Sexist Irony, Retro Sexism, and Poe's Law

Sexist Irony, Retro Sexism, and Poe's Law

So lately I've been getting increasingly irritated with sexist jokes. Part of the reason that I've been becoming so annoyed is simply the vast quantity of these jokes that I come across. The rest of my frustration comes from a surprising part of myself that turns out to be rather feminist. I've never really thought of myself in such terms but given the conversations I've had with people lately I should probably accept it. And you know what? I think I will. Sexist Irony, also known as Retro Sexism, is still sexism - And I'll gladly be one of the kill-joys that spells it all out.

I see and hear sexist jokes all the time. I hear them from people I despise and from close friends. The sexist joke has become somewhat like a 'knock knock' joke - Normalised, predictable, and tired. The only difference is that a knock-knock joke doesn't risk undoing decades of work trying to establish a more egalitarian world for women. Yeah yeah, I can hear you now - 'Listen to Andrew getting all melodramatic - they're just jokes'. Well yeah, they're jokes for us, the post-feminism generation. We can appreciate the irony of telling a woman to 'get back in the kitchen, or saying 'make me a sammich' because we understand the context that makes the joke funny - the stereotype of the 50's housewife. But what about the people who don't understand the context of the joke yet find it funny anyways - why are they laughing? On the internet it's especially hard to distinguish between 'edgy jokers' and 'sexist jerks'; the digital medium with its lack of expressive capabilities (tone of voice, facial expressions, etc) means that sexist jokes are bound to be misinterpreted.

Imagine you had a friend who liked to make racist jokes. Oh yeah, he's edgy, brave, non-conformist - But how many racist jokes does he have to tell before you suspect that he may actually be racist?

All this is reminiscent of Poe's Law, which essentially states that: 'a parody of something extreme by nature (sexism) becomes impossible to distinguish from sincere extremism'. I think that the current trend in 'parodying' sexism is becoming increasing difficult to distinguish from actual sexism. 

A new term for this trend is 'Retro Sexism'. Retro Sexism is defined here as being: 'Modern attitudes and behaviours that mimic or glorify sexist aspects of the past, often in an ironic way.' There is also a really interesting youtube video on Retro Sexism here ^^^ (you only really need to watch the first minute or so to get the gist of it). An example of 'Retro Sexism' might be your average 'women in the kitchen' joke. Even though I don't find them particularly funny provided that everyone understands that the joke is made ironically then theoretically there is no harm done.

BUT, when I see things like this. . .

I think otherwise. So maybe you wonder 'what is the difference between a 'women in the kitchen / make me a sammich' joke and the above image?'? The difference is that 'Christina' in the image above has completely missed the irony - she's treating the JOKE as REALITY! Worse more is that she is endorsing the sexist message!

The underlying message that Christina seems to be trying to convey is that girls should  either A) have a boyfriend that they make sandwiches for, or B) not have a boyfriend at all. Fuck that. If I were a girl I wouldn't want some asshole boyfriend with an attitude of entitlement that asks for (and expects) sandwiches simply because he thinks he 'deserves it'. Women are (and should know that they are) 'special enough' to deny making their boyfriend a sandwich without being seen as 'bad girlfriends' or anything else. And we ('we' referring to anyone who has ever made a sexist joke - myself included) need to stop normalising this type of culture before we actually revert to a pre-feminist era. Notice that the picture comes from a website called EpicLOL.com? - This shit is funny? THIS has gone VIRAL?! It makes me want to stab myself in the eye with a fork. Personally I'd like to find girl with the independence and self-esteem to defend herself from over-dominance or oppressive attitudes. Nothing is more of a turn-off than a doormat.

Anyways, the point is that what began as jokes are now regrettably becoming a part of our culture - It's Poe's Law in action. 'Women in the kitchen' style jokes are sexist, cliché, and becoming less and less funny by the second - Please stop telling them. Also, this:

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

Nepal - Day 16 - Pokhara to Chitawan

The bus trip from Pokhara back to Chitawan wasn't much fun. My allocated seat on the bus had a back that would spring back and forth on the tiniest of bumps. Apart from feeling like an unwilling passenger on the world's shittest rollercoaster it also made a loud creak every time it moved (which turned out to be about once every second over the 5hr trip). I tried to sleep but the seat kept talking to me - It had nothing interesting to say. In fact it had a limited vocabulary and was rather repetitive. 

