Posts

Posted on

Schadenfreude, Civility, and the Presidential Debates

Presidential debate reminds us we need less spite and more pity

Fresno Bee, October 1, 2016

 

We ought to cooperate to build each other up, rather than seeking to tear each other down.

The National Institute for Civil Discourse has issued a set of civility standards for the presidential debates. These standards ask us all to be respectful, responsive and responsible.

After this week’s debate, the group conducted a civility survey. Most respondents thought Hillary Clinton was more civil than Donald Trump. But civility is often in the eye of the beholder.

There were strong remarks from both sides. Clinton accused Trump of saying crazy things. She laughed at him. She accused him of being a racist. And she warned about his temperament.

Trump accused Clinton of being “totally out of control” and lacking stamina. At one point, Trump said he could have said something “very rough” about Clinton and her family, but that he refrained from doing so because it is “inappropriate” and “not nice.”

Trump went on to complain about Clinton’s negative attack ads. Trump said, “It’s not nice. And I don’t deserve that.” Soon enough Trump was attacking Clinton out on the campaign trail.

Watching wrecks

I leave it to you to draw your own partisan conclusion about who is naughty or nice here. I’m interested in a larger problem. I worry that we secretly hope for outrage and scandal. And it seems we often get what we ask for.

The debate drew a huge TV audience. Some people probably tuned in for the same reason they occasionally watch auto racing. We like to watch people get smashed up. Hypocrisy is fascinating. Buffoonery is entertaining. Offensive remarks give us something to preach about.

I have to admit that I watched the debate secretly hoping to witness a train wreck. As I watched, I felt for a moment like a kid egging on a fight. I’m not proud of that. A presidential debate has profound implications for the future of the world. But I watched it hoping for scandal.

What’s wrong with us? Why do kids yell “fight, fight, fight” with such glee? Perhaps they, and we, are bored, secretly hoping for mischief.

Civil discourse and serious deliberation is often boring. Reality television, the 24/7 news cycle, and the rest of pop culture keep us addicted to bizarre behavior. It is not edifying but it is entertaining.

Schadenfreude

Another concern is that we are often motivated by schadenfreude. That’s the feeling of joy that is experienced when witnessing someone else’s misfortune.

17420schadenfreudeThe philosopher Immanuel Kant called schadenfreude a devilish vice. It is connected to selfishness, envy, cruelty and bloodthirstiness.

We laugh when other people fail. We enjoy seeing the powerful fall from grace. We are fascinated by humiliation. We gawk at other people’s shame. And sometimes we egg on cruelty.

Of course, this is all morally corrupt. Cynicism and schadenfreude do nothing to make the world better. Cruel laughter is hateful. Sarcasm breeds contempt. And cynicism causes us to disengage from the world.

Another way

The solution is a moral one. Other people’s failing should inspire compassion, not cruelty. It may sound naïve, but it is true: We need less spite and more pity, less hate and more love.

We ought to cooperate to build each other up, rather than seeking to tear each other down. Rather than honing in on other people’s defects, we ought to strive to see their beauty. It is wrong to put someone else down in order to boost yourself. Our words and deeds should contribute to the common good.

This is all part of a humane and civil morality. It’s what we ought to teach our children at home and in the classroom. This is how businesses ought to be run. And it is essential for a functioning democracy.

We are all responsible for growing incivility. Insults, taunts and bullying only work when there is a receptive audience. At the Trump-Clinton debate, the audience was instructed to remain silent. But the audience could not restrain itself. They laughed and applauded, despite themselves. And soon enough, back out on the campaign trail, partisan audiences egged on incivility.

Incivility in the presidential campaign is a symptom of a larger disease. If the candidates are more uncivil than they used to be, that’s because we allow them to get away with it – and also because we get a thrill from watching train wrecks.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article105137046.html#storylink=cpy
Posted on

Death penalty ethics

To kill or not to kill? Death penalty debate weighs heavy on us all

Fresno Bee, September 24, 2016

Two rival death penalty initiatives are on the November ballot. Proposition 62 seeks to abolish the death penalty. Proposition 66 intends to make it more efficient. The moral questions raised are complex.

Opponents of the death penalty argue that killing is always wrong. Defenders of capital punishment believe that some criminals deserve death. Between these two positions there is little common ground.

BEFORE VOTING IN NOVEMBER, TAKE TIME TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE. AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT DECENT PEOPLE WILL DISAGREE ABOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, AS WE DO ABOUT OTHER VEXING MORAL QUESTIONS.

ladyjustice-previewDeath penalty defenders often understand punishment as retribution. Retributive justice is intuitively appealing. The scales of justice are balanced by restitution and retaliation. Thieves should pay back what they’ve stolen. And if you take a life, you owe a life.

