Since we are trying to get your votes, all of us political candidates engage (quite reasonably) in self-promotion. We note our good qualities, suggest our opponents are inferior in those respects, etc.
So, please, when I say things like "as a professional philosopher, I am a more skilled and trained general thinker than most others", don't react simply by thinking I'm a pompous ass. Rather, I simply ask that you consider whether or not it is true. For example, if you like, investigate whether or not I am a professional philosopher. Better, read a lot of my blog entries and check out firsthand my qualities as a thinker. And then also, of course, if you conclude that I am a highly skilled and trained general thinker - consider whether or not that is as important as I claim it is.
For comparison, when McCain notes over and over again his much greater political experience than Obama, no one's reaction is "what a pompous ass". Instead, people (quite rightly) consider just how much greater McCain's political experience is, and, to the extent that it is, how much that matters in and of itself. (To illustrate - if you ask me - when Obama notes that what is ultimately important is good judgment, and experience is simply one among many ways to acquire good judgment, he is spot on.)
Showing posts with label basics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label basics. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
the target of my various claims
I am prompted to say the following by a friend's comment on some of what I had to say in "the most difficult presidential decision" under "commentaries". Although this friend was very sympathetic to what I had to say, he noted the following. (Especially from a utilitarian perspective, which I have already noted in some blog entries that I endorse) it can be sometimes perfectly reasonable for a president (or other elected official) to say something he or she does not believe, or to say something with a level of confidence that he or she does not think is actually warranted. This is because it can sometimes be necessary in order to have some needed/important effect, e.g. inspiring in the populace confidence in their president, a crucial means to the president's being effectively able to get things done.
I totally understand my friend's point, and agree. To explain, it will be extremely helpful for me here to explicitly note that, when it comes to claims I make (especially under "issues" and commentaries") of the "agree", "stupid", etc. sort, there will usually be one of two particular kinds of targets I will have in mind:
1. I might be agreeing with, challenging, etc. the CONTENT itself of some claim. So, for example, in the blog entry mentioned above, when I criticized Laura Bush, her husband, and others for saying things like "sending troops into harm's way is always the most difficult decision for a president to make", what I was most exactly criticizing was the TRUTH of that claim. I argued simply that it was FALSE (indeed, wildly false).
2. I might be agreeing with, challenging, etc. the SAYING/MAKING of some claim (or something similar) on the part of one or more other individuals. So, to use the same example again: in the blog entry mentioned above, nothing I said was directly to the effect that it is stupid or unreasonable for people like Laura Bush, her husband, and others to say things like that. I am perfectly happy to admit that it is sometimes wise and reasonable for politicians and elected officials to say something they believe is false or say something with a greater level of confidence than they actually think is warranted. (More on this, in part, when I start talking more directly about politicking and what I think are frequent unfair charges of "sliminess" and the like.)
Now, when it comes to the SAYING/MAKING of the particular claim "sending troops into harm's way is always the most difficult decision for a president to make" by someone like Laura Bush, I think the issue is trickier. On the one hand, since I think this claim is false (indeed, wildly false) for the reasons explained, a mark against MAKING it is the following. One thereby helps to promote false beliefs on matters of harm and death, which can lead to bad decision on the part of those with these false beliefs. Further, one thereby more indirectly promotes later bad decisions on the part of elected officials who feel the need to satisfy their constituents who have these (false) beliefs. On the other hand, given the current political context, especially the war in Iraq, and given a very common current false beliefs on such matters, NOT MAKING such a claim might be unfairly interpreted by others as expressing a morally problematic whimsical attitude toward the lives of US soldiers (or something similarly bad). My own best guess right now is that, nonetheless, MAKING such a claim is (on the whole) a bad idea and unreasonable. That is, MAKING that EXACT CLAIM, WITHOUT ANY QUALIFICATION. If, instead, what were claimed was something like "sending troops into harm's way is always a very difficult decision for a president", then it would be a better idea and more reasonable (even though still, as I see it, strictly speaking false).
I have drawn this distinction rather narrowly in terms of the CONTENT of a claim and the MAKING of a claim. I strongly suspect the distinction generalizes in intuitive and natural ways, but I won't (at least right now) try to explicitly articulate those ways. I note this simply because I'm quite sure that some of the things I say in some of my blog entries can be understood in terms of this distinction only when we think of it as generalized.