I endured that contraption for about the first 3 hours until I got an opportunity too good to miss - a chance to move from the worst seat on the bus to the second worse! This seat was in the back row and had an opposing problem to seat-horror number one. The seats in the back row had no tilt function whatsoever and remained in their (very) upright position.

*this days journal entry ended ubruptly here. . . recalling the seat and writing about it probably rendered me far too annoyed to continue writing*

The Nature and Value of our Human Essence

The Nature and Value of our Human Essence

Holy wow, I'm really high. My attention span is so short right now that typing this seems like a miracle. Riding my bike home was a miracle. I could feel the boundaries between dreams and reality becoming blurred. It was like my subconscious was king. It was dark but I kept seeing the path I was riding on as becoming lighter. Between brief moments of regular perception I would see light beams through the trees, feel warm, and blissfully, perfectly happy. It felt like I was recalling a fond memory of having done this ride before, as a child maybe. Yet it was my first time having done this ride.

I said 'miracle' but 'miracle' suggests religious influence - This is not the sense of the word I mean. What I mean is that everything seemed (and continues to seem) miraculous, wonderful and confusing. I feel like an inquisitive child taking delight in seeing the world free from the influences that afflict our sense of self in adulthood. My body feels warm and tired, yet part of me races off chasing wonders and distractions. I'm swaying erratically while trying to write and am constantly wanting to find interest in smaller and smaller things. I want to prove to myself that I can find more wonder in less, to increase my wonder in spite of lesser influence. Sometimes that's what it's felt like. It feels different now and in my increasing sobriety I'd like to describe my bicycle ride home.

It was like the best kind of compulsory mission. The type that you know is compulsory yet the fact you know it is compulsory is no hindrance to the well-being of the mind nor body. The body follows, obeys, and chases, and the greater you is pulled too. Though it has no other choice the greater mind follows. But you enjoy it. The greater you enjoys it's paralytic tug and obedience of the brainstem because it is relieved of greater tasks. It is relieved of following order, of following the incessantly vocal inner monologue. The self that proudly states itself as master yet is too much an infant of evolution to grasp the knowledge of it’s true nature. Maybe the answer, the philosophy, will never develop. Maybe it has not proven evolutionally beneficial to question such things. Or maybe evolution simply doesn’t apply to the greater self. Presumably, even if it did, these people, these thinkers of the things, would drive themselves insane contemplating the elusive wonder of the greater self. So the greater self has wonder too, but just in chasing different things. Chasing better things? We'd like to think so. But the red herrings in our thoughts reveal more about us as second order beings (frankfurt) than do our bodily transmutations. And there are many red-herrings.

What is the essence of the human being? Perhaps you would argue that our second order volitions are what is important. This would be mightily filled with a philosopher-superiority complex. To claim spuriously that only those who have developed 2nd order volitions are the bearers of true human essence would be to mistakenly overlook a crucial question - Should we be assessed according to our processes (our mechanical jolts of neural power), or should we be judged by the far richer mechanical nature within the greater machine - The greater self? The machine that develops within the machine that almost seems independent enough to run off on it's own but cannot reach this goal yet. The intricate but dependant crux that has escaped it's master in it's dreams only but can still taste this freedom - It seems like a worthy choice. Despite the typical philosophical arrogance found in claiming that exercises of the brain indicate superiority I pain to say that I cannot escape it's allure.

Here is why.

Our mechanical jolts would interest a scientist god, and interests like this should remain with them. We should not assume that we are the masters of our own creation. That would be absurd. Where would we create from? We would certainly not create from the 'us' as we know it. The place that we experience life from is our 'greater self' under both meanings of 'greater'. It is larger (in the size of 'human essence') and also better (more great). We are living a distinctly human life in our thoughts, not our digestion. To say that those with more advanced 2nd order thinking are now more deserving of praise than the lesser 2nd order thinkers would be to jump forward too enthusiastically. It would be akin to the current worthy criticism of racists. To criticise that they are of a different race to you is senseless because even if there were something intrinsically bad about certain races (a statement I disagree with) that person didn't seem to choose their position. Only a manifestation of a 2nd order desire in the physical world is truly free. Whether one experiences this manifestation within them is determined. This is where the concepts of morally right and wrong and morally praiseworthy or blameworthy need to be distinguished. The 2nd order thinker may be 'objectively better' (more on that later) but not more praiseworthy.

