Problems with the Libertarian Principle of Self Ownership

Summary: The principle of self-ownership is one of the two principles put forth by many as fundamental to libertarian political theory. However, it is ambiguous and insufficient as a basis for a political or moral philosophy. Libertarians, voluntaryists, anarchists and such would do better to abandon ambiguity and instead refer primarily to the principle of non-aggression.

In the interest of context, the reader should watch this persuasive video before continuing. It will take a few minutes, but it is a few minutes well spent:

The history of moral and political philosophy is, among other things, a series of assertions that individual and collective human activity is (or should be) directed with respect to a highest guiding principle, either because that is what will be "best" (whatever that means), or because that principle represents some kind of transcendent law akin to gravity. The problem, of course, is that different people each propose a different guiding principle; happiness, human flourishing, various religious precepts, common good, good will, rationality, various forms of egoism, pleasure, utility, societal approval, etc. A thorough study of these indicates that, for most part, each is correct in its own narrow way or a particular perspective, but there are difficulties. Any of these, taken exclusively, leads to choices and circumstances that seem to be wrong and that conflict with evaluations based on other, equally-justifiable principles. No single principle or maxim appears sufficient to guide all of human activity. However, each claims to be the highest principle (manifesting a problem known as incommensurability). If that is correct, then there is no higher rule by which to order or evaluate these principles, leaving any assertions regarding which is “better” than others as little more than subjective emotivism.

For (a classic) example of conflicting moral theories, one person might argue that it is justified, or actually good and moral, to grotesquely torture a terrorist who knows the location of a chemical bomb planted somewhere in a large city. The person arguing for the rightness of this action will appeal to the goodness of the lives saved, suffering avoided, etc., by bringing pain to this guilty criminal. Another might argue, however, that torture is intrinsically wrong, no matter to whom it is done or under what circumstances. He argues that the torturee might not be guilty -- he could be crazy, misidentified, or some other circumstance -- that the information collected is almost never useful, and that torture is, itself, fundamentally evil. Which of these persons is correct? Why? This is not a hypothetical or extreme problem. Our own government actively scoops up suspected "terrorists," violently tortures them, etc. It has come to light that the information collected was generally useless and, in many cases, they kidnapped, physically and psychologically destroyed (and even killed) innocent people. (A similar, but perhaps more inflammatory example can be raised with respect to abortion.)

In addition to the problems encountered when pushing a single principle as the sole highest value in all human circumstances -- such as how to choose the principle and order related principles and behaviors -- some principles have serious problems in and of themselves. Unfortunately, exuberant adherents to and proponents of such principles are frequently blind to these problems; this should not come as a surprise, as we are generally myopic when it comes to our own ideas, beliefs and values, and unaware of their weaknesses and errors until they are rigorously challenged (if even then). One such principle that is routinely espoused rather uncritically yet enthusiastically is the libertarian principle of self-ownership.

As with any such principle, it would be best to clearly define what it means from the outset. And that is where we hit our first problem: there is not a consensus or clarity on what this even means (and we are asking for something that is unlikely to happen in expecting consensus from libertarians). Specifically, precisely what is it that is owned, who or what owns it, and what does that ownership imply regarding the freedom of the owner to utilize his property?

Some define self-ownership in a narrow, restrictive way, to merely mean (in application) that no one else may act as if I am his property; what I should or should not do with my self is then subject to a variety of other moral considerations and maxims... or not. On the comprehensive, permissive end, self-ownership is taken to mean that one's body (or life) is merely an object like any other object, and that the possessor of that object can do whatever he pleases with his own property, much as he could do as he wishes with a piece of wood or a wrench. As long as the plank or wrench (or one's body) are not used to harm someone else, anything goes. But this prompts the question, "on what grounds are we adding the condition that you can do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't harm someone else?" There is also the problem of how to measure or qualify what harm is, whether it has actually happened, and so on. These may seem like esoteric or abstract questions, but they are precisely what matters if one starts trying to actually apply the self ownership principle.

One might say, "rational life or persons are not property, and therefore cannot be owned." This is a concept that could have traction. To a large degree, acts of slavery have involved a demeaning of the slave as something sub-human, merely animal. And we see that dehumanization is generally a precursor to harming a person or population. But this, too, even if correct, just takes us down an alley toward even more subtle questions:

• Why is it that only rational life is not property? Why not other living things? Why living things and not non-living things?
• Any control we have over anything, whether ourselves or external objects, is limited. fleeting and perhaps even illusory. This being the case, what does ownership really mean?