From here on out, I will try to be clearer about what exactly is the target of any claim I make, though inevitably I will fail to be perfect in this regard. If you, as a reader of my blog, are ever unclear on what exactly is the target, do let me know by way of adding a comment, and I will try to be clearer in a reply. Or, if you think I'm just wrong, also let me know by way of adding a comment. Then perhaps (in some cases) I can reply by noting you misunderstood (through my failure to be maximally clear the first time around) the nature of my target.
I totally understand my friend's point, and agree. To explain, it will be extremely helpful for me here to explicitly note that, when it comes to claims I make (especially under "issues" and commentaries") of the "agree", "stupid", etc. sort, there will usually be one of two particular kinds of targets I will have in mind:
1. I might be agreeing with, challenging, etc. the CONTENT itself of some claim. So, for example, in the blog entry mentioned above, when I criticized Laura Bush, her husband, and others for saying things like "sending troops into harm's way is always the most difficult decision for a president to make", what I was most exactly criticizing was the TRUTH of that claim. I argued simply that it was FALSE (indeed, wildly false).
2. I might be agreeing with, challenging, etc. the SAYING/MAKING of some claim (or something similar) on the part of one or more other individuals. So, to use the same example again: in the blog entry mentioned above, nothing I said was directly to the effect that it is stupid or unreasonable for people like Laura Bush, her husband, and others to say things like that. I am perfectly happy to admit that it is sometimes wise and reasonable for politicians and elected officials to say something they believe is false or say something with a greater level of confidence than they actually think is warranted. (More on this, in part, when I start talking more directly about politicking and what I think are frequent unfair charges of "sliminess" and the like.)
Now, when it comes to the SAYING/MAKING of the particular claim "sending troops into harm's way is always the most difficult decision for a president to make" by someone like Laura Bush, I think the issue is trickier. On the one hand, since I think this claim is false (indeed, wildly false) for the reasons explained, a mark against MAKING it is the following. One thereby helps to promote false beliefs on matters of harm and death, which can lead to bad decision on the part of those with these false beliefs. Further, one thereby more indirectly promotes later bad decisions on the part of elected officials who feel the need to satisfy their constituents who have these (false) beliefs. On the other hand, given the current political context, especially the war in Iraq, and given a very common current false beliefs on such matters, NOT MAKING such a claim might be unfairly interpreted by others as expressing a morally problematic whimsical attitude toward the lives of US soldiers (or something similarly bad). My own best guess right now is that, nonetheless, MAKING such a claim is (on the whole) a bad idea and unreasonable. That is, MAKING that EXACT CLAIM, WITHOUT ANY QUALIFICATION. If, instead, what were claimed was something like "sending troops into harm's way is always a very difficult decision for a president", then it would be a better idea and more reasonable (even though still, as I see it, strictly speaking false).
I have drawn this distinction rather narrowly in terms of the CONTENT of a claim and the MAKING of a claim. I strongly suspect the distinction generalizes in intuitive and natural ways, but I won't (at least right now) try to explicitly articulate those ways. I note this simply because I'm quite sure that some of the things I say in some of my blog entries can be understood in terms of this distinction only when we think of it as generalized.
From here on out, I will try to be clearer about what exactly is the target of any claim I make, though inevitably I will fail to be perfect in this regard. If you, as a reader of my blog, are ever unclear on what exactly is the target, do let me know by way of adding a comment, and I will try to be clearer in a reply. Or, if you think I'm just wrong, also let me know by way of adding a comment. Then perhaps (in some cases) I can reply by noting you misunderstood (through my failure to be maximally clear the first time around) the nature of my target.
why vote for me (much shorter version)
1. because you like my perspective on politics and political issues, and so find me vote-worthy in the hopes of effecting some political change by promoting this perspective.
2. because you think I would be a good president.
Of course, since this is the much shorter version, you're going to have to read other blog entries to have any idea whether or not you think either of these things.
