patient and attach it to a decapitated donor body.

The thought of a transplanted penis or head can make your stomach turn. But we can understand the value of using dead bodies to help the living. This seemingly gruesome surgery can help people live longer and better lives. And as long as the donors and recipients consent, it is none of our business.

Now some may claim that such transplants violate something essential about personal identity. Perhaps they even violate biblical principles. But any judgment here demands careful reflection. We need to make an argument instead of stating how we feel. And we need to realize that people will differ in their conclusions.

The same is true in discussions of homosexuality, politics or religion. Gut reactions are irrelevant. Moral judgment is complex. And people will differ – even with regard to what they find disgusting.

Now some view love as the antidote to hateful emotions. Love is an important emotion. But like all emotions, love is fickle. It quickly turns to loathing, as happens in crimes of passion, jealousy and revenge. Even love needs the guiding restraint of reason.

The real solution for hate, disgust and negative emotions is education. Familiarity diminishes revulsion. We learn that contamination is unlikely. We understand the justification of things. What was once repugnant soon becomes commonplace.

WE NEED TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT INSTEAD OF STATING HOW WE FEEL.

Kids learn to eat yucky vegetables. Medical students learn to dissect dead bodies. Transplant surgeries become commonly accepted. And most Americans have gotten used to homosexuality.

We may disagree about these things. But our disagreements should be rational – not emotional. Disgust blinds us. It interferes with empathy, kindness and compassion.

Understanding defuses disgust. Reason restrains the passions. And wisdom dawns when we realize that violence, hate and disgust are immature responses to a complex world.

This is why a broad and inclusive education is the key to moral progress. The body adapts as the mind is opened and the head masters the heart.

Emotional reaction can cause us to think that violence, anger and hate are a solution to our problems. But these are the very problems we must solve. We solve these problems by feeling less and thinking more, by cultivating reason and by subduing our reactionary emotions.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article84453892.html#storylink=cpy

June 11, 2016

Political Correctness and Free Speech

We need to hear bad ideas so we can argue against them

Fresno Bee, June 11, 2016

Free speech is the best cure for bad ideas
Political correctness gets in way of genuine dialogue
Americans don’t like political correctness

People don’t like political correctness. A February poll by CBS’ “60 Minutes” found that 55 percent of Americans think that political correctness is a danger to free speech. Nearly 70 percent of Republicans don’t like political correctness.

Donald Trump has made this a theme. In a January speech Trump said, “We’re going to protect Christianity, and I can say that. I don’t have to be politically correct.” In a recent response to the backlash about his criticism of Judge Gonzalo Curiel, Trump said, “We have to stop being so politically correct in this country.”

Trump supporters agree. In a story about a Fresno kid who was not allowed to wear a Trump hat to school, Brooke Ashjian said, “If he wants to wear the hat, he should. If people are disturbed, too bad. There is so much political correctness people are afraid to rally.”

Democratic dialogue depends upon liberty, honesty and accountability. Without sincerity and freedom we end up with hypocrisy and duplicity. This is not good in a democracy.

Nor is it good for the pursuit of truth. Philosopher John Locke once said, “the truth certainly would do well enough if she were once left to shift for herself.” Speech codes that limit the free exchange of ideas undermine the pursuit of knowledge.

When people say what they mean and mean what they say, we have a basis for judgment and evaluation. Without free and honest speech, we do not know what anyone really thinks. That’s a problem in democracy, in business, and in life.

Frank and forthright speech is revealing and occasionally disturbing. Consider what Trump’s unconstrained speech teaches us about him. He has admitted he is suspicious of Mexican-Americans and Muslims. It is better that we know this than if he kept those ideas to himself.

WE SHOULD HOPE THAT LIBERTY PROVIDES THE BEST CURE FOR STUPIDITY.

Free speech allows for education and progress. Consider the case of Leslie Rasmussen, who wrote a letter in support of a friend who was convicted of rape at Stanford. Rasmussen blamed her friend’s conviction on political correctness. She wrote, “Stop worrying about being politically correct every second of the day and see that rape on campuses isn’t always because people are rapists.”

To claim that rapists are not always rapists is a contradiction. The complaint about political correctness is a red herring. But that’s why we need free speech. If we don’t know what people think, we cannot evaluate their ideas – or criticize their logic. Nor can we change their minds.

Rasmussen’s remarks provoked a backlash. Her band was dropped from a number of concerts. Some may see this as an example of the stifling effect of political correctness. But it’s part of the free market of ideas. And the backlash allowed Rasmussen to clarify her position. She recently apologized for her remarks.

That’s an important lesson. Unconstrained speech can result in dumb things being said. No one is perfect. Sometimes our tongues outpace our brains. When we say something dumb we ought to correct it and apologize. Honesty and liberty require accountability.

WITHOUT SINCERITY AND FREEDOM WE END UP WITH HYPOCRISY AND DUPLICITY.

We learn and grow through free, sincere and accountable dialogue. When people say what they believe, we can evaluate them accordingly. We can even try to persuade them to think differently. But when discourse is constrained and people don’t say what they mean, we cannot have a productive dialogue.

In the best of all possible worlds there would be no hateful words. But in our flawed world, the next best thing is for bad ideas to come out of the closet. Political correctness can cause people to say the right thing for the wrong reasons, while remaining committed to dumb or indecent ideas.

Genuine civility remains an important good for social life. But genuine civility is not mere political correctness. Authentic civility is grounded in respect, compassion and commitment to the common good. Gandhi explained, “Civility does not mean mere outward gentleness of speech … but an inborn gentleness and desire to do the opponent good.”

Eloquent courtesy can mask cruelty and violence. Political correctness can be oppressive. And inhibited speech prevents genuine dialogue.

Americans have the right to say what we believe. We need to hear bad ideas, so we can argue against them. And we should hope that liberty provides the best cure for stupidity.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article82987487.html#storylink=cpy