This spectrum of meaning perceived in the principle of self-ownership reflects the spectrum of persons attracted to libertarianism, ranging from atheists, skeptics, materialists and others who question nearly any moral norm, to theists who might otherwise be caricatured as very (morally) conservative or traditional, who argue that we don't so much own our lives as much as we have been entrusted with them. It also reflects a related spectrum of thought and belief with respect to anthropology and ontology (the meaning of humanity and being). In other words, despite enthusiastic cries to the contrary, the reality is that the principle of self-ownership is neither uniformly held nor understood by those who are otherwise proponents of libertarianism and similar philosophies (e.g., voluntaryism, agorism, minarchism, anarchism, etc.). These differences with respect to what is presented as a fundamental, unifying principle are highly problematic.

The problems lurking in the principle of self-ownership are related to the meaning(s) of the words own and property, as well as perspectives regarding the construction and meaning of the human person. With respect to own and property, scrutiny seems to reveal them to be mental constructs having to do with socially-acceptable human behavior. As such, there is a very real possibility that they are completely arbitrary. Specifically, when we look to the external, natural world, we do not find clear examples of ownership or property in any objective, transcendent sense. Some animals collect things, but this in no way prevents another animal from taking them. Some animals claim a territory, but the claim does not prevent any other animal from challenging that claim.

We assume that these words and the ideas they represent are realities, to the degree that people will fight to the death over the objects they describe. It isn't clear that these concepts of own and property have any meaning independent of mental constructs, and as such we are left with a fundamental problem. To resolve the matter, we must discern whether our mental construct is, in fact, purely arbitrary and fictitious, or whether, being rational, we have discerned something beyond the grasp or practice of other, less-rational creatures -- a kind of universal or transcendent law. This is not a question that is easily answered, and we should be immediately suspicious of anyone who claims otherwise, or that the answer is "self evident," or any other nonsense.

What does it mean to “own” something? Some say that it has to do with having control, but we can control things that we do not own. Some say that it has to do with possession, but we can possess things that we do not own, and own things that we do not possess. Strictly speaking, to own something seems to mean that one has the ultimate and complete authority with respect to its use (i.e., can determine who may or may not use it, how it can be used, etc., without anyone being able to require otherwise). Such authority seems to be associated with being involved in a thing's creation, or in transfer of such authority from someone who was. But, again, we seem to be discussing a social convention more than something objective.

For example, a few years ago I made a cedar strip canoe. I own it (I think), by which I mean that I can determine who may or may not use it, how it may be used, and so on. No one may rightly presume to use it in a way other than what I have authorized. Indeed, I could use it in ways completely contrary to its design, and though people might say that what I was doing was foolish, they couldn't (rightly) argue that it was “wrong” or immoral. In other words, claims regarding ownership are ultimately moral claims, and as such, open up "a whole 'nother can of worms" (and one that many libertarians don't want to mess with).

Another way of making the same relational assertions without making problematic anthropological, ontological and moral implications is to just assert that other people are not your property and should never be treated as such. This position is congruent with maxims from many philosophical movements and religions:

• People should never be treated merely as means to an end.
• Love your neighbor as yourself.
• Do unto others as you would have done to you.
• Do not do to others as you would not have done to you.
• Live and let live.

This is also congruent with the one thing that various libertarians generally hold in common: the idea that no one may rightly threaten or initiate harm – may not “aggress” – against an innocent person (and by innocent I mean precisely someone who is not initiating harm or threats against someone else). This can be derived from the principle of self-ownership. This is often stated, however, as a distinct principle – the non-aggression principle – and is justified for reasons independent from the principle of self-ownership (i.e., arguments from theism as well as normative moral philosophies like deontology, virtue-ethics and utilitarianism also frequently endorse or promote non-aggression, but on completely different bases).

Granted, the non-aggression principle is, like ownership, vulnerable to the accusation that it is nothing more than a social custom, an assertion. The difference, however, is that it is directly-related to behavior -- indeed, it specifically is a behavior-related maxim -- as opposed to a principle that one then has to unpack and apply. In this sense it appears to be fully compatible with the categorical imperative of Kant's deontology (in both the perfect and imperfect senses), as well as other major moral philosophies and religions.