Also, I reverse the order of these two (as compared to the much longer version), since I realized I should emphasize: given that I have no real shot at winning, I am primarily focused on getting votes from those under 1. But, of course, I would also be happy to get votes from those under 2. In fact, since I do think I would be a good president, and since I have a thought that perhaps one day, if I keep continuing to run, I might have a real shot at winning, I will here and there say things more directly related to 2.
2. because you think I would be a good president.
Of course, since this is the much shorter version, you're going to have to read other blog entries to have any idea whether or not you think either of these things.
Also, I reverse the order of these two (as compared to the much longer version), since I realized I should emphasize: given that I have no real shot at winning, I am primarily focused on getting votes from those under 1. But, of course, I would also be happy to get votes from those under 2. In fact, since I do think I would be a good president, and since I have a thought that perhaps one day, if I keep continuing to run, I might have a real shot at winning, I will here and there say things more directly related to 2.
Monday, September 15, 2008
on calling things "stupid"
(This entry should probably be in "other", but it's important enough that I want to put it where it's most likely to be read, namely, "basics".)
In some of my blog entries I will inevitably call (in fact, already have called) something "stupid" or the like. (Perhaps I will even call someONE stupid. Face it, there are stupid people out there, even though most stupid things are said by non-stupid people; even the very smart say stupid things here and there). As a fringe candidate who is not running with the thought that he actually might win, I'm not going to worry about being PC; so when I think something is stupid, I will feel free to call it that. There simply is no way to be nicer about it without actually changing the content of what you're saying. (There are, of course, ways to be meaner about it, such as calling something "fucking retarded". Those ways I will happily avoid.)
In fact, I'm sure at some point between now and Election Day, I will say one or more stupid things (even by my own standards) in my blog entries (if I haven't already). When you think you have identified such a thing, please call me on it. Add a comment to the relevant blog entry, tell me it's stupid, and tell me why you think that; if you like, even title your comment "you said something stupid". If I agree, I will admit I said something stupid, and if I don't, I will explain why (to the degree that time-constraints allow).
This is politics, and it has much much far too significant impact on all our lives not to call something stupid "stupid", just to avoid hurting some feelings. (Of course, if you really think you have a shot at winning the presidency, then you will avoid doing this, but only because it will be strategically wise in the face of the fact that many do not appreciate what I am here saying.)
Be careful to note this is a very different thing from saying it is okay to GRATUITOUSLY hurt feelings.
In some of my blog entries I will inevitably call (in fact, already have called) something "stupid" or the like. (Perhaps I will even call someONE stupid. Face it, there are stupid people out there, even though most stupid things are said by non-stupid people; even the very smart say stupid things here and there). As a fringe candidate who is not running with the thought that he actually might win, I'm not going to worry about being PC; so when I think something is stupid, I will feel free to call it that. There simply is no way to be nicer about it without actually changing the content of what you're saying. (There are, of course, ways to be meaner about it, such as calling something "fucking retarded". Those ways I will happily avoid.)
In fact, I'm sure at some point between now and Election Day, I will say one or more stupid things (even by my own standards) in my blog entries (if I haven't already). When you think you have identified such a thing, please call me on it. Add a comment to the relevant blog entry, tell me it's stupid, and tell me why you think that; if you like, even title your comment "you said something stupid". If I agree, I will admit I said something stupid, and if I don't, I will explain why (to the degree that time-constraints allow).
This is politics, and it has much much far too significant impact on all our lives not to call something stupid "stupid", just to avoid hurting some feelings. (Of course, if you really think you have a shot at winning the presidency, then you will avoid doing this, but only because it will be strategically wise in the face of the fact that many do not appreciate what I am here saying.)
Be careful to note this is a very different thing from saying it is okay to GRATUITOUSLY hurt feelings.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
why vote for me
First, because I actually would be a good president. To determine whether or not you agree with this statement, keep coming back here and reading my blog posts as I continue to enter new ones. Generally, I propose to be a president who has a principled moral view and a systematic political vision guiding his choices, a president who does not pretend to be an expert on every politically relevant empirical subject matter, let alone any. 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. My one own expertise (in this full sense) that I have to offer as president is, as far as I can tell, the most important: moral and political philosophy. When it comes to empirical subject matters relevant to the practical choices of a president, I propose to do the only responsible thing: consult my advisers (chosen for their expertise, not because of family connections, etc.) and, more important, consult experts on all sides of the relevant empirical issues, ones fully outside of my administration. Of course, as president, it will in the end be up to me to make all sorts of important choices. But, as a professional philosopher and so someone who is more trained in the skill of thinking generally than any other kind of professional, I can't think of anyone better to make decisions based on information and advice culled from the empirical expertise of others.