Critics worry that retributivism is too closely linked to revenge. Revenge seems to provide emotional catharsis. There is pleasure and power in hurting those who harm us.

Donald Trump tapped into this emotional element this week when he called for “just and very harsh punishment” for a recently captured terrorist. Someone in the crowd yelled, “hang him.”

Death penalty opponents reject vengeful calls for harsh punishment. At the 6th World Congress Against the Death Penalty this year, Pope Francis argued that the death penalty “does not render justice to victims, but instead fosters vengeance.” He continued, “The commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ has absolute value and applies both to the innocent and to the guilty.”

Modern executions don’t satisfy vengeful emotions. Lethal injection kills without spilling blood. The modern trend is toward more humane and less cruel punishments. A possible place for common ground is found in the idea that cruel bloodlust is wrong and that suffering should be minimized.

We certainly don’t behead or crucify people – and we condemn other cultures that do. We don’t hold public executions. Crowds no longer mock the condemned on the gallows.

But a more public and bloody execution system might work as a deterrent for crime. Our sanitized, secretive and infrequent executions don’t scare anyone.

If the death penalty worked as a deterrent, it might be justified as socially beneficial. However, research on the deterrent effect of the death penalty is inconclusive. And the death penalty is applied so infrequently in California that any deterrent effect is lost.

There are reasons to be skeptical of the deterrent effect of the death penalty. Violent criminals seem to accept violence. Armed bandits understand that they may be shot while committing a crime. The threat of execution will not deter suicidal terrorists.

Further reflection points toward political questions. For example, some fear expansive and corrupt government power. In a debate about capital punishment with Hillary Clinton,Bernie Sanders said, “I just don’t believe that government itself should be part of the killing.”

Libertarians tend to agree with Sanders about limiting the state’s power to kill. Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson opposes the death penalty because he worries that innocent people may be executed. He has reportedly said, “I don’t want to put one innocent person to death to punish 99 who are guilty.”

Concern about the chance of executing an innocent person is connected to larger concerns about fairness in the justice system. Racial and class-based issues should be considered here. Abolitionists think that the justice system will not fairly apply the ultimate punishment. Reformers want to make sure that the system is fair and just.

In her debate with Sanders, Clinton asserted her trust in the federal court system. She defended the use of the death penalty for heinous crimes and said that she has “confidence in the federal system.”

It may be surprising that Clinton agrees with Trump about the justification of the death penalty. It is not surprising that Trump goes further than Clinton in supporting aggressive policing – and even torture – as necessary for maintaining social order.

Beyond the politics, we should consider higher moral goods. Death penalty opponents extol peaceful virtues such as mercy, gentleness, and forgiveness. But death penalty advocates see retributive justice as required by the ancient law of eye for eye, life for life.

Serious and good people have disagreed about this for millennia. There are compelling arguments on each side. Before voting in November, take time to discuss the issue. And acknowledge that decent people will disagree about capital punishment, as we do about other vexing moral questions.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article103665217.html#storylink=cpy
Posted on

The National Anthem, The Pledge of Allegiance, and Democracy

How about a civil dialogue on civic pride?

Fresno Bee, September 17, 2016

Flag protests have broken out all over. Following Colin Kaepernick’s lead, NFL players have taken a knee or raised a fist during the playing of the national anthem. High school athletes have joined in. A Missouri state senator, Jamilah Nasheed, recently sat out the Pledge of Allegiance, as did a New York City councilman, Jumaane D. Williams.

screen-shot-2015-07-10-at-2-58-28-pm_vice_970x435Responses to these protests have been interesting. The band Kiss led their audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. Singer Paul Stanley said, “Patriotism is always cool.” Singer Kid Rock was less subtle. He referred to Kaepernick with an expletive while singing in front of a massive American flag. Less subtle still was an Alabama high school football announcer who suggested that anthem protesters should be shot.

As this unfolded, I’ve been helping to organize a Constitution Day event at Fresno State. One of my colleagues, civic education expert John Minkler, proposed starting the event with the pledge. Minkler sees the pledge as an affirmation of the social contract that helps stimulate reflection on patriotism and the constitutional system.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Student organizers were less enthusiastic about including the pledge. Some wondered whether the pledge was constitutional. They worried that the phrase “under God” seems to violate the First Amendment. They were concerned that the pledge seems to exclude non-Christians.

But the courts have allowed expressions of “ceremonial deism” such as the pledge – as well as “In God we trust” and other phrases. In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court decided against a Sacramento atheist, Michael Newdow, who claimed that the pledge was unconstitutional.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor explained in her opinion in that case that ceremonial references to God serve only to “solemnize an occasion” without endorsing any particular religion. She hinted that students who object to religious words can simply not say them, while participating in the rest of the pledge.