There may be a problem hidden in utilitarianism, which allows for acts that would otherwise be considered to evil to be engaged in an "ends justifies the means" kind of context, but it is arguable that this is likely not due to a problem with the non-aggression principle, as much as it may be a problem with utilitarianism/consequentialism.

What does this all mean for day-to-day life?

First, we must acknowledge that libertarian political philosophy is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral philosophy. It is obviously and deliberately insufficient to such a task. Rather, it is a small set of ideas of principles that many people believe should be at the heart of our interactions with each other as a society.

With respect to the non-aggression principle, I encourage the reader, especially when in any kind of conflict with others, to ask himself whether his actions are, in fact, non-aggressive? If our actions, directly or indirectly, involve any kind of threat, demand upon or aggression against another person -- and this is frequently hidden, subtle -- then that is something to reconsider. The deeper problem here is that we are, for the most part, raised within a society where such behavior is not the exception, but the conditioned norm. As such, we don't even recognize it when we are doing it.

But perhaps that is something we can change.

Of Affirmation and Abuse

A Discussion with a Friend

A friend approached me during a lull in our Christmas gathering and asked about philosophical counseling and how it might apply to a situation from her past.

Engaging in counseling of any kind is frequently not advised with friends or family, but the issue she wanted to discuss was fairly safe, and this was more just a brief introduction to how one might approach it philosophically (she previously saw professional counselors about the same event).

"So how does this work," she asked.

"It is pretty simple, really. Just tell me about the issue that is on your mind, and how it is affecting you. I'll ask some questions along the way. My goal is to help you engage your own rational capacity to understand the situation better and, perhaps, find a way of working through it."

I enjoy philosophical discussions, but there is a difference (to me) between a philosophical discussion and philosophical counseling. The key distinction is that the counseling scenario focuses on a topic of interest primarily to one of the parties, and the philosopher is acting more as a kind of personal trainer or coach -- but with respect to rationality rather than athletics -- to help the counselee work through the issue. Most people are capable of growing in rationality and solving the issues in which we find ourselves, but external pressures, our passions and conflicting beliefs frequently get in the way and make things confusing. A practical philosopher can help someone analyze an issue with more objectivity while avoiding common thinking and emotional errors.

So she spent the next 10-15 minutes explaining her ongoing feelings of resentment about how she was treated by a supervisor at a prior job. Specifically, the supervisor did not show appreciation for her successes, frequently took credit for her achievements, and treated her in demeaning and abusive ways that prompted her to feel sadness, anger and anxiety about her work and to question her personal worth. It sounded a little like an adult-bullying situation, which is actually quite common.

She related the events with substantial expression, detail and passion. The events remain very real, very present, although they took place years ago. She said she sometimes considers setting up a meeting with the supervisor to "confront him." "I just want to know why did he do those things to me. It was all so confusing."

It is probably not your fault

This prompts an important point. We might do (or be) things that trigger bad people to do bad to us. For example, we might walk through the parking garage at 2:00 AM, or might get drunk at a party, which could lead to unpleasant experiences. These acts aren't prudent, but they also aren't evil. Indeed, some people will go after you because you do well or are good. Yes, we could have avoided the situation had we made different choices, but that doesn't mean that the unfortunate event was our fault. This can be a point of confusion for several reasons, not the least of which is that the people who do bad things to others will often blame their victims.

Another thing to remember is that there are often many different, overlapping factors that contribute to an issue. In philosophical counseling, we are looking specifically at one's beliefs, values, habits and such, how these are influencing their emotional reactions and decisions, and how they are in conflict with each other, the surrounding circumstances, or objective norms. We are looking for the top one or two dynamics, even though we know there may be a lot more.

As she talked I asked a variety of questions, including:

• Do you think he treated other people this way, or just you?
• Do you think that other people experience this kind of treatment at other companies?
• Why do you think he treated you so? Was it something about you or something about him?
• Why was his opinion of you so important to you?

People who feel hurt by others or circumstances often also feel kind of isolated, alone. The purpose of these questions is to remind them that they aren't -- that most people experience these kinds of things (and some much worse). The third question has to do with whether we perceive the issue to be something internal, external or both. The last question turned out to be one the prompted the most introspection and reaction.

We had a very limited amount of time, and were in a noisy environment with many interruptions, so it made things a little difficult. With a little more discussion expressed that she is overly dependent on other people's approval, and that this has been a problem... but then added "what can I do about it?"

And that is the right question to be asking.

