further introduction

Here is what is distinctive about me as a presidential candidate.

1. All my choices and strategies as president, and my views on relevant issues, will ultimately be guided by a systematic moral philosophy: utilitarianism. Already briefly discussed in the 9/13/08 "brief introduction" blog entry, a little here by way of reminder. The basic idea is that what ought morally to be done is what maximizes overall happiness (for any creatures capable of happiness, including non-human ones). But I acknowledge an exception to the effect that too much personal sacrifice cannot be demanded. As an official (indeed, the most important official: president) of a corporate agent (the United States Federal Government) whose guiding purpose is to work on behalf of US citizens, this exception amounts to giving some preference to US citizens over other creatures in the world when making decisions based upon the standard of "what maximizes overall happiness". ("Some" preference, not "absolute" or "maximal". More on this soon in a blog entry to be entitled "my utilitarianism".) Further, although not in principle required by utilitarianism, this will also largely (though not completely), in the course of political practice, have me make decisions that pay attention to deservingness (amount of hard work, etc.) and fairness/equality.

I know of no other candidate who has a single moral philosophy like this to offer as ultimately guiding all of his or her political decisions, let alone one who will bother to explain how this moral philosophy does lead to those political decisions. (For more on how it does in my case, see a near-future blog entry to be entitled "my four-level political picture".)

2. Unlike any of the other candidates, my own personal expertise - in the sense of what I was trained to do in graduate school and have devoted my professional career to doing - is philosophy, in particular, moral and political philosophy. As a philosopher, I have expertise in the skill of thinking generally that almost no non-professional philosopher has. This simply has to do with the discipline of philosophy, something I will talk about more soon in a blog entry to be entitled "philosophy and its misconceptions". As a moral and political philosopher in particular, I have now spent more than a decade applying these expertise thinking skills to high-level, theoretical questions of morals and politics. So, not only do I have a single moral philosophy to offer (see the first point above), I am very much in a position to explain and defend why (so I think) it is the best moral philosophy. For more on this, see a near-future blog entry to be entitled "why I am a utilitarian".

In saying the previous, I'm not saying that I am, in the very ordinary and important sense, smarter than everyone else, let alone every other candidate. I am more than happy to acknowledge that McCain and Obama (and Nader) are very smart. However, unlike me, they did not devote their grad school years or their professional lives to the skill of thinking itself, which in various ways can be construed as the single most important subject matter of philosophy.

3. Unlike any of the other candidates, I will never pretend to have full expertise in all the empirical subject matters relevant to the issues and anything else upon which a president or presidential candidate has to make decisions. Neither I, nor McCain, nor Obama have gone to graduate school in and spent his professional life studying economics, or political science, or meteorology/environmental science, or Middle Eastern social and cultural dynamics, or the energy industry. What I offer, unlike the other candidates, is:

A. a solemn promise never to pretend I have expertise which I do not,

B. a solemn promise always to consult individuals with full empirical expertise on the relevant issues, individuals ON ALL SIDES OF THE ISSUES, and individuals both inside AND ESPECIALLY outside of my administration,

C. a highly trained ability of general thinking that I can apply to the advice and information I acquire in so consulting.

This, of course, does not mean that I will remain complacent with my current level of empirical knowledge about relevant subject matters. To the extent that my time constraints will allow, I will learn what I can about the empirical aspects of the issues (especially the most important ones, both those receiving a lot of attention and those not). And I make a solemn promise that, if the miraculous were to happen, and I were elected president, I would devote a hell of a lot of time between Election Day in November and Inauguration in January to learning what I can - as well as, of course, once I'm actually president, to continue learning as much as I can consistent with other presidential priorities.

For a concrete illustration in the spirit of much of the previous, unlike the two "real" candidates (and probably unlike any other candidate), I will never pretend to have a really confident view on any issue where the relevant empirical sub-issues are so complex that even the trained professionals in the corresponding subject matter are at best entitled to moderate confidence. For an example, consider Iraq. If I thought it were intrinsically wrong for a military force to be present in another nation, then I would unequivocally say the US should leave very quickly. But I don't think that, or anything similar. Rather, I think that we should do what best serves the (perhaps weighted) interests of Americans, Iraqis, and everyone else in the world. But what that is ... is just freaking hard to figure out. The trained professionals themselves (i.e., those have devoted their professional lives since the beginning of graduate school to studying the intricacies of the Middle East) are very much in disagreement. I simply do not understand how politicians like McCain and Obama believe they can be so confident about what would happen if the US pulls out and what would happen if the US doesn't pull out (in particular, what would happen if the US pulls out in this way, or that way, or a third way, etc., and what would happen if the US stays in Iraq, but with an increased military presence, or a decreased military presence, or the same military presence but a very different diplomatic policy, etc.). I will be honest and, unlike McCain and Obama, admit when something is just my best guess. It's just part of being president to make really difficult decisions based only on what is your best guess (after much learning and studying, consultation of advisers, AND consultation of relevant outside experts on all sides of the issue in question, both academic and professional). And - in my book - it's part of being a GOOD president not to pretend otherwise.