Students also are allowed to opt out of the pledge entirely. Recently in Chicago, a teacher tried to force a student to stand for the pledge. The teacher was reprimanded and the student was vindicated.

The pledge was invented in 1892. In the early days, people saluted with an open palm raised toward the flag. This looked like the Nazi salute. So in the 1940s people began covering their hearts instead of raising their hands. The words “under God” were added to the pledge in 1954 during the anti-Communist era.

Since the beginning there have been protests. Jehovah’s Witnesses have refused to say the pledge, saying that flag salutes are a form of idolatry. In a 1940 case concerning Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Supreme Court defended compulsory pledging of allegiance saying, “National unity is the basis of national security.” But in 1943 the court reversed itself saying, “Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds, inspired by a fair administration of wise laws.”

At around this time, the American philosopher John Dewey suggested that the pledge had become a pale substitute for the reality of justice and liberty for all. He identified mistreatment of “Negroes,” anti-Semitism, and opposition to “alien immigrants” as significant problems.

WHETHER WE RECITE THE PLEDGE OR STAY SILENT, WHETHER WE KNEEL OR COVER OUR HEARTS, WE SHOULD ALWAYS THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT OUR WORDS, OUR DEEDS AND OUR COMMON HUMANITY.

Seventy years later, we are confronting similar issues. Those who protest the pledge and the national anthem likely believe that we need liberty and justice for all. But they believe we are failing to live up to that ideal.

If there is hope and common ground here, it lies in those underlying values. Justice, equality, liberty and respect for persons are essential values of a common human morality. Those values transcend any flag or religion.

Some criticize the pledge as a kind of nationalistic indoctrination. But the ethical ideals expressed in the pledge point beyond jingoistic patriotism and religious exclusivism toward cosmopolitan concern for liberty and justice for all.

Liberty and justice are fragile and complicated. They cannot be defended by shouted expletives or silent gestures. Rather, they require civil dialogue that seeks common ground and mutual understanding.

Liberty and justice are destroyed by violence and incivility. This is true whether you protest the flag or protest the protesters. Whether we recite the pledge or stay silent, whether we kneel or cover our hearts, we should always think carefully about our words, our deeds and our common humanity.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article102243777.html#storylink=cpy
Posted on

Impeachment, The Constitution, and Civics

Is the United States heading for an impeachment crisis?

Fresno Bee, September 10, 2016

 

Democracy is both inspiring and appalling. This year in California we will vote on initiatives involving the death penalty, firearms, taxes and health care. We also will vote on whether marijuana should be legal and whether porn actors should wear condoms.

There is no guarantee that voting will produce wise and virtuous outcomes. Porn addicts and potheads will cast votes alongside priests and police officers.

The national race does not inspire confidence in the electoral process. The primaries have given us two flawed candidates for president. Each accuses the other of mendacity and incompetence. With this level of animosity before the election, dysfunction likely will follow. Some commentators have suggested that there will be an impeachment crisis in the next few years, no matter who gets elected president.

Democracy can produce good outcomes. Smart and sincere voters can elect virtuous officials who are dedicated to the common good. But the fact of diversity means that we will disagree about what we mean by virtue and the common good. And so democracy also gives us gripes, grievances and gridlock.

THE PRESENT ELECTION PROVIDES A WONDERFUL TEACHABLE MOMENT. CIVICS EDUCATION INCLUDES A DISCUSSION OF THE VIRTUES AND VICES OF DEMOCRACY AS WELL AS ANALYSIS OF THE STRUCTURE AND HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Philosophers have often criticized democracy. Plato warned that democracy can quickly turn to tyranny, as the people elect tyrants who make populist promises while plotting to take advantage.

John Adams, our second president, shared Plato’s worry. He warned about the dangers of direct democracy. He said: “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet, that did not commit suicide.”

The framers of the U.S. Constitution tried to remedy the flaws of democracy by giving us mixed government with a separation of powers. That idea goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks. A mixed government is not very efficient. But it aims to prevent tyranny by frustrating the machinations of those who lust for power.

Another remedy focuses on educating citizens. This idea was dear to Thomas Jefferson. In a letter to James Madison in 1787, Jefferson wrote that education of the common people is the best way to secure liberty.

A similar argument is made in a forthcoming book by educational and moral theorists Nel Noddings and Laurie Brooks. The book “Teaching Controversial Issues” maintains that critical thinking and moral education are essential for democracy.

NO NATION IS PERFECT.

The authors argue that democratic schools should encourage critical thinking rather than blind obedience. We need to give young people the tools to analyze and evaluate controversial topics, while inspiring them to remain committed to the common good. The goal “is to develop thoughtful, well-informed citizens for a participatory democracy.”

The present election provides a wonderful teachable moment. Civics education includes a discussion of the virtues and vices of democracy as well as analysis of the structure and history of the Constitution.

It is easy and fun to celebrate the myths of uncritical patriotism. But the truth is more complicated. No nation is perfect. There are no utopias. The flaws in political systems reflect flaws in human nature. People are not perfect. Nor are the systems we construct.

On Sept. 17, 1787, when Benjamin Franklin made a motion to approve the Constitution, he acknowledged that there was no perfect constitution. Human beings always bring with them “their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views.” So no human constitution can ever be perfect.

But rather than leaving us discouraged, this should invigorate us. There is work to be done to improve the world. In the end, we get the democracy we deserve. We build the world we live in with our questions and criticism as well as our votes.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article100862147.html#storylink=cpy
Posted on

Kaepernick, Racism, and Football

Can we look past Kaepernick and actually talk about race?

Fresno Bee, September 3, 2016

The Kaepernick kerfuffle is an example of how moral discourse works in the Twitter era. San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick refused to stand during the national anthem.He explained, “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”

The response was typical. Donald Trump suggested Kaepernick should find another country. Fans burned Kaepernick’s jersey. Supporters spoke of Kaepernick’s right to free speech. A group of veterans for Kaepernick defended his “right to sit down.”

Instead of talking about the race problem in America, the conversation shifted to Kaepernick’s refusal and his right to free speech. Soon enough people were criticizing Kap’s socks. He wore seemingly anti-police socks during practice.

racism-2014How bizarre. Racial injustice continues to be a problem without a solution. Poverty and prison plague the black community. Unarmed black men are shot by police. Riots break out. And here we are talking about a quarterback’s socks.

Rather than talk about race and justice, we prefer to change the subject. It’s easier to cast stones at a celebrity than to think about complex questions of social justice.

Kaepernick has the right to sit out the anthem or wear socks of his own choice. But defending that right does not confront the tough question of racial injustice and inequality. We skim the surface and avoid the depths.

Of flag salutes and other rituals

And so it goes with flag salutes and other rituals. They are nice. But they are only skin deep. We can mouth the words without meaning them.

At least Kaepernick appeared to be thinking about the meaning of the flag he chose not to salute. Of course, we cannot dig into the secret recesses of his mind. Nor can we plumb the souls of the athletes and fans who stand and salute.

The conscience is a deep well where we ruminate on meaning. Songs, salutes and socks rest on the surface. The commitments of the heart are independent of the motions of the body. To get to the heart of the matter we need to talk, listen and think.

Standing for the flag is fine. But flag salutes are symbolic, not substantial. Some claimed Kaepernick was disrespecting the troops. But we support the troops most directly by paying our taxes.

Which brings us back to football, which has a strong commitment to supporting the troops. Until last year, the league itself didn’t pay taxes, since it was listed as a tax-exempt nonprofit. To be fair, local franchises pay taxes. But the NFL itself did not, even though the commissioner earned $30 million to $40 million a year.

At any rate, it is strange that the football industry has become a public good, wrapped in the flag, when it is a profitable private enterprise. This is no stranger, I suppose, than the fact that Budweiser renamed its beer “America” this summer and covered the label with patriotic slogans. Budweiser is owned, in case you are wondering, by a foreign beverage corporation named InBev.

Many layers of patriotism

This is a reminder of the complexity of flags and patriotism. Patriotism can be heartfelt and sincere. Or it can be thoughtless jingoism. Patriotism may also be conscientious loyalty to a nation’s highest moral principles. And in some cases patriotism is a useful marketing strategy.

The Roman author Juvenal worried that the Romans were too focused on “bread and circuses.” Today it is football and beer. Trivial distractions undermine thoughtful and sincere citizenship. They keep us too preoccupied to have meaningful conversations about morality, justice and the common good.

And so we mock easy targets and ignore the hard questions. Kaepernick is a millionaire with weird socks sitting alone on the bench. It’s easy to malign the man. But the difficult question of race in America remains on the table.

That question is connected to complex social, psychological, economic and political questions. Like every other important question, the racial problem needs long and careful deliberation. But we ignore that complexity when we blast away on Twitter.

Marketing and propaganda make us think that the truth is obvious and easy to understand. In reality, important ideas take a lifetime to figure out. And flags, socks and songs only touch the surface of things.

Andrew Fiala is a professor of philosophy and director of The Ethics Center at Fresno State:fiala.andrew@gmail.com

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article99549522.html#storylink=cpy