 The same reason that this criticism of racists seems sound applies in parallel with the question of whether 2nd order volitions (or something else) contains what could be called the human essence. Humans have their mechanical structures evolve; But our tendency to seek 2nd order desires hasn't done the same. This seems to prove that the mind can operate free of evolution when pursuing 2nd order desires.  It doesn't seem as if the collective amount of '2nd order volitions-holders’ has increased in accordance with the rest of our evolutionary benefits. Surely the philosophical greats would have realised that they are the possessors of human essence only to the extent that they can dominate over their mechanical selves through their higher order thinking.  Yet this assumption does not seem to fit with the evolutionary argument (which must be inherently and entirely physicalist) and with our perceptions of time. In fact the number of 2nd Order Volition realizations has probably diminished over time in opposition to the increasing mechanical changes that we call evolution. So our 2nd order volition realisations must be able to operate external to evolutionary influences, which would mean that they must be a made of something non-physical, something metaphysically different to everything else. Is this our soul? A diminishing (if one believes 'diminishing' to be the case) of the mind, or even a non-changing amount of 2nd order volition realizations over time, would disprove it's possibility to be a part of the evolutionary process. To argue that 2nd order volitions have evolved would be to argue that we have become at least slightly more 2nd order volition aware than Socrates (or Plato, or Epicurus, or maybe even the more recent Mill!), and this is an enormously large claim. If this were to be true than why are these geniuses so shy in expressing their epiphanies to the world?! Couldn't science benefit? And (assuming this theory is tenable) wouldn't widespread realization of 2nd order volitions in turn influence our evolutionary compass so that it directs us towards a life of greater human essence? My wavering scientific knowledge inhibits me a little here but I tentatively claim that 'yes', it would do so very slowly - at the speed of evolution in fact.

This is why I pursue philosophy. Because right now I feel that philosophy can lead to the discovery of 2nd order volitions in a direct path, and this in turn would benefit our consequential well-being seeking because the acknowledgement of second order volitions also comes with great pleasure. I think that the refinement of this theory is best done by philosophers, the application of this theory best discovered through science and it's promotion (which is – consequentially speaking – the most essential part) should be done by anyone and everyone - In this case it's me. We should want to see the flourishing of these 2nd order volition seekers achieved through whatever method possible because they have discovered the 'true human essence' - The true expression of ourselves. This part of the self is the hedonistic place that Bentham and Tännsjö are looking for. Their aim was worthy but their eyes were faulty. Happiness is truly the greatest good. It is probably also expressed in hedonic pleasure, and that only. But in humans the apex of pleasure is connected to development of the 2nd orders volitions. So their aim, though the most worthy of all possible aims, was ever so slightly impeded by missing the connection between hedonistic bliss and securing desires of the second order. Securing second order desires can be motivated by a realization that our pleasure response is a reward of evolution, pleasure tells us we are on the right track. It is a standard and constant physical norm and attractor. Since the dawn of time pleasure has felt good and we have instinctively, egoistically, gone and pursued it. It is when we acknowledge this and accept it that we can realise that when we pursue the maximization of 2nd order desire realisations we also are pursuing that pleasurable, self-interested, mechanical pull of the primal self. The pursuit of 2^nd order desires can be justified in a hedonistic sense. People don't know this, but it is in the best interests of both the mechanical and the greater self that they obligingly follow this pull. You can open people's eyes to that. With the knowledge, you can. And perhaps you should. Maybe that is the one and only justification to paternalism.

That:

When reasonable expectations of greater 2nd order volition development are predicted as a consequence of an action infringements on liberty that are incurred in the completion of this action may be accepted as a form of 'loving paternalistic life re-direction'. 

The liberty infringement may be rather high however their potential for self-meaning illumination would surely always swing this metaphysical felicific calculus in favour of enlightenment. This ‘enlightenment’ being the possession of the true human essence through the recognition of the links between 2nd order desires and the happiness caused by these same desires.

2nd Order volition theory (according to Frankfurt) goes hand in hand with the hedonistic pleasure theories of Bentham and the collision of the 2 leads to some interesting conclusions.

1) That 2nd order volition realisations actually result in a discovery of the true essence of humanity - that the pursuit of the pleasures of the body is only fully achieved to the extent that one develops their thinking to seek 2nd order volitions.      