Before following that trail, however, it should be noted that her supervisor was probably a sociopath -- someone who lacks empathy, and perceives and treats other people as objects (i.e., either adversaries or tools). I'm not sure of this, but the behavior she described fits. He was at least a bully.

We will all run into sociopaths and bullies, no matter where we go (some sources estimate that as many as 1 in 25 people is a sociopath). You might get away from the one at the current job, but you'll just run into a whole new crop at the next one. They are found in every industry, religion, educational level, etc. Such people are psychological predators, and like any predator, they prey on those who they perceive to be weak. They are usually good at picking their targets, at detecting and leveraging vulnerabilities in others.

Her craving for approval, in this case, was both an issue in and of itself, as well as the button that her boss enjoyed pressing. When I asked her how important social approval was to her, she said very important. She immediately said she knew why, too, and began to talk about her childhood and relationship with her parents, at which point I said, "no no, we don't go there."

I was joking... sort of. Certainly, someone might feel better by talking about such things, at least for a little bit, and there are complete modalities of psychotherapy that basically just allow the person to ramble on in the belief that, in the right environment, the person can basically fix himself. No doubt it works for many situations, and if we can discern how we got into the current mess, it can be useful for avoiding similar errors in the future. However, focusing on past events can also become an excuse or way by which I rationalize my beliefs, telling myself that I am helpless to change because of what others did to me long ago. It can become a point in time, a scene, to which I gravitate repeatedly, reliving those experiences and feelings in an unhealthy way.

Like the person who meditates upon her fear of being buried alive in a box, going back and replaying bad experiences is, itself, unhealthy. The key is to bring the counselee to a point where he or she recognizes this, where he acknowledges that, by returning to and replaying these events, he is only hurting himself further. This recognition alone may not be enough to get one to stop "cold turkey," especially if it has become an ingrained behavior, but voluntarily acknowledging that what I'm doing is irrational and unhealthy, when complemented by good alternatives, is sufficient for most people to resume traveling in the right direction.

What you believe and value is more important than why

The more important question isn't why we have the beliefs, traits and values we have today, though that can be interesting and lead toward longer term solutions with a wider scope. Rather, the important question for the individual dealing with something right now is are these good, right and healthy? Are they helping me become the best person I can be, or are they somehow limiting and harming me (or others)?

If we reflect upon the excellent and practical Aristotelian, virtue-ethics approach to human nature and character, it would be -- it is -- a problem if one is excessively-dependent upon other people's approval (it really makes no difference how that condition came about). But it is also a problem if one has no care for how his actions affect others.

Consider the virtue of courage: If someone has no care or concern for life, and takes absurd risks, he is called reckless and rash. If he has excessive fear, then he is called cowardly. But if he is able to find the medium between these two extremes, we describe such a person as being courageous, brave, or as having fortitude.

When it comes to character, though there are some things that are always wrong and we should never do, virtue is generally found in the middle, between the extremes of excess and privation.

So the question, for one who finds himself near one extreme or the other, is "how do I become more moderate with respect to characteristic X?" In this case, how do I moderate my need for other people's affirmation? If I'm already in a state where I crave affirmation, or am emotionally suffering from a lack thereof or a related conflict, how do I do this? Merely thinking, "I don't need affirmation, I don't need affirmation," probably isn't going to do it. That is right up there with, "don't think about pink elephants," or "don't think about alcohol, stop thinking about alcohol!" (Different people have different struggles in this regard.)

Rather than just saying "stop it," philosophical counseling attempts to help the person see and truly understand, in a deeper way, how certain beliefs, values and habits are irrational and unhealthy, and then also provide practical means of reordering the beliefs and values. This takes some time and effort, though, especially when we aren't fully aware of what our beliefs and values are (which is quite common), and/or they have really taken deep root.

But belief isn't the only thing that matters

Earlier Western philosophers such as Socrates and Plato asserted that erroneous acts are rooted in erroneous belief. People do wrong because we believe wrong. That is certainly true, but not the whole truth. Aristotle modified this to assert that people can know what is the right thing to do -- and many don't get that far -- yet lack the strength of will to carry it out. This and related discussions moved forward through the centuries. By the time we get to Kant's deontology almost 2000 years later, there is a recognition that perhaps the only thing over which we have control (and even that may be limited) is our own will, or our intention. How thing actually turn out when we attempt to implement our will could be another matter entirely.