Second, because it would not be a wasted vote. Their are various worthwhile purposes one can have in casting a vote for president. One, of course, is the purpose of potentially changing who becomes the next president.
But there are others, mainly purposes having to do with making some kind of political statement, and so potentially effecting some kind of political change (not having to do with who wins the election that time around), by increasing the vote tally of a candidate. For example, suppose there is a third party candidate who is running solely on the issue of solar power, and suppose you believe that solar power is terribly underused and that governmental efforts to invest in research and development of more effective and cost-efficient solar power are sadly pathetic. In that case, even if you know this candidate has no chance of winning, you might very reasonably vote for that candidate in the hopes of potentially effecting some political change when your chosen candidate gets a decent number of votes and/or more votes than expected.
It's with such a purpose in mind that I'm hoping some will choose to vote for me. For example, suppose I get enough Idaho votes that the Idaho Statesman chooses to write an article about me, an article which describes those views of mine which likely attracted my voters to me. Then other people read that article and, perhaps, are more likely to vote for me in four years (increasing the chance that, eventually, especially with this sort of causal effect compounding itself over many election cycles, I will have a real shot at the presidency), or instead, perhaps, are more likely to cast later votes for other candidates, presidential and otherwise, in light of such views. Further, non-voting-wise, some may choose to mention my views to others in conversation about politics, others in the media may choose to inject at least some discussion of my views into the media on other occasions, and so on.
What is distinctive of me such that an unexpectedly high vote tally might potentially effect political change, and so might make it perfectly reasonable to vote for me, come mainly in two categories: (i) some of my views about particular issues, for which you will mainly have to wait for later blog entries, and (ii) the view expressed in the first paragraph about presidential expertise, consulation of experts, and decision-making in light of the most trained general thinking skills. And, aside from what is distinctive of me as a presidential candidate, a vote for the no-party write-in kind of candidate that I am could potentially have an affect on attitudes to non-major-party candidates generally, increasing the the degree to which we live in a genuine democracy by way of giving people more options, and also hopefully putting more pressure on the major party candidates to take certain issues and ideas more seriously, to think outside the box, etc.
Furthermore, in Idaho, where McCain is almost completely guaranteed to win (much more guaranteed than you are to survive your next drive in a car), it's especially hard to see how a vote for me would be a "throw away" vote. If anything, a vote for either McCain or Obama would be a throwaway vote, since, when it comes to those two major party candidates, people are only going to pay attention to who wins what states, and who wins the entire general election, whereas a vote for me has a real chance of putting my vote tally above that threshold where I get some real political attention from the media, and so potentially do the things of the sort described in the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs above.
Although especially obvious for Idaho, I think the same basic point holds for any state in the country. The 2000 presidential election was by far the closest in US history, given just the the several thousand vote difference in Florida, which ended up deciding it. But that was still more than a 2000 vote difference. Even if, for example, I were to get more that the 250 votes I am hoping for in Missouri (a state which, at this point, could go either way as far as McCain vs. Obama), the chances are almost nil that that would affect which of those two major party candidates wins the state.
And please do not think to yourself in response: but what if everyone in Missouri who is attracted to your views reasons this way, and so votes for you? The flaw in this line of thinking is in pretending that your vote, and the reasoning you engage in behind your vote, has any magical influence on how others will reason and vote. The fact is, as I realize (sadly), almost all voters will never even have heard of me come vote time, and very few of them who have will be swayed to vote for me. It's just a mistake to think that you - a single individual - going into a particular polling place and writing in my name on just one ballot, is somehow going to change the fact that all those other people aren't going to vote for me. I can reasonably aim at 250 votes in Missouri, and hope for a few more, but there is just no chance I will get, say, 10,000 votes.
