#6 Amartya Sen. Beer. Brownies.

My Sunday night has comprised of reading Amartya Sen's book 'The Idea of Justice', drinking a superb beer called 'Aphrodisiaque', and eating chocolate brownies. It could be the incredible potency of the beer (it packs a considerable 6.5% ABV) but I'm feeling pretty good about life in general at the moment. I got a call earlier this week to inform me that I'd got the job at QPAC, tomorrow night we're hosting a party, and swotvac has just begun. Anyways, I'll tell you a little about 'The Idea of Justice' based on what I've read so far (I'll be sure to write a better review when I've finished reading it).

I hadn't read much of Amartya Sen before I bought 'The Idea of Justice' so I had no idea whether or not it would be my sort of style at all. As it turns out I find Sen incredibly easy to read and very engaging. His prose reminds me of reading Peter Singer (although obviously the content is quite different), it isn't unnecessarily academic or esoteric (as a lot of philosophy can tend to be) yet at the same time it doesn't undermine the intelligence of the reader. As the title suggests the theme seems to be concerned with 'justice'. Most of the philosophy that I read is concerned with morality or ethics and seems to focus on 'right-ness' or 'wrong-ness' of the decisions that we make. 'The Idea of Justice' takes a broader look at morality and focuses on the institutions and social systems that we live in. 'The idea of Justice' has the same sorts of aims as Rawl's 'A theory of Justice' and Nozick's 'Anarchy, State, and Utopia' and could probable be labelled as a sort of political philosophy.

I'm only 87 pages in so far so I can't really tell you much about Sen's theories yet, but I can tell you that Sen's work is worth reading if only for his prose and background. So far I've learnt about Ashoka Maurya and the ancient approaches to justice of Niti and Nyaya. It feels good to hear about the history and philosophy from non-western countries and it is, I think, hugely beneficial from a philosophical perspective to do so in order to avoid cultivating a 'west is best' prejudice. Anyhow, so far Sen hasn't actually began explaining his own theories and has just explained how and why his theory will differ from the Rawls' 'Theory of Justice' and the problems with trancendental institutionalism.  

***************

#5 - Marriage Privatisation & Nietzsche

The way I see it there are 2 ways to achieve marriage equality in Australia:

1) Give same-sex couples the same marriage rights as straight couples;

OR

2) Take away the marriage rights of straight couples. 

It seems that option 1 gets far more coverage in the media, which is a fact I find interesting. What exactly is so important about marriage that abolishing the institution altogether is frowned upon so much? Perhaps it is my place in culture that makes it easy for me to question these things - I am told that marriage was taken much more serious 50 years ago. Now, however, people get divorced as much as they get married and the 'sanctity' of marriage isn't really apparent. The reason that I think people are hanging on to the marriage idea is simply because it is culturally ingrained into them. Here is a passage from Nietzsche that I think reflects this ideology perfectly:

Custom and what is in accordance with it.— To be moral, to act in accordance with custom, to be ethical means to practice obedience towards a law or tradition established from of old. Whether one submits to it gladly or with difficulty makes no difference; enough that one submits. We call “good" the man who does the moral thing as if by nature, after a long history of inheritance—that is, easily, and gladly, whatever it is (he will, for example, practice revenge when that is considered moral, as in the older Greek culture). He is called good because he is good “for" something. But because, as mores changed, goodwill, pity, and the like were always felt to be “good for" something, useful, it is primarily the man of goodwill, the helpful man, who is called “good." To be evil is to be “not moral" (immoral), to practice bad habits, go against tradition, however reasonable or stupid it may be. To harm one’s fellow, however, has been felt primarily as injurious in all moral codes of different times, so that when we hear the word “bad" now, we think particularly of voluntary injury to one’s fellow. When men determine between moral and immoral, good and evil, the basic opposition is not “egoism" and “selflessness," but rather adherence to a tradition or law, and release from it. The origin of the tradition makes no difference, at least concerning good and evil, or an immanent categorical imperative; but is rather above all for the purpose of maintaining a community, a people. Every superstitious custom, originating in a coincidence that is interpreted falsely, forces a tradition that it is moral to follow. To release oneself from it is dangerous, even more injurious for the community than for the individual (because the divinity punishes the whole community for sacrilege and violation of its rights, and the individual only as a part of that community). Now, each tradition grows more venerable the farther its origin lies in the past, the more it is forgotten; the respect paid to the tradition accumulates from generation to generation; finally the origin becomes sacred and awakens awe; and thus the morality of piety is in any case much older than that morality which requires selfless acts. (Human, All too Human 96)