I agree with most of those from Aristotle forward who recognized that, at our very cores, we are kind of hedonists. That is, when making choices, we choose that which brings us the most pleasure (though not necessarily or only in the physical dimension). This is the explicit dynamic underlying Utilitarianism, which has been probably one of the most influential moral and political philosophies of our time. But even Aristotle noted that we are ultimately motivated by pain and pleasure. As such, the critical factor is that we learn to, in his words, "feel rightly about pain and pleasure" from a young age. Is this not exactly what we see in immature and disordered people? They find pleasure in things that are unhelpful or harmful, and displeasure in things that are actually good! Indeed, part of the goal (and painful difficulty) of parenting is precisely in trying to help the child by various means to find pleasure in the right things (e.g., "in a job well done," in good friendships, in honesty, etc.). Of course, we have a hard enough time sorting these things out for ourselves, let alone exemplifying or teaching them to others (hence the frequent parental mantra, "do as I say, not as I do").

But I digress....

In the case of needing approval, my friend had developed a strong pattern of deriving great pleasure from affirmation, and feeling pain when that was not forthcoming. Like any pleasure, this can have an addicting power over us, and can be very difficult to moderate. However, philosophical counseling holds that, as rational animals, we usually have the ability to recognize errors in our thinking and behaviors, and take steps toward correcting these.

In Logic Based Therapy (LBT), which is a particular mode of philosophical counseling, being overly-dependent on others' approval is a manifestation of Demanding Perfection, which basically means, "it really disturbs me when the world, events and other people don't do what I think they should do." One of the first steps of LBT is to discern what kind of emotional reasoning is implied by (or actually direction) a person's reactions. For example, it could be proposed that the emotional reasoning being employed by my friend is along the lines of:

1. If X does not acknowledge my successes, then he is hurting me, and that makes me very angry.
2. X did not acknowledge my achievements.
3. Therefore, I am hurt and angry.

Once the (implied or actual) emotional reasoning is identified, one inspects for fallacies. This is quite like what one might do in an argument or debate, but with LBT we are looking also for a variety of common positions that are self-destructive. There isn't really anything formally wrong with the argument's structure. It is perfectly valid and sound, as an argument (or syllogism). What is wrong is that it represents a personal position that gives other people disproportionate control over her happiness, motivations and choices. Also, it isn't that my friend is necessarily thinking this and reasoning her way to her response and current state, as much as this is the reasoning that is implied by the sequence of events. But either way -- whether deliberate or accidental -- we can see how this kind of sequence is damaging, and in recognizing it as such, it provides some traction for avoiding it in the future.

Many of our frustrations in life revolve around what others did or did not do, and our want for them to act differently. This can manifest itself in many different ways, and have many different emotional responses. The general LBT suggestion for those who are struggling with Demanding Perfection from the world or others to this is to grow in Metaphysical Security, which is a form of acceptance of reality and life as it really is, warts and all, so that my peace is not dependent upon external events. The person needs to move from believing that he must have other people's approval, to merely preferring it yet being able to function well and be content in its absence. To that end, the counselor might suggest some readings, or even simple practices, to help.

If someone wishes to become skilled at painting, tennis, golf or some other activity, he should study and attempt to copy the actions of experts in those fields; eventually, with time and practice, the skills become natural and effortless, and he even develops his own style of carrying them out. In Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle suggests that the way to become virtuous is to practice virtuous acts. In this case, that means practicing doing things without dependence upon affirmation. To that end, I suggested that she pick some action or project which she would normally do desiring other people's approval, but then do it completely in secret -- telling no one about it -- only for her own satisfaction. Perhaps some kind of anonymous charitable act. And not just once, but a series of these. The goal, of course, is for her to find pleasure in the goodness of the act itself, even though she receives no affirmation for doing so. In this way she both weans herself off of the need for affirmation while training herself to find pleasure in the goodness of the act, itself, and not the affirmation that it brings from certain people. The eventual goal is to be able to extend this personal virtue across one's whole character and arc of action, neither demanding nor ignoring other people's approval, but finding the correct balance.

There are, obviously, other issues to be addressed here (that we didn't get to), not the least of which is dealing with the ongoing feelings of anger about the treatment received. The intensity and frequency of these feelings is likely associated with a dynamic already mentioned, the habit of reliving or practicing events from the past (some people do the same thing, but with respect to future, imagined possibilities). The rational solution here, also encouraged in many religious and spiritual traditions, is to focus on the present moment, and if we are going to return to the past (or look to the future), to do so, insofar as we can, in a positive and moderate way. But that is a separate exercise, and in philosophical counseling we are often dealing with deeply-rooted beliefs and habits that need to be addressed with some gentleness, and not too many at once, or it can easily become overwhelming. It takes time to inspect our beliefs, as well as to reorder them and any associated habits.

