Robin's Moral Conundrum

Me, myself and my inner utilitarian were recently arguing over the justifiability of the Robin Hood ethic of robbing the rich to feed the poor [1]. So I thought I might think about it a bit more with a blog.

Hypothetical situation: You are paying for a meal at a restaurant and the cashier gives you $10 extra change, which you return without thinking, as I presume most of us would. Walking back home you pass a homeless person and so you give him $10 for dinner. Walking on you pass a second homeless person, but find that you have no more cash on you so you leave him nothing. Now he will go and eat his dinner out of a trash can, an end you would have prevented had you kept the additional change rather than returning it.

Clearly the restaurant is the lawful owner of the $10, but is it the rightful owner? The $10 would make a real difference to the homeless person, but would have been dismissed as shrinkage with little thought or care by the restaurant. Presumably a utilitarian perspective would then support the theft.

Is it morally significant that the rule of law is breached? Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13, Titus 3:1 seem to suggest so. But surely our case is entirely unlike, say, an armed robbery, which creates fear and disorder on a wide scale. Our situation seems more like a civil dispute than a criminal offence since no-one but the restaurant seems to be negatively impacted at all. Neither was this ‘theft’ planned; rather, circumstances were outside of the control of the agent; it was almost as if luck had bestowed on him the opportunity. Is this then not an act against the authority?

But perhaps it is wrong because the agent is claiming for himself the power over a decision that rightfully belongs to the lawful owners of the money. In providing their service, the restaurant acquired the right to the money and removing their property right may be wrong in principle. Eighth commandment: Do not steal. I think it is fair to say that not giving someone their property is equivalent to taking it away from them [2].

But does the right to property outweigh all others? Or is the right to subsistence more essential and able to ‘trump’ property rights. I think most people would agree that some rights are of greater weight than others. For example, Article 24 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: “Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including…periodic holidays with pay” - an assertion that seems almost trivial beside the right to life, liberty and security of the person, or freedom of expression. So then, can we say it is better to deny a man his property rights than let a man starve? In our hypothetical situation both can not be had; either one actively breaks a rights, or passively submits to one being broken. What is one to do?

So far I think I have just asked the questions without giving much opinion (not that ethics is a matter of opinion - you heard me all you moral relativists, not a matter of opinion). Basically I have to say that one must give the change to the lawful owner and, operating within the constraints of the law, do as much as possible to assist the more needy person. If you discard absolutes such as those that prevent stealing then you place yourself on shaky moral ground, and its only a matter of time before you lose your balance.


[1] Not that Robin Hood ever robbed, he just sort of borrowed a bit from those who could afford it, to cite the classic Disney movie
[2] So, unfortunately for Robin, failure to return borrowed funds adds up to the same thing as robbing. Can’t escape on a technicality there.

Total Depravity

I have recently been reading about the Stanford Prison Experiment - an 1971 psychology study of prison life by Philip Zimbardo. In the experiment twenty-four young men, chosen to be the most healthy and ‘normal’ available, were given roles as either prisoners or prison guards.

‘Prisoners’ were ‘arrested’, dressed in smocks, chained at the ankles and locked up in cells. ‘Guards’ were given khaki uniforms and wooden batons and told: “You can create in the prisoners feelings of boredom, a sense of fear to some degree, you can create a notion of arbitrariness that their life is totally controlled”.

Originally intended to last two weeks, the experiment was terminated after six days on the grounds that it was unethical. Over the six days the guards had “steadily increased their coercive aggression tactics, humiliation and dehumanisation of the prisoners," Zimbardo recalls. Prisoners were stripped naked and place in solitary confinement, forced to clean toilet bowls with bare hands, simulate sodomy, or urged to turn on their fellow inmates, with the worst instances of abuse occurring during the night when the guards thought the staff were not watching.

Most of the guards were upset when the experiment concluded early.

How, I wonder, could ordinary college students descend so quickly to this level of sadistic cruelty? And if they were just normal, young men does that mean I would have done the same in such a position? Of course I want to say I wouldn’t have, and never could; I want to say I am different in some essential way, but in the end I don’t think I am. I remember shamefully times in the schoolyard joining in the taunts of my classmates, deriding and humiliating an easy target.