So, instead of voting for McCain or Obama (whichever is your preference between the two), a vote which has very little chance of determining who actually wins the election, I encourage you (at least if you find my views attractive) to vote for me, something which has a much higher chance of getting me a vote tally that puts me over the threshold necessary to have the political effects described above.
Second, because it would not be a wasted vote. Their are various worthwhile purposes one can have in casting a vote for president. One, of course, is the purpose of potentially changing who becomes the next president.
But there are others, mainly purposes having to do with making some kind of political statement, and so potentially effecting some kind of political change (not having to do with who wins the election that time around), by increasing the vote tally of a candidate. For example, suppose there is a third party candidate who is running solely on the issue of solar power, and suppose you believe that solar power is terribly underused and that governmental efforts to invest in research and development of more effective and cost-efficient solar power are sadly pathetic. In that case, even if you know this candidate has no chance of winning, you might very reasonably vote for that candidate in the hopes of potentially effecting some political change when your chosen candidate gets a decent number of votes and/or more votes than expected.
It's with such a purpose in mind that I'm hoping some will choose to vote for me. For example, suppose I get enough Idaho votes that the Idaho Statesman chooses to write an article about me, an article which describes those views of mine which likely attracted my voters to me. Then other people read that article and, perhaps, are more likely to vote for me in four years (increasing the chance that, eventually, especially with this sort of causal effect compounding itself over many election cycles, I will have a real shot at the presidency), or instead, perhaps, are more likely to cast later votes for other candidates, presidential and otherwise, in light of such views. Further, non-voting-wise, some may choose to mention my views to others in conversation about politics, others in the media may choose to inject at least some discussion of my views into the media on other occasions, and so on.
What is distinctive of me such that an unexpectedly high vote tally might potentially effect political change, and so might make it perfectly reasonable to vote for me, come mainly in two categories: (i) some of my views about particular issues, for which you will mainly have to wait for later blog entries, and (ii) the view expressed in the first paragraph about presidential expertise, consulation of experts, and decision-making in light of the most trained general thinking skills. And, aside from what is distinctive of me as a presidential candidate, a vote for the no-party write-in kind of candidate that I am could potentially have an affect on attitudes to non-major-party candidates generally, increasing the the degree to which we live in a genuine democracy by way of giving people more options, and also hopefully putting more pressure on the major party candidates to take certain issues and ideas more seriously, to think outside the box, etc.
Furthermore, in Idaho, where McCain is almost completely guaranteed to win (much more guaranteed than you are to survive your next drive in a car), it's especially hard to see how a vote for me would be a "throw away" vote. If anything, a vote for either McCain or Obama would be a throwaway vote, since, when it comes to those two major party candidates, people are only going to pay attention to who wins what states, and who wins the entire general election, whereas a vote for me has a real chance of putting my vote tally above that threshold where I get some real political attention from the media, and so potentially do the things of the sort described in the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs above.
Although especially obvious for Idaho, I think the same basic point holds for any state in the country. The 2000 presidential election was by far the closest in US history, given just the the several thousand vote difference in Florida, which ended up deciding it. But that was still more than a 2000 vote difference. Even if, for example, I were to get more that the 250 votes I am hoping for in Missouri (a state which, at this point, could go either way as far as McCain vs. Obama), the chances are almost nil that that would affect which of those two major party candidates wins the state.
And please do not think to yourself in response: but what if everyone in Missouri who is attracted to your views reasons this way, and so votes for you? The flaw in this line of thinking is in pretending that your vote, and the reasoning you engage in behind your vote, has any magical influence on how others will reason and vote. The fact is, as I realize (sadly), almost all voters will never even have heard of me come vote time, and very few of them who have will be swayed to vote for me. It's just a mistake to think that you - a single individual - going into a particular polling place and writing in my name on just one ballot, is somehow going to change the fact that all those other people aren't going to vote for me. I can reasonably aim at 250 votes in Missouri, and hope for a few more, but there is just no chance I will get, say, 10,000 votes.