When is it okay to choke someone to death?

Under what circumstances do you believe it is justified to threaten or use violence against another human being? 

Should that threshold be the same for all people? 

Why?

In July of 2014, Eric Garner was approached by a police officer for reasons that are unclear. Witnesses assert that Garner, who was 43, 6'3" and weighed 350 pounds, broke up a fight at the location a few minutes earlier. The police claim that he was illegally selling individual cigarettes. After some verbal interaction in which Garner asked to be left alone, several officers moved in on Garner to arrest him. He put up minimal resistance.

In the process of taking him to the ground, New York Police Officer Daniel Pantaleo's forearm went across and compressed Garner's neck and trachea for roughly 13 seconds; for the last half of that his hands were clasped. In martial arts, the technique is sometimes called a trachea crush or an air choke, because it compresses the victim's trachea with the radius bone, making it difficult or impossible for him to breath (this is distinct from a blood choke, strangle or sleeper hold which, when properly applied, primarily cuts off the blood supply to the brain, causing the recipient to lose consciousness in a few seconds). Light application of an air choke causes temporary pain. Heavy application can actually crush the trachea (hence the name). Medium to heavy pressure can cause ongoing breathing problems, even if only applied for a second, and even when released. Such breathing problems can be complicated by other issues (e.g., asthma), or trigger other physical responses (e.g., passing out, heart attack, vomiting, etc.), depending on the overall circumstances. In healthy people, a light air choke is painful but rarely serious. However, in unhealthy people, or if powerfully applied, it can cause injury or death.

In addition to the trachea compression, the video shows several officers placed their weight on Garner's body and head, pressing/pinning him to the ground. Given their size, this could have totaled up to 1000 or more pounds. Upon application of the choke and body pressure, Garner made some garbled sounds. When the choke was released and body weight applied, he complained several times that he could not breathe. Shortly thereafter, video shows him unconscious and unresponsive on the ground, with police standing around him for several minutes. It does not appear that he was breathing. Police did not provide any aid. An ambulance arrived a few minutes later. Garner was declared dead about an hour later at the hospital, though the precise moment of death and any singular cause remain unclear.

The city coroner determined that the death was externally caused -- it isn't as if Garner was about to drop dead anyway, and it was just a coincidence that someone came by and choked him -- and noted signs of neck compression. The police and police spokesmen denied that a choke hold was applied at all (though it is obvious from the video). Some police and spokesmen claimed that the hold was a "seatbelt" hold. A seatbelt hold is one in which one arm goes over the shoulder and the other under the other shoulder, with hands clasped, similar to a shoulder seatbelt. Here is an example of a seatbelt hold from a jiu jitsu class (jiu jitsu specializes in restraining holds from various positions):

In a standard seatbelt hold, some pressure can be applied to one side of the neck, but not really to both (cutting off the blood supply) or to the trachea. It is an excellent restraint hold, and difficult to escape. However, at no point in the Garner video does it appear that Pantaleo had his hands clasped in the standard seatbelt hold. Rather, the hold was initiated from standing with one arm across the throat, and by the time they were on the ground, the hands were clasped in the trachea crush hold across the neck alone.

The person who recorded and posted the video was later arrested on unrelated charges; that is, thus far the only person arrested with any connection to Garner's death is the person who recorded it. It is further interesting that some news footage of the event (e.g., MSNBC, et. al.) has specifically edited out the section of the footage that shows the choke.

A grand jury was convened to decide whether there was sufficient evidence to charge the officer or police department with wrongdoing. For reasons that remain unclear, they decided in the negative.

Some have brought up that Garner had a history with the police, and had been arrested many times. This, of course, is precisely what Garner was complaining about at the beginning of the recording -- he was objecting to police harassment and said he wasn't putting up with it anymore. Assuming there were no warrants for his arrest, and no evidence (or reasonable suspicion) of wrongdoing here, were the police actions justified?