I remember asking similar questions in Year 9 English when I first read Lord of the Flies - the William Golding novel about a group of British boys who, stranded on a inland, turn rapidly into savages. I don’t think I took as much away form the book as I should have. It was fiction, so I could distance myself from the implications. And there was Piggy, the boy who never forgot about that understandable and lawful world, even as it slipped away - perhaps he could be my moral equivalent. I guess I was clutching straws; anything that might suggest I wouldn’t be given over to the same desire to squeeze and hurt that the even Ralph found over-mastering.

Golding said of his novel: “The theme is an attempt to trace the defects of society back to the defects of human nature. Before the war, most Europeans believed that man could be perfected by perfecting his society. We all saw a hell of a lot in the war that can't be accounted for except on the basis of original evil.” I think we have fallen again into the trap of the pre-war Europeans - we believe we can protect ourselves from the beast within.

After the horrendous images emerged from Abu Ghraib prison we were prepared to point the finger towards the soldiers, and the army who failed to monitor the situation, and the war which put them there. But perhaps the only reason this happened was to avoid facing the obvious truth that any of us could have done this; the realization that all our feeling of moral respectability are as fragile as a house of cards, set to blow over with the next gust of wind.

Bollywood Blurb

It really bugs me when I hear about these cases where consumers sue companies for what was essentially the consumer's own choice (supposedly influenced unfairly by the company). I mean, if your primary source for information on the impact of cigarettes or junk food on your health is the people trying to sell this stuff to you, then you probably deserve whatever you got coming to you.

But then, I guess we need some way to ensure that the corporate world is fair in how they manipulate the public. In order to encourage truth in this area I think I ought to give recognition where it is due. Generally advertisements grossly exaggerate the value of a product and surprisingly never provide a summary of its faults. Yet yesterday i cam across a remarkable counter-example to this trend. The following is the blurb from a DVD I bought of Asoka:

"A trashy movie that is not only boring, but extremely misleading. This is a film that is supposed to be happening in 2-3rd century BC, and at least be sketching the life of King Ashoka the Great. The film fails miserably to do any justification to its title, which unfortunately has been used shamelessly as a gimmick to sell the trash mainly to Indian cosmopolitan and western audiences. The film in the beginning claims not to be accurate, but it is no excuse for abandoning truth altogether. The film is boring and has copied some of the ideas from Gladiator and Braveheart. The war scenes are ridiculous. From the typical Bollywood formula movie angle, it is an average movie. Cinematography and songs are good."

Wow, some big praise there at the end which balances out the bias. Effective marketing anyhow, cause I paid for the product. If only all marketers were as honest/illiterate, then maybe we would spend less time wasting away in front of the idiot box.

Pascal’s Wager

For those who haven’t heard of it before, Pascal’s Wager was this argument Blaise Pascal had for why we ought to believe in God [1], despite what our desires/reason to the contrary. He claims that one must wager for or against God and that the rational decision is to wager for the existence of God, because then infinite utility is secured against the loss of finite utility.

And I do not like Pascal’s Wager. I don’t like the logic, I don’t like what it says about God; I don’t like what is says about faith.

Voltaire called the gambit “indecent and childish…the interest I have to believe a thing is no proof that such a thing exists”.[2] Some may say, for example, that their race is superior to all others despite lacking any real logical proofs simply because they want this to be true. A belief in the existence of God based a desire for an utopian afterlife shows similar unreason.

The wager follows form Pascal’s belief that god “has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is”. Since the beginning the gospel was opposed by Gnostic notions that God is unknowable, but the Bible claims that:

God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth.[3]

God is personal and relational, and I can’t see that it is possible to both claim to have a relationship with God, yet believe that it can not be known what is his nature or if he even exists. The assertion that God is light emphasise that (although he can not be fully know) he is not ambiguous, nor does he hide his nature. I don’t know a lot about mathematics, but I still know with complete certainty that 1 + 1 = 2. In the same way I may never know everything about God (obviously much about God is beyond my understanding) but I can know with complete certainty that he exists, that he is good and that he is relational.[4]

The kind of belief Pascal suggests is sufficient is, thus, an empty belief - just as any relationship would be empty if the parties could not trust that the other existed and has an interest in the relationship. This understanding of ‘belief’ naturally gives a very jilted perception of what it means to be Christian. It suggests that it is limited to the decision that God exists, for the purpose of securing salvation.

