Universal Declaration of Human Rights

There is much in the way of praiseworthy aspirational language to be found within the four corners of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but it is not self-executing and it is questionable whether it has measurably advanced its own stated goals.  Moreover, it is doubtful whether its stated goals are universally beneficial to the human race. 

Take, for example, Article 25:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

By implication, it would seem that an all-pervasive paternalistic cradle-to-grave socialism is the only ethical means by which a government may structure a society in accordance with universal standards proclaimed by the United Nations.  Even if we can forget that the U.N. as an organization has an incredibly weak claim to the status of moral exemplar to the globe, it is inexplicable that the socio-economic system of a price-coordinated economy (which has provided countless people with the abovementioned necessaries of life) gets such short shrift relative to the exaltation of the forcible redistribution of wealth (the implementation of which has starved millions to death in Asia alone). 

 

The general failure of pseudo-arguments asserting an ethical mandate for unfulfilled rights has been aptly demonstrated by Thomas Sowell:

One of the most remarkable—and popular—ways of seeming to argue without actually producing any arguments is to say that some individual or group has a “right” to something that you want them to have. * * * Take, for example, the proposition, “Every American has a right to decent housing.” If all that is really being said is that some (or all) of us would prefer to see all Americans living in housing that meets or exceeds whatever standard we may have for “decent housing.” then there is no need for the word “rights,” which conveys no additional information and which can be confused with legal authorizations or moral arguments, neither of which is present.

Moreover, if we are candid enough to say that such “rights” merely boil down to what we would like to see, then there is no need to restrict the statement to Americans or to housing that is merely “decent.” Surely we would all be happier to-see every human being on the planet living in palatial housing—a desire which has no fewer (and no more) arguments behind it than the “right” to “decent” housing.

However modest a goal, “decent” housing does not produce itself, any more than palatial housing does. Be it ever so humble, someone has to build a home, which requires work, skills, material resources, and financial risks for those whose investments underwrite the operation. To say that someone has a “right” to any kind of housing is to say that others have an obligation to expend all these efforts on his behalf, without his being reciprocally obligated to compensate them for it.

Focus especially on that last sentence.  If my worthless bum of a cousin has a moral right to be fed, clothed, housed, and medically treated at taxpayer expense, does this right imply any moral duty on his part to stop indulging his Article 24 “right to rest and leisure,” get off his fat ass, and find a job?  I would think the question answers itself, but the U.N. seems not to be even aware of the issue.

The Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit

I’ve been hearing much made of this Richard Dawkins fellow coming to speak at the University of Oklahoma, so I decided to have a look at his most recent book. I did not get far before becoming overwhelmed with the sense that he believes that his brilliance in some areas (e.g. biology, zoology) makes him perfectly qualified to argue about other areas entirely (e.g. philosophy of religion) in which he lacks any serious training or experience. This is a familiar feeling to anyone who indulges in reading the shockingly amateurish journals of high-IQ societies in their spare time.

Here is a telling example:

Creationist 'logic' is always the same. Some natural phenomenon is too statistically improbable, too complex, too beautiful, too awe-inspiring to have come into existence by chance. Design is the only alternative to chance that the authors can imagine. Therefore a designer must have done it. And science's answer to this faulty logic is also always the same. Design is not the only alternative to chance. Natural selection is a better alternative. Indeed, design is not a real alternative at all because it raises an even bigger problem than it solves: who designed the designer?

Any entity capable of intelligently designing something as improbable as a Dutchman's Pipe (or a universe) would have to be even more improbable than a Dutchman's Pipe. Far from terminating the vicious regress, God aggravates it with a vengeance.

These passages demonstrate the sort of metaphysical naiveté which philosophy profs usually try to beat out of their students in their first year.