So, instead of voting for McCain or Obama (whichever is your preference between the two), a vote which has very little chance of determining who actually wins the election, I encourage you (at least if you find my views attractive) to vote for me, something which has a much higher chance of getting me a vote tally that puts me over the threshold necessary to have the political effects described above.
why I am running
I initially decided to run a very unserious campaign, both with the thought that it just might be fun to create flyers, campaign statements, etc., and with the thought that it might be a good way to get my students at BSU thinking more about the election, in particular, thinking in new ways about some of the issues. But within 24 hours, I decided I would make it a serious campaign.
First, running a serious campaign would be a better way of getting not just my students, but anyone who I could make aware of my candidacy, to think more about the election and the relevant issues in perhaps different and better ways.
Second, I would like to do my part in getting US voters to think more seriously about voting outside the two major parties. Although I certainly understand the motivation not to, I nonetheless think it is very unfortunate that potentially very good presidents, such as Ralph Nader and John Hagelin (Natural Law Party candidate in 1992, 1996 and 2000), never have a real shot for fear that the "worse" major party candidate will get elected.
Third, generalizing on the second point, I think running a presidential campaign, even of this small-scale write-in sort, could potentially have worthwhile political effects and lead to beneficial political changes, or least be the beginning of a process in the direction of such. For much more detailed discussion of this, see the 9/13/08 blog entry "why vote for me".
Fourth, if I really had the opportunity to be president, I would take it, not because I think it would contribute to my happiness, but because I really do feel passionately about my high-level moral and political beliefs and, having devoted loads of time and my philosophical skills in thinking about them, I really do think I would be good for the country by way of practically applying those beliefs as president. And, if I run several write-in campaigns over the years, and then perhaps a real national campaign or two, I just might be able to get myself on the political map, and who knows, in 20 or 30 years or so actually have a real shot.
First, running a serious campaign would be a better way of getting not just my students, but anyone who I could make aware of my candidacy, to think more about the election and the relevant issues in perhaps different and better ways.
Second, I would like to do my part in getting US voters to think more seriously about voting outside the two major parties. Although I certainly understand the motivation not to, I nonetheless think it is very unfortunate that potentially very good presidents, such as Ralph Nader and John Hagelin (Natural Law Party candidate in 1992, 1996 and 2000), never have a real shot for fear that the "worse" major party candidate will get elected.
Third, generalizing on the second point, I think running a presidential campaign, even of this small-scale write-in sort, could potentially have worthwhile political effects and lead to beneficial political changes, or least be the beginning of a process in the direction of such. For much more detailed discussion of this, see the 9/13/08 blog entry "why vote for me".
Fourth, if I really had the opportunity to be president, I would take it, not because I think it would contribute to my happiness, but because I really do feel passionately about my high-level moral and political beliefs and, having devoted loads of time and my philosophical skills in thinking about them, I really do think I would be good for the country by way of practically applying those beliefs as president. And, if I run several write-in campaigns over the years, and then perhaps a real national campaign or two, I just might be able to get myself on the political map, and who knows, in 20 or 30 years or so actually have a real shot.
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.
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.
brief introduction
Hi, I'm Brian Kierland, and I'm running a part-time but fully serious write-in presidential campaign. My current goal is to get 1000 votes in Idaho, 250 votes in Missouri, and 250 votes throughout the other 48 states. Between now (9/13/08, start date of my campaign and this blog) and Election Day, I will continue to make posts in this blog, which will gradually make clear where I stand on the issues, etc.
I am single, never married (though once upon a time a "co-mortage-payor", as she liked to put it), 35 yo, agnostic, a quasi-vegetarian (I now occasionally eat humanely raised meat), and a professor of philosophy at Boise State University.
I grew up in Boise, Idaho, got my BA in philosophy from College of Idaho, my PhD in the same from Princeton, taught at the tenure-track level for two years at Augustana College, for five years at University of Missouri (in neither case leaving on bad terms or with an expectation of not getting tenure), returning to Boise this fall to teach at BSU as their new tenure-track hire.
Some of my non-professional and non-political interests include tennis, soccer, basketball, ping-pong, foozball, physics, mathematics, reading contemporary fiction (though haven't had much time for this recently), listening to music (especially a lot of fairly recent indie pop and rock), and walking and playing with my dog, Maya.
I have never been convicted, let alone accused (by the authorities), of a crime beyond automobile speeding. I have smoked pot (including the inhaling part) and eaten magic mushrooms, but have not done any other kind of illegal drugs.
I have never served in the military, but I did register for military service when I turned 18.
On religion, I am agnostic. But I am not anti-religious in at all the way many agnostics and atheists are. I acknowledge all the good (though also all the bad) that has been done in the name of religion. I also think that real Christianity (as opposed to the very non-Jesus-like Christianity of the neo-cons ... more on that soon) would, in almost every case, support very laudable and worthwhile political goals.
My moral philosophy is basically that of utilitarianism: what ought morally to be done is what maximizes overall happiness (for any creatures capable of happiness, including non-human ones). But I do realize how demanding this standard is, and so acknowledge a qualification to the effect that it is reasonable to abstain from overly demanding personal sacrifice. This qualification also applies, I think, to non-individual/corporate agents (at lease those acting on the behalf of individuals), most importantly in this context: the US. Although I do not believe that, at a deep moral level, it is better for the more deserving (e.g., the harder-working) to fare better, I think it is likely that, to a large extent in most cases, law and policy should be written "as if" this were the case. The idea here is to craft law and policy to motivate individuals, by way of expectations about how they will fare, to do their part in maximizing overall happiness. (In my view, however, an important exception here is health care. I think everyone should be legally entitled to it, at least to some minimal but still significant level.)
I am on the fence about whether utilitarianism also needs to be qualified in respect of fairness/equality. However, similar to issues of deservingness, I think in practice, as a political leader and craftsman of law and policy, this will rarely matter. Given diminishing margins of utility, there will almost always be a utilitarian preference for more fair/equal states of affairs, at least given normal facts about human psychology and society.
I am single, never married (though once upon a time a "co-mortage-payor", as she liked to put it), 35 yo, agnostic, a quasi-vegetarian (I now occasionally eat humanely raised meat), and a professor of philosophy at Boise State University.
I grew up in Boise, Idaho, got my BA in philosophy from College of Idaho, my PhD in the same from Princeton, taught at the tenure-track level for two years at Augustana College, for five years at University of Missouri (in neither case leaving on bad terms or with an expectation of not getting tenure), returning to Boise this fall to teach at BSU as their new tenure-track hire.
Some of my non-professional and non-political interests include tennis, soccer, basketball, ping-pong, foozball, physics, mathematics, reading contemporary fiction (though haven't had much time for this recently), listening to music (especially a lot of fairly recent indie pop and rock), and walking and playing with my dog, Maya.
I have never been convicted, let alone accused (by the authorities), of a crime beyond automobile speeding. I have smoked pot (including the inhaling part) and eaten magic mushrooms, but have not done any other kind of illegal drugs.
I have never served in the military, but I did register for military service when I turned 18.
On religion, I am agnostic. But I am not anti-religious in at all the way many agnostics and atheists are. I acknowledge all the good (though also all the bad) that has been done in the name of religion. I also think that real Christianity (as opposed to the very non-Jesus-like Christianity of the neo-cons ... more on that soon) would, in almost every case, support very laudable and worthwhile political goals.
My moral philosophy is basically that of utilitarianism: what ought morally to be done is what maximizes overall happiness (for any creatures capable of happiness, including non-human ones). But I do realize how demanding this standard is, and so acknowledge a qualification to the effect that it is reasonable to abstain from overly demanding personal sacrifice. This qualification also applies, I think, to non-individual/corporate agents (at lease those acting on the behalf of individuals), most importantly in this context: the US. Although I do not believe that, at a deep moral level, it is better for the more deserving (e.g., the harder-working) to fare better, I think it is likely that, to a large extent in most cases, law and policy should be written "as if" this were the case. The idea here is to craft law and policy to motivate individuals, by way of expectations about how they will fare, to do their part in maximizing overall happiness. (In my view, however, an important exception here is health care. I think everyone should be legally entitled to it, at least to some minimal but still significant level.)
I am on the fence about whether utilitarianism also needs to be qualified in respect of fairness/equality. However, similar to issues of deservingness, I think in practice, as a political leader and craftsman of law and policy, this will rarely matter. Given diminishing margins of utility, there will almost always be a utilitarian preference for more fair/equal states of affairs, at least given normal facts about human psychology and society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