Christianity isn’t merely about making a decision that God exists, rather it is about a relationship with God and becoming a ‘new creation’.[5] Our faith can only be known by examining our lifestyle and beliefs.[6] Also, the wager marginalizes the losses associated with belief in God. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, “When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die…because only the man who is dead to his own will can follow Christ”.[7]

With this is mind another problem with the wager comes to mind, namely that the ‘rational’ approach it promotes suggests that the individual ought to do what is in their best interests, whereas the Christian is motivated by what is in God’s best interests. The gospel is all about self-sacrifice, considering oneself after others and after God. Thus, a motivation from rationality (maximising one’s own utility) undermines the entire gospel. Heaven and Hell are irrelevant to realising the truth of God‘s existence (though their existence necessarily follows a belief in a just God).



[1] Being pre-Enlightenment Europe, ‘god’ as conceived by Pascal was necessarily the god of Christianity. Hence the assumption that the existence of heaven/hell follow from the existence of God. My comments also refer to the Christian God.
[2] Pascal didn’t actually claim that the wager did prove God, rather he claimed God’s existence could not be proven. But the criticism still stands.
[3] 1 John 1:5-6
[4] I also disagree with Pascal’s assumption that there is equivalent probability of God existing/not existing, although I don’t really have the time to present the proofs.
[5] 2 Corinthians 5:17
[6] 2 Corinthians 13:5-8
[7] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship

More on the election

I recently heard about an interesting theory called the ‘halo effect’, which basically holds that we judge things more in terms of good and bad then in categories. So, if we consider something (or someone) good (or bad) in one category, we presume that evaluation holds for other, unrelated categories. For example, Australian cricketers are very good at hitting cricket balls, yet people also consider them good judges of the best mobile phone, fast food chain etc. Of course, they have no real authority on such subjects, and when we look into it we generally find that their opinion strangely coincides with whoever is paying them money. Or someone that looks real pretty, it is often assumed, will also be a good actor or singer, even when the evidence so very often suggests otherwise.

I think the influence of the halo effect was also very apparent in the last presidential election with the focus on personal histories. John McCain, it was alleged, would be a good president because he was a good soldier, whereas Obama would be a bad president because he goes to a weird church, has skinny legs, and his dad was from Kenya (which is kinda near where all those terrorists are from, right?). But perhaps McCain would be a bad president cause he is kinda old, and Obama and his family are much better looking. How about the number of Clinton voters who were purportedly anti-Obama, even though the two had almost identical policies. The big differences between the two: skin color and gender.

Of course it is important to elect a president who shows wisdom and courage in their actions away from the political scene, perhaps it is also important that they have charisma and represent the people, but surely the emphasis should remain on what is actually significant to their role as president. I didn't feel this was the case in an election which so often seemed about getting the first African American president/female vice.

'Change'

So, that is why Obama's slogan drew such big crowds. Well, he did do particularly well in the states with high unemployment.

But he isn't the first to run a campaign with such a slogan. Which I find rather surprising. Okay, perhaps not so surprising this time, since the last president led the nation into two as yet unsuccessful wars, the worst financial crisis in a century and managed to turn basically the whole world against the US. But really, the slogan 'Change' says very little - only that we won't be like the other guys.

I think one reason that it is an effective message is because we tend to be very critical of our leaders largely due to the impact of the media which constantly reminds us of their falls and places the blame in the government's lap. Since our focus is on the negatives, our impression come election time will also be that there is need for change. As the old actor Will Rogers said, "The more you read and observe about this Politics thing, you got to admit that each party is worse than the other. The one that's out always looks the best."

I may be reading too much into it, but I also see this as coming from a particular Western mindset. Our attitude towards the past is quite unique. We look back on our ancestors as barbaric and ignorant, we shuns tradition. Our culture is individualistic and entrepreneurial; we are encouraged to challenge existing structures and be elements of change. In the East, by contrast, ancestors are worshiped and tradition is held in esteem. Social structures are more stable and people are, perhaps, viewed more collectively in family or social groups. I think this prevents many positive developments like those experienced in the West, which is why many societies in the East are comparatively patriarchal and autocratic. But in some ways this can be better, certainly it is necessary to have this kind of stability in impoverished nations. Certainly those in the East see that their system has retained conceptions of 'honour' and family that are disappearing in the West.