Let’s unpack Dawkins’ (mis)characterization of creationist thinking here:

1. If something we observe is sufficiently improbable, complex, awe-inspiring, etc., then it must have been intelligently designed.
2. The cosmos as a whole meets the above criteria, because it is so improbably, complex, awe-inspiring, etc.
3. Accordingly, the cosmos as a whole must have been designed by an intelligent agent which cannot exist as part of the universe itself.
4. Anything sufficiently complex to design XYZ is at least as complex/improbable/awe-inspiring as XYZ itself
5. :. Said intelligent designer must also have been designed, per premises (1 & 3)

Never mind that Dawkins has written an entire book debunking premises (1 & 4) or that the amazing explanatory power of natural selection is impossible to apply at a cosmic level (e.g. various universes competing for the scarce resources of the metaverse). It is the attempted application of creationist premise (1) to a non-spatiotemporal cosmic übermind which one should find particularly troubling. Dawkins is actually arguing that if premise (1) holds true for the cosmos as a whole (or any constituent units thereof) then it also must hold true for anything outside of space and time as well. This fallacy of extrapolation makes the better-known fallacy of composition (of which Dawkins is certainly aware) seem like a cautious bit of standard logical induction by comparison.

People of every worldview must accept some aspects of the universe as brute facts which are fundamental and lack any possible explanation. For naturalists, it is nature itself, while for deists, it is the mind of god. One cannot expect either sort of person to seek a deeper explanation for that which they consider ultimately fundamental.

The Obama-nation that pauses derogation

The term derogation has two important senses in the English language: any act which belittles or disparages someone, or a legal term of art denoting that which limits the scope or impairs the utility or force of some preexisting legal authority. 

 

The Obama administration has strongly signaled an intent to put the brakes on the incessant and unproductive derogation and vilification of each major political party by the other.  He has done this in various ways, such as dining with conservative luminaries and appointing pragmatic and relatively centrist (or non-partisan) figures such as Robert Gates, Mary Schapiro and Ray LaHood, people who have built their careers on professionalism and merit without much regard for ideological litmus tests.  One begins to sense, with cautious optimism, that Obama’s many promises of building up a post-partisan dialogue (and even a bi-partisan consensus on certain crucial issues) may well be something more than mere campaign puffery, after all.  This is most encouraging as we enter an era during which our national prosperity and security may be too imperiled to be rescued by the efforts of only half of our nation’s leaders and policymakers.  Of course, such reconciliatory efforts may not work with a Congress so opposed to Progress, but surely it is heartening to see the chief executive having a go.

 

In its legal sense, derogation implies a partial impairment, as opposed to complete abrogation which wholly overturns or annuls another legal authority.  The question of whether the actions of the Bush Administration were actually in derogation of fundamental constitutional rights and other well-marked limitations on executive power remains to be fully adjudicated, although the weight of legal scholarship is certainly leaning towards an affirmative answer.  That said, it should be clear by now that the Obama administration has already made steps to shift the balance of powers between the federal branches on to a more soundly constitutional footing, by laying out clear policies on coercive interrogation and shutting down a prison system which was always intended as an end-run around the federal courts.  These actions should raise cries of applause from the hardcore constitutionalists who constitute the anti-federalist tip of the American right wing (as we have heard from Libertarians and Bob Barr) but such retrogressive extremists may not take constitutional limitations on executive power quite so seriously as the name Constitution Party would seem to imply.

 

I wish the new President the very best in his efforts to roll back derogation in both senses, but unless Congress itself determines to move forward on key issues, it is unlikely that he will be given the chance.

 

Reddest State Redux

This is a quick follow-up to an earlier post about which states are the reddest. Here it is in an easier to visualise format:

From Blogger Pictures

IQ vs. Happiness

WTF TAL?

I’ve downloaded all available episodes of my favorite radio show and podcast: This American Life.  Out of 370 episodes to date, I’m only missing two.  I am sworn by all things holy to listen through every episode before A.D. 2010.  To that end, if anyone has any hint of the whereabouts of the mysteriously missing episodes numbered five and eight, please drop me a line.  Thanks!