This is one of my favorite passages of Nietzcshe that I have read so far and reflects the mob morality that I come across every day. Most people simply accept that there are things that are right and wrong without questioning the arbitrary tradition that has led them to this belief. It is these people that will repeatedly assert "But marriage is between a man and woman!" with the belief that they have genuinely asserted a statement of worth. I don't believe that these generations deserve abuse for what are now seen as outdated values; to quote Nietzsche once more:

Socrates and Plato are right: Whatever man does he always does the good, that is to say: that which seems to him good (useful) according to the relative degree of his intellect, the measure of his rationality. (Human, All too Human 102)   

Outside of philosophical circles it is quite rational to base ideals for the future on the successful ideals of the past. For this reason I don't think that it is fair to say that those who have a knee-jerk reaction against same-sex marriage are immoral or stupid or anything else like that. It is, however, blameworthy to keep a closed mind or refuse to acknowledge relevant details of a situation.

I'll keep this post brief because my desires to run off on a tangent are becoming unbearable. The point I am trying to make is that there is another often overlooked solution to the same-sex marriage problem that maintains equality. Contrary to popular criticism I do not believe that privatizing marriage would de-value it in any way, rather it would strengthen the bonds of marriage because of the personal ties that people could make. Perhaps marriage could still be a 'legal bond' in that the vows written by the wed-couple must be abided by or else an agreed consequence would occur but this really isn't the important part. The important part is the 'expressive aspect' of marriage discussed by Martha Nussbaum in 'From Disgust to Humanity'. Marriage expresses a a public declaration of love that not only proudly defines the persons involved but deserves recognition by the public. I do not believe that privatizing marriage would degrade this 'expressive aspect' of marriage at all.

#4 - Earthlings. And why I am a Vegetarian.

So I just finished watching 'Earthlings'. It's a documentary about Speciesism and particularly the treatment of non-human animals by humans. I am already a vegetarian so I didn't experience quite as much self-hate as the first time I watched a documentary of this kind, but it was still good to re-enforce my ethical position. Part of the reason I started this blog was so that I didn't drive my housemates psychotic by engaging them in non-consensual philosophical discussion. It didn't work. Immediately after watching 'earthlings' moey and I started talking again about why I am a vegetarian. (or rather I spoke at moey about why I am a vegetarian). People ask me this question a lot, so i'll do my best in explaining my position the best I can whilst trying to avoid seeming too self righteous (which is, I think, a common perception of vegetarians).

NOTE: I would like to first alert the reader that I am purposely adopting a position of epistemological skepticism for this bit of writing. This is because I do not want to seem biased in any way. Because of this I've made some assumptions that probably allow a little too much skepticism into my argument. I figure if I can get an successful argument going whilst remaining skeptical at all times I will have done ok.


When I talk with some meat-eaters they are supremely charitable in their descriptions of factory farms. I hear things like 'But if we didn't farm them they'd be left out in the elements and that is worse than factory farming' and 'They are given all the food they need without needing to search for it, how great is that' and 'All the bad factory farms are overseas, it's not like that in Australia'. Conversely I'll admit that documentaries like 'earthlings' probably intentionally highlight the worst parts of the farming.

There is a fairly steadfast empirical solution to all of this - Simply start visiting slaughterhouses and farms and don't stop until you've visited them all. After investigating all of them you'd hopefully have a pretty informed and trustworthy hypothesis on the ethical status of factory farming as a whole. Unfortunately however, I do not have the means nor the time to conduct such an investigation so I will have to attempt to give a charitable generalization. This generalization would have to place the wellbeing of animals within factory farms as being somewhere in between zero suffering (as some meat-eaters would like to believe) and severe suffering (as the vegetarian documentaries portray). So let's generalize and say that there exists both types of factory farms; those in which animals do not suffer at all and those in which animals suffer greatly. There is also a middle ground (which I would assume represents the bulk of factory farms) in which a moderate amount of suffering is felt.

NOTE: You may have noticed that I chose to use the terms Zero, Moderate, and Severe suffering rather than something like Blissful Existence, Neutral Existence, and Agonizing Existence. I have adopted to avoid prescribing the possibility of animals having a Blissful Existence in a factory farm and instead accepted the lesser claim that they might experience Zero Suffering. (which by some definitions, i.e. negative hedonism, is equal to pleasure anyway).


I'll assume that you accept this generalization and I'll move on. I'd like to also take on the optimistic assumption that as human beings we do not want to cause undue suffering. Given the generalization that there are 3 types of factory farms out there (Suffering Free Farms, Moderate Suffering Farms, and Severe Suffering Farms) It would be causing undue suffering to choose anything other than the 'Suffering Free Farm'. I think this is fairly self explanatory: To choose anything other than the Suffering Free Farm meat would be to incur suffering that could be easily avoided (namely by purchasing the Suffering Free Meat).

The problem is that the average consumer simply isn't given enough information about whether or not the meat they come across at woolies or coles has come from a 'Suffering Free Farm'. Nor does the average consumer  have the drive to investigate the source of their meat themselves either. So more often than not the consumer simply picks up whatever is on the shelf. If this is the case then each time the consumer picks up a cut of meat they are taking a gamble on whether or not the meat was humanely raised. If one has accepted my above generalization then a meat buyer is taking a gamble between buying meat that has come from a Suffering Free Farm, a Moderate Suffering Farm, or a Severe Suffering Farm. In keeping with my intentional perspective of epistemological skepticism, and having avoided the task of exhaustive empirical investigation, I have to assume that I have no knowledge whatsoever of the percentages of meat produced by the three aforementioned farms and therefore must make my decision under conditions of extreme ignorance and uncertainty.

I would argue that a logical approach to making a decision under complete ignorance would be to simply assume that each possibility has equal odds of occurring. Under this account there are 2 unacceptable results (Moderate and Severe Suffering) adding up to a percentage chance of 66.66% chance that you have chosen one of these cuts of meat and a remaining 33.33% chance that you have chosen meat that has come from a Suffering Free Farm. It seems that the chances of getting meat from a Suffering Free Farm is less than the chances you will get inhumanely raised meat.

NOTE: If I had decided to go with the alternative scheme of Blissful Existence, Neutral Existence, and Agonizing Existence my argument would probably have become quite interesting as the value of a Neutral Existence would come into question. Ultimately though it doesn't really matter either way because as I am about to explain having just one unacceptable option in the realm of possibilities amounts to the chance to cause undue suffering, which is something that we have agreed we want to avoid.

We are now stuck with the dilemma that we want to avoid inflicting undue suffering but have no control over knowing whether or not we will do so. I reached this dilemma myself and came up with a few solutions:

1) Just don't eat meat.
2) Investigate the source of all meat that I buy to ensure it is ethically raised and slaughtered.
3) Raise my own animals for slaughter so I can personally ensure that they enjoy a healthy, happy, natural life with a painless departure.

All of these options seemed pretty difficult to me but I ended up going with option one. I decided that if skipping meat was a tremendously awful experience I would move on to option two and then again, if awful, on to option three. As it happened however going without meat was pretty easy and I don't really even miss it now. I still do occasionally eat meat, for example if my housemate has purchased too much meat for dinner and is about to throw it out I may eat some if I'm hungry - I don't see the harm in consuming meat that would otherwise be waste material. I just don't gamble on my chances of supporting an inhumane industry when I'm at the supermarket.