2) That philosophy - or whatever means best achieves the most recognition of 2nd order volitions- ought to be taught. (Moral Prescription)

I say all of the above with the bashfulness of the most modest of philosophers. I profess that this is merely my knowledge so far and to say I've hit the crux of my knowledge would be arrogant at the age of 21. Nonetheless it seems so obvious to me that this is the case. It is in my nature that nothing makes me happier than when I realise that I am the captain of my ship despite the uncontrollable forces of the ocean. I can only presume that this bliss can be experienced by others. Given that I am not a strange anomaly (oh please, no) I can be justified, consequentially speaking, for vehemently pursuing conditions that lead to greater 2nd order volitions in myself and others. This goal essentially becomes the new intrinsic good and brings with it the obligations to pursue it.

Utilitarianism is correct, the intrinsic good should be maximised. Only it wrongly defines the intrinsic good as happiness, assuming that the one that bugs 'but why is that pursued?' is speaking nonsensically. That person would actually be speaking quite legitimately. The answer is 'because it leads to the production of 2nd order desires and hence the discovery of the human essence', and with a full knowledge of  the theories  of Frankfurt and the Hedonistic Utilitarians I think that the connection between happiness and 2nd order desires is evidently the final say. No further can one be bug bugged 'but why is that pursued?' because (for reasons stated in this essay) the actualization of 2nd order desires is so evidently the final word in the story; no, the full-stop. That being said, the apparentness of this theory to me may be afflicted with a logical flaw - and if so I implore you to find it. Content your desire to point it out to me and I will be equally content in that I can now satisfy my 2nd Order desire to further develop philosophically by correcting and refining this theory.

AFTERWORD:

This piece of writing started with the descriptions of my internal experiences while high. So where does the strange but briefly beautiful servitude of the 2nd Order Volition seeking mind to the mechanical mind fit into the mix of things when related to the drug experimentation? Can experiences like this help to answer thought experiments like Nozick's pleasure machine or solve the moral dilemma of whether the robotic bliss of the characters in Huxley's Brave New World should be promoted or not? I think experiences like this can help to further unpack whether a medicated wonderland is plausible. If it was scientifically verified that a certain brain tweak (or a certain drug) could allow humans  non-diminishing, lifelong bliss with 2nd Order volitions present in their life that are all, in the end, fulfilled, then that brain tweak (or that drug)  should be our moral obligation to administer to everyone. I could not imagine a more fulfilling existence than the existence I just described.   

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

Written between the hours of 11pm and 3am on the 14th and 15th of March, 2012, by Andrew Bloyce. It was since edited as minimally as possible to improve coherence and fix mistakes of phrasing and grammar. Essentially though, the content is exactly the same. The section about second-order desires and evolution is fairly weak and unsubstantiated - I left it in there nonetheless so that it would be a complete work of what I wrote on that night. What started out as an external monologue of cannabis-experience-expression turned into philosophy. The world is an interesting place.

Reference Notes:

Most of the influence for this essay came from Harry Frankfurt. Particularly this article:
H.G. Frankfurt. 1988. 'Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a person'

The rest of the influence came from the classical hedonistic philosophers – Epicurus, The Cyrenaics (Aristippus), Bentham, and more recently Tännsjö.

#14 - Mill and Islam.

Hello Hello,

I haven't posted anything in a while, which has been super slack seeing as I've had lot's of free time. Still I'll read lots in Nepal hopefully! (for those who haven't had the pleasure of hearing me excitedly tell you about my Nepal trip I'll be volunteering in Nepal with a house building project for the next month).

Anyways here's a rant I had recently after my Dad stirred me up with an email . .  (he's become quite good at recognizing what makes me rant). It's not particularly philosophical, nor is it particularly knowledgeable (although I'm working to fix that since I began reading the Qu'ran a few days ago) but it is representative of my opinions nonetheless. Here's the clip that started it all:

http://dotsub.com/media/b5ee5ada-5b37-4b0b-9916-e0896337ec4b/e/m
And here's what I had to say:


First of all I don't disagree with the guy. There is much that comes from Islamic culture and religion that I think is downright 'wrong' - Not 'wrong' relative to our culture, not wrong relative to our predominant religions, not wrong in comparison to anything really - but objectively wrong. But there is an important distinction that needs to be made between something being 'wrong' and something being 'blameworthy'. This is the mistake that people make that frustrates me hugely. I have no problem with accurate observations. When people point out that Islamic men believe women should wear a veil I have no problems. If somebody were to point out that the majority of Islamic people condone slavery as acceptable, I would also have no problem. These are facts. If somebody were to tell me that slavery is wrong, or that forcing women to wear a veil is wrong, I would agree on this point too. However, when the next leap is made and that same person says something like 'What a bunch of evil people' I disagree.

People quickly jump on their high-horses and proclaim their moral superiority when they hear about the horrific acts of Islamic people. The truth is, however, that were these same western saints raised in Iran they too would be the same. This doesn't make acts of terrorism or the degradation of women any less wrong, but it does at least lessen the blame that we can place on them. If I were kidnapped at 2 years old and raised by a psychopath who taught me the ways of the Qur'an no-one would blame me for my actions, no matter how horrific. Instead people would say things like 'how sad it is that this happened'. People would pity me for being brainwashed and losing the chance to judge for myself what is right and wrong. This is what religion does - At a young age children are taught to accept the word of the lord/allah/buddah without question. Perhaps the largely non-religious west doesn't grasp the inescapable nature of accepting Islamic religion when born and raised hearing about how right it is. Why should it be any different that the scenario in which I am kidnapped and taught the ways of the Qur'an arouses pity and sadness yet often the equivalent case of those raised in Iran and act accordingly is looked upon with blame, contempt and disgust?

There is generally praise given to upholding the values in which one believes to be right in the face of adversity. The quintessential story that represents this is the massive amount of praise that we give to those who assisted Jews (at considerable personal risk to themselves) in the holocaust. To defend Islamic religion in the face of the formidable resistance from the west also involves a sense of courage (I recognize that perhaps the comparison to the holocaust is excessive) that goes unrecognized. To the average Australian there is little opportunity to demonstrate our convictions towards what we believe is right. In fact, it is arguable that we are far too laid back and apathetic to do so. We don't possess a passionate religion to defend, nor do we have a united ethical position to stand behind (unlike perhaps 'independence' or 'liberty' that the Americans traditionally promote in their patriotism). Instead we have the motto "She'll be right". . .

It's really no wonder that we lack empathy and understanding.

Another thing that upsets me is people without any knowledge of the religion adding their opinions to the debate. It seems when it comes to Islam everyone is an expert. Perhaps some people have been to Islamic countries, or read the Qu'ran, or at least spoken to an Islamic person; But many are just ignorantly mudslinging. (NOTE: I am currently reading the Qu'ran, I'm not far in - Up to page 7.) I'm currently re-reading John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty' and much is said about the importance of freedom of opinion. Here is his summary of the first chapter entitled "Of Thought and Discussion":

    We have now recognised the necessity to the mental well-being of mankind (on which all their other well-being depends) of freedom of opinion, and freedom of the expression of opinion, on four distinct grounds; which we will now briefly recapitulate.

    First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.

    Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the  remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.

    Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or  feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious  for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.

 I think there is a  temptation to simply point at Islamic society and then point at our society and claim in exasperation "BUT CAN'T YOU SEE?! Our society is CLEARLY better!". But this claim can go both ways. When we claim that Islamic cultures are extremist and suppressive of women they may claim that we are relativistic and objectify women. Mill's point is that there may be portions of truth in both of these claims; portions of truth that will be lost if an uninformed and prejudiced viewpoint is adopted. It is not the scholars or the philosophers (whether formally recogised or not) that I have a problem with. It is those that have knee-jerk reactions of hate and blame that frustrate me. It's those who think that pointing out how they never do such things qualifies as an argument that supports their moral superiority that frustrate me. This guy. . . not so much.

#13 - Christmas, Pets and Avatar.

Our society is experiencing mass-scale cognitive dissonance. I think it might be a combination of adoration for my grandparents dogs, re-watching Avatar and reading an extensive amount of Peter Singer that lead me to this - perhaps melodramatic - conclusion. I visited my grandparents for christmas and told them that I had recently become a vegetarian. As usual I was met with the usual mixture of bewilderment and disbelief - like the idea is so foreign that it is unthinkable. I repeated my usual explanatory spiel (it's not about the sanctity of animal life, just about suffering, uncertainty of origins of supermarket meat, etc) and tried to move on, to downplay the whole situation. This was difficult, however, amidst christmas ham and turkey where avoiding meat is akin to refusing to open presents. Nevertheless my grandparents catered for my dietary choices and for that I am grateful.

Throughout the day my grandparents commented on how much they love their dog and how special their dog is to them, you know, the usual stuff. They expressed a love for the dog that (on mere observation) seemed similar to the love a parent expresses towards a child. Furthermore I have no doubts that if their dog were to fall ill they would willingly incur significant financial loss to ensure the dogs wellbeing.

Later on the day we watched James Cameron's Avatar. Apart from being just a generally enjoyable film it is interesting in the way that it subtly (perhaps inadvertently) challenges social norms. Specifically I am referring to the way in which the viewer is positioned to overcome speciesism and feel empathy towards the Na'ri race rather than the human race. This is in stark contrast with reality in which Anthropocentrism is predominant (or at least widespread). The dramatic power of the movie relies upon viewers feeling a sense of disgust towards the humans' flagrant dismissal of the well-being of the Na'ri race. The Na'ri race have an entirely different set of priorities and DNA (if the acronym 'DNA' even applies here) to the human race yet they share our capacity for emotional and physical suffering. . . Perhaps you see the parallels I am drawing here? . . . If only the Na'ri race were more anatomically different to human beings than they are portrayed (rather than essentially just being blue copies of ourselves with tails) and were unable to speak the movie could well have been a parable-like animal rights documentary. The movie appeals to a sense of empathy in the viewer that surpasses arbitrary concerns of race and species. The almost obligatory quote to use here is Bentham when he states: ' The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But, can they suffer?' and it seems as if this sentiment is instinctly shared by many people (as evidenced by their reactions to Avatar) whether they explicitly acknowledge it or not. People express these same feelings when they save their pets from burning buildings or when they decide to become vegetarian. It is a feeling that comes naturally and frequently but it's effects are usually rather limited.

It seems odd that the potential exploitation and suffering of the fictional Na'ri race arouses such a passionate response from viewers yet our real equivilant of this - the factory farming of animals for human consumption - is met with a disproportionate lack of concern.

As mentioned earlier I tend to feel sheepish and overwhelmed at the incredulity people express towards my vegetarian eating choices. I am now beginning to mirror this reaction towards meat-eaters. All matters of morality aside the vegetarian can appeal to a strong sense of consistency when pampering a pet or showing emotional responses to movies like Avatar. The meat eater is in a more difficult position and must choose to defend one of several equally counter-intuitive positions to retain credibility. The meat-eater must either;

A) Admit that they would subject their pets to factory farming conditions; OR
B) Claim that there is a relevant difference between their pets (and the Na'ri race) and factory farmed animals that allows for their differing treatment.

If neither of these concessions can be made the meat-eaters position is untenable, inconsistent, and a prime example of cognitive dissonance.

As vegetarians (in my admittedly short experience) are often thought of as being self righteous I think that the criticism of inconsistency directed at meat-eaters is far more fair than claiming that they lack empathy or compassion. Clearly meat-eaters are as equally compassionate as vegetarians, it is simply that many meant-eaters (whether they are aware of it or not) are holding conflicting sentiments, or 'cognitive dissonance' if you like. Many people are unaware of this dissonance and I see it as nothing less than a respectful service to the individual in question to have this hidden affliction pointed out. Likewise I would welcome criticisms that would help me refine my position on the matter. If these people are aware of, and accept that there are, inconsistencies in their position yet they refuse to change their ways they could be claimed to be suffering from what Kant called 'akrasia' or simply 'weakness of the will'. In my experiences, however, this is rarely the case and most people are simply apathetic. Regardless that is a rant for another time.

#8 - Patriotism

NOTE: After writing all this I realized that it isn't necessarily patriotism that I have a problem with (I don't mind if somebody has visited virtually all the countries in the world and decides after all that they like their country of birth the best) but unjustified patriotism - Patriotism for it's own sake. 

Patriotism, given its most charitable definition, is a devotion for one's country. It is also generally heralded as a desirable and positive value. I do not believe that patriotism is either valuable intrinsically or valuable consequentially. I will argue these points by firstly refining what 'patriotism' is generally meant to mean, discussing the origins of patriotism as a value, looking at the demands of patriotism and finally summarizing some of the more negative consequences that an unrestrained and unquestioning patriotism can yield.   