But, for this election at least, I have no complaints about a campaign that promotes doing things very differently.

What Is Man?

The book I am reading at the moment features a intriguing (fictional) conversation between a Nazi officer and an American Jew sympathiser named Chris towards the end of WWII. Reflecting on the Holocaust the Nazi officer would ask himself, I quote:

‘How could we do this? The fine, cultured German people, after which I rattle off the names of musicians, poets, doctors, and list all our gifts to mankind. How could we do this? It will take the great philosophical and psychiatric brains a hundred years to find a standard of morals to explain this behaviour’
‘I’ll simplify it,’ Chris said. ‘You’re a pack of beasts.’
‘Oh no, Chris, we are not even to be classed with the beasts. Man is the only animal on the planet which destroys its own species. But how in the devil did I get involved in this? I’m no more guilty than you are. Less, perhaps. I’m trapped. But you, dear Chris, are all the moralists in the world who have condoned genocide by the conspiracy of silence.’
- Leon Uris, Mila 18

I agree that man’s desire to do evil to his own differentiates him from the beasts. But does not our value of altruism also do so? So which is more characteristically ‘human’, a tendency towards good or evil?*

Well, quite clearly, most people value good more than evil. Most people believe it is valuable to pursue good. We expect this of each other (but certainly not of animals). But at the same time I feel as though the practise of evil is more frequent than the application of good intentions. But maybe I only feel this way because I am reflecting on the Holocaust, which hardly enhances faith in the virtue of man.

I suppose Platonic and much religious thought would suppose that evil is more characteristic of humanity in their earthliness and deficiency. Really, I don’t know whether good or evil better describes us, but perhaps the capability of the choice between the two does. Animals are not accountable for their destructive acts, but nor are they worthy personal merit, for they act without consideration of the morality of acts.

Acknowledging this, to deny the ability to choose is to reject one’s humanity. Thus, the Nazi officer in Mila 18 does position himself with the beasts when he claims to be ‘trapped’. He denies that he has the choice between good and evil, denying what is in essence ‘human’. I think morally, therefore I am human.

Mark Twain argued that, "Man [is a] machine - man the impersonal engine. Whatever a man is, is due to his make, and to the influences brought to bear upon it by his heredities, his habitat, his associations. He is moved, directed, COMMANDED, by exterior influences - solely. He originates nothing, not even a thought." (What is Man?)
I don't deny that, to some extent, a person is conditioned by their surrounds, however, this is not the sole determinate of actions. To argue such is to deny what it is to be human, and inevitably leads to fatalism - 'I can do nothing other than that which my upbringing has already determined I will do, thus none of my actions are my choice or of moral significance'. You may also have noticed that by Twain's own logic, his view is merely the product of his make and influences, and not based on the actual rationality or truth of such a view.

Richard Dawkins naturalist arguments are in a similar vein:
“We, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes...our genes have survived, in some cases for millions of years, in a highly competitive world. This entitles us to expect certain qualities in our genes. I shall argue that a predominant quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness. This gene selfishness will usually give rise to selfishness in individual behaviour. However, as we shall see, there are special circumstances in which a gene can achieve its own selfish goals best by fostering a limited form of altruism {enlightened self-interest) at the level of individual animals. 'Special' and 'limited' are important words in the last sentence. Much as we might wish to believe otherwise, universal love and the welfare of the species as a whole are concepts that simply do not make evolutionary sense." (The Selfish Gene)
So, in Dawkins' view, man is in essence selfish. But there is nothing distinctive to man, except its concentration of certain biological characteristics also apparent in any animal. We are all a 'pack of beasts' - and this accounts for and justified any possible action. But, of course, such claims make no 'evolutionary sense' as they purely determined by Dawkins' own genetic formation. Transforming man into a pile of genes denies what is essentially human, and its attraction is not based on reason, but on avoidance of the implications of morality. Admit morality, and you admit culpability.


* By my definition, ‘good’ is love of God and love of others. Evil is the lack of love for God and others, manifested in selfishness and destructive actions.