Some have argued that Garner brought the situation on himself, by illegally selling cigarettes. However, no evidence has come forth to support the police claim that Garner was doing so, Garner did not have any cigarettes on him, and witness contradict the police claim. That is, there is every indication that the claim was, in fact, a lie generated to justify the contact and subsequent arrest. Some have also argued that Garner brought the situation on himself, by resisting arrest. What do you think?

Some have argued that the police did nothing wrong, and that Garner, effectively, killed himself, both by resisting arrest, and due to his own poor health. However, the coroner's report did not support this position. What do you think?

Some have argued that, if Garner truly couldn't breathe, then he wouldn't have been able to say "I can't breathe." While it is true that someone who truly can't breathe at all will be unable to talk, it is also true that someone can enter into a state in which they are not getting enough oxygen, will often describe it as "I can't breathe," and then pass out shortly thereafter (and perhaps die).

I encourage the reader to consider the following questions (for personal reflection or discussion with others):

1. Under what circumstances is it "okay" to threaten or initiate force against another human being? What makes it so? That is, on what basis can we credibly say it is okay to use force in situation X but not in situation Y?
2. If you were to put someone in a choke hold, and they were to ultimately die either from that hold or from complications arising from that hold, should you be held responsible for that death?
3. What if you didn't intend the person's death, but were just trying to restrain him; should you be held responsible anyway? Why or why not?
4. What if someone put that hold on you, your parent, spouse or loved one, or one of your children, ultimately killing them?
5. What difference does it make, if any, whether the person who applies the choke hold was a police officer, or was "just doing his job"?
6. Let us assume that Pantaleo did not intend to kill Garner. How does his intention come into play? Does it change his responsibility in the death? How?
7. Would it matter if choke holds were forbidden by the New York Police Department (and many others)?
8. If someone resists arrest, does that justify killing him? Are there situations where it would be morally justified to resist arrest, or even injure or kill a police officer? Was this one of them?
9. Given the available information, what do you think the consequences should be for Pantaleo and the other involved officers?
10. Police officers frequently claim that the media is anti-law-enforcement. If that is so, why would they edit out the section of the video showing Pantaleo choking Garner? Do you think that the general culture is biased against law-enforcement officers? Why or why not?
11. Let us assume that Garner actually did engage in illegal activity -- perhaps he sold a cigarette. Does such action warrant arrest and jailing? Does it warrant violence or the threat thereof?
12. What does your own religion or political alignment suggest with regard to this situation?

Dead-lifting and Rationality, Part 2

The prior post presented dead-lifting as an analogy by which one could better understand some characteristics of rationality, asserting that the two are alike in several ways. The purpose of this post is to explore how to grow in rationality.

Thus far I've been using some important terms a little loosely, imprecisely. Going ahead requires a bit more care. To that end, let us say that wisdom has to do with comprehensive understanding of nature, but especially of human nature, behavior, motives, causes, feelings, reactions, etc. This is distinct from knowledge and science. Someone might have great knowledge, for example, of computer science or of subatomic physics, and yet not be wise. Rationality is related to wisdom, and has to do with the ability to order or organize one's beliefs, values, actions, emotions and such according to reality, as well as some norm representing excellence. A rational person thinks, acts and feels in a good and organized way, and often toward a particular end. One can be rational without being wise, but it would be difficult to be wise without also being rational; likewise, one can be organized without being rational, but one who is rational is also organized. Rationale refers to that ordering principle, as in "the rationale underlying his behavior is selfishness." Reason is related to rationality, and therefore wisdom. When employed as a verb it refers to the activity of the intellect whereby we proceed from certain beliefs to others. For example, we might reason from the disappearance of cookies from the cookie jar and recent passage of children through the kitchen that the children took the cookies. In common discourse, reason and rationale are sometimes used interchangeably, as nouns, as in "what was your reason for doing that?" That all being said, we generally lack wisdom because we lack rationality (among other things). And we lack rationality because (also among other things) our ability to reason is so weak. Consequently, our goal herein is to propose exercises to help strengthen our ability to reason. We do this with full knowledge that reason alone does not make a good person, but you'll hardly find a good person who lacks strong reasoning abilities.

One does not grow in physical strength by talking about it, reading about it, or watching others exercise, but by personal practice. But not all practice is equal. The results will vary depending on the way one practices. Some methods may lead to good results for some, but not for others. Some won't work at all. And some might actually cause injury. It could easily result in injury, for example, if someone over-trains, attempts substantially too much weight, uses poor form, and so on. Someone who uses too little weight, or does way too many repetitions, may experience slower gains.