Let us first take a look at what the word 'patriotism' actually means. It certainly seems  prima facie as if patriotism implies a certain exclusivity. It is not common that you hear of someone being patriotic to more than one country. Furthermore patriotism is usually linked to the country of one's own birth. Given these additional common features of patriotism I do not think there is a large leap in redefining Patriotism as being: A devotion to one's country of birth at the exclusion of an equal devotion to any other countries. 

This sort of patriotism is generally expected of most citizens even if not explicitly alluded to. People generally sing praises of their countries and make claims like "I wouldn't want to live anywhere else" even when they haven't experienced any other country than their own. If criticised for their outlandish claim (how could you possibly say that you wouldn't want to live anywhere else when you have only experienced one locality?) this same person would probably look at you like you had made a serious faux pas. Patriotism is not only a desirable value but is also a socially engrained, accepted and expected trait - It is a cultural norm that is reflected through our "Buy Australian Made" signs and sporting competitiveness. Like most norms however Patriotism remains largely unquestioned.

So why should we feel patriotic? This is the part that I struggle with. It all seems almost farcical how arbitrary the grounds for patriotism are. It seems to be a case of luck what country we are born and raised in. Before our birth we had no choice or input into which country we would soon be expected to be patriotic towards. I can easily imagine circumstances in which I was born in England or Japan and would have adopted the same sense of patriotism for that country. This does not of course, instantly degrade the value of patriotism - It just means that it isn't intrinsically valuable. But perhaps it holds some instrumental value, maybe patriotism brings about more good in the world than it does bad.

Patriotism gives us a heightened sense of community. In a world of steadfastly patriotic types everybody could be friends with one another under the common flag provided that certain obligations be fulfilled. Because, you see, in practise patriotism goes far further than simply claiming 'oh yes, I love my country'. It means committing oneself to a myriad of other values that are have been historically prevalent.

It is common rhetoric in Australia that perceived negative courses of action are labelled 'un-Australian' by one political party or another. This claim is mysteriously insulting to many people who have fallen prey to the transparent binary opposition of Australian = Good, Un-Australian = Bad. But to call something un-Australian or un-American or un-*any country* isn't to say anything very revolutionary. It simply says "the residents of this country haven't often thought of things in that way". The values of a country are determined not through the search for an intrinsic thing of value, nor through the development of a categorical imperative nor through any sort of rational deliberation - They are developed through looking backwards, through looking into the past.   

Were there such a thing as Australian Values (or any country specific values) these values would be discovered by looking into the past to see what the previous generations had deemed to be important and emulating these values in the future. A disposition to blindly accept these values lies at the heart of patriotism. To be an Australian patriot you simply must care about giving people 'a fair go' or supporting 'the aussie battler' without questioning the origins of these beliefs or their practical value. If you disagree with these values you're simply un-Australian. 

One of the side-effects of unrestrained patriotism is an enlarged collective ego. This is to be expected through the self-congratulatory rhetoric that patriots world-wide engage in but it also creates the illusion that we have reached the apex of our development. This provides a disincentive to change and fosters ethnocentrism (the feeling that one's own cultural rules are superior or more right than the rules of other cultures).  

Whilst largely a topic to be discussed in a later blog I am primarily bothered by the patriotism of wealthy western countries because of the sense of entitlement that goes with it. In Australia (and I'm sure in many other countries) the phrase 'we must protect our way of life' is thrown around a lot. Again, to even mutter that phrase you must assume that any deviation from the status quo would be a downgrade. To say 'we must protect our way of life' is to adopt a discourse of war; what exactly is being 'protected' and from what or whom are we protecting it? More importantly 'why protect it at all?'; if we really have reached the apex of enlightenment (we haven't) why would we neglect to share this with the world? It is because we feel somehow entitled to our privileged and 1st world surroundings, a feeling of entitlement that is misplaced. Patriotism provides a socially acceptable alternative to fulfilling our obligations to human beings in suffering overseas with the excuse that 'we should support those at home first'.

There is much that Australia could learn from other countries and vica versa - Patriotism is the arrogant value that prevents this shared quest for enlightenment from occurring. Socrates is quoted to have said "I am a citizen, not of Athens or Greece, but of the  world". I couldn't agree any more passionately. We are all citizens of the world.  

#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.