#3. QPAC.

I had a pretty swell day today. 

I had a group interview for a job at QPAC. Contrary to my expectations it was actually a pretty fun experience. There were about 20 of us and we all started out together in a large foyer area just waiting around. The tension was beautiful. For some reason it gave me a great pleasure to look around and watch everyone watching everyone else. It's an interesting scenario - the group interview. So anyway we all stood around looking at each other pretending to be friendly whilst (at least subconsciously) sizing up our opposition. It was great.

Once we got started it was revealed that we would participate in a few group activities. These were the type of thing that you can probably remember doing in primary school, i.e. building a tower out of newspaper (no really, we did that). It was, quite honestly, the most enjoyable job interview I've ever had. Sure, everyone knows that you've got your potential employers watching over you to see whether you decide to hog the sticky tape but nobody really minded. I was fun. To make it better there I also developed a bit of an infatuation with one of the other applicants (not that she'd know it given the 5-6 words I spoke to her all day). I really hope that we both get the job so that I can actually have a chance to talk to her. So job prospects are looking up.

Now I'm at home, eating some potato and parsnip soup I made and drinking one of my top 5 favorite beers - Don De Dieu. It is pretty incredible. I'm feeling pretty chuffed. 

#2 - The Catcher in the rye.

I just finished reading 'The Catcher in the Rye' by J.D Salinger. You've probably read it, but if you haven't it's an introspective, stream-of-consciousness style book about the main character Holden's perspective on the world. It's an angsty piece of writing with a sort of observational dark wit. Holden isn't exactly a likable character (not for me anyway), but he's understandable; he's relate-able. The tone of the whole book is almost too personal; it feels like someone has gone into your brain and extracted all your most cynical thoughts and put them on paper. Holden's outlook on life reminds me of the sort of thinking that I have at the end of one of those days were everything has turned to shit and there is nothing left to do to make yourself feel better but to pretend that the problem lies in everyone else.

I finished the book and was both glad I read it and glad it was over. Because the plot line was so subtle (much more a story of mental development more than actual events) the appeal of the book rests upon whether or not you like (or can relate to) the main character Holden. For me, Holden represents that part of me that I have but wish I didn't; I imagine this is how lots of people feel after reading The Catcher in the Rye. Holden is the part of you that feels isolated because you can never truly understand how anyone else feels and neither can they truly understand you. He's the part of you that observes people exchanging culturally ingrained but repulsively fake pleasantries and wants to smite the world for the being so fickle.

Nevertheless it's not all existentialism and social criticism; amongst the angst there is plenty of observational humour, some nice emotional character development between Holden and his sister Phoebe and countless exposés of the 'phony-ness' of society. It's also interesting to read because of the language differences - the word 'damn' is used often and (i think) meant to be pretty offensive. That being said it's a super easy read and still feels pretty relevant to today. Oh yeah, thanks Lottie for suggesting this one to me. :)

#1

I have a blog now. I'll be using this blog mostly to rant about things that people generally don't want to hear about. So on that note, WELCOME.

My first batch of beer finished brewing today and on the whole it was a failure. Well, not exactly a failure, but not really a party-in-your-mouth sort of sensation. Still, for my first time brewing beer from scratch (grains, water, hops, yeast, sugar, none of this 'kit' stuff) I'm fairly satisfied with the stuff. The good thing about my beer is that it only takes one week to brew because I make it on such a micro scale (only 5 liters at a time) and have developed a method to merge the traditional primary and secondary stages of fermentation into a single stage. So I think with a little tweaking I could get a pretty inexpensive small scale brewing operation going. . . (if my motivation lasts).

So far the problems are as follows:

1) Carbonation is pretty weak.
2) Beer has bits of grain in it and is cloudy.
3) Alcohol Content is a little lower that I would like (It is currently at 3.5% ABV, about the same as a XXXX Gold)

Fortunately I know how I'm going to fix these problems for the next batch and I'll let you know how it all goes.