While it is true that merely talking about, reading about or watching others lift won't make one stronger, these activities are not without utility. Specifically, someone can learn about good technique (and bad ones) by reading, talking and watching, as well as different approaches to training that work for different people. He might also find inspiration by seeing others' examples.

This is, in a sense, how philosophy works with respect to rationality. Philosophy, as an academic pursuit, is generally characterized by the study of how other "great thinkers" throughout history have reasoned through complex questions, inquired into morality, and so on. In that sense, the study of philosophy -- reading, talking about, and in a way watching others do philosophy -- can help one see ways of becoming more rational in his own life. However, merely seeing how someone else employed reason does not automatically make me any more wise; we each must put in our own effort. So what are some basic ways to do this?

Engage in Dialog... Carefully

We already do lightweight reasoning every day. We make judgments about what to wear. We decide in what order to go about our daily tasks. We navigate traffic and social interactions. We pick what we are going to eat or drink by weighing various factors like cost, time, service, distance, health, taste, etc. We decide which bills to pay, how much and when.

In most cases our reasoning is somewhat shallow, for that is all that is really required of us. Of course, it doesn't seem shallow to us, operating within it. Rather, it seems quite magnificent, and certainly superior to most of what is going on around us, right?

Leaving our delusions aside for the moment, here are a couple simple exercises for improving our ability to reason: The first is to talk to yourself. Really.

Ask yourself, "Why do I believe X," or, "Why does Y bother me so much," or "Why did I choose, say or do that?" Imagine that someone else asked these questions of you and you need to provide an answer that was true and persuasive to someone -- and we should qualify this as a reasonable someone -- who doesn't agree with you. In other words, "just because," or "I heard it somewhere," isn't going to cut it.

This can be hard to practice in the abstract, and can be more useful in the particular. When doing this internally, it is pretty safe to pick something controversial -- it isn't as if you are going to lose a friend over it. Perhaps a news-issue, cultural, political or religious topic. Something interesting, but not too deep. In other words, don't start with "why do I believe that God exists (or not)?" You can go there eventually, but that isn't a good beginning question. We have to build up to those kind of inquiries.

For example, suppose your community has a bond issue up for vote. Your local school district seeks 5 million dollars to upgrade its computers and networks, train staff, etc. It is for the children, so that they can learn better and be better equipped to enter the workforce or go on to college. The proponents of the bond say it will cost the average person "less than the cost of a cup of coffee per day." And argue that this is an insignificant price to help give local children a better education and a better chance in life. Detractors say that it is a waste of money, that more and better computers don't necessarily result in better educations, and they are upset that the school already cut art, wrestling, home economics and shop programs, while all staff receive wages higher than the local average for other industries.

What is the right thing to do? Is there a right thing to do, or is it purely subjective? Which way would you vote? Would you vote at all? Imagine that yours is the deciding vote, and that you must justify your decision to everyone else. Take a few moments and think through this, perhaps even writing down how you would address the issue. Can you imagine what the objections would be? Do you have sufficient answers to those objections?

...

All done? Have it figured out?

As we've mentioned elsewhere, philosophy doesn't really provide answers to questions such as this, but it does provide examples of inquiry. One of the first steps of inquiry is to make sure that we have a good, comprehensive understanding of the current circumstances. This might include looking into things like:

• What is the current state of the school's computer and network systems?
• What kind of bidding process was engaged to arrive at the price figure?
• How much does the school already bring in (in total, or per student per year)?
• Are there any studies about computers in school and student performance?
• Are there other ways of funding this purchase or providing the desired equipment?
• What is the real total cost to the community over the 10-year repayment?
• What about people who can't afford the increase in property taxes?

Another step in reasoning is to place the proposition in a formal way. This is called a syllogism, which at its most basic presentation consists of two premises and a conclusion. A common, example syllogism is:

P1. All men are mortal.
P2. Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

If the premises are true and the structure is sound, then the conclusion is necessarily true. Most human problems and disputes cannot be easily distilled down to a simple syllogism, but sometimes a set of them. For example, in the case of the school bond, at least two -- and probably several more -- syllogisms are necessary to encompass the general proposal:

Syllogism (argument) 1

P1. Our children need better education.
P2. Better education requires better computers.
Therefore, our children need better computers.

It is unlikely that many people are going to argue against the need for a good (or "better") education. However, the second premise about the relationship between computers and a good education might be vulnerable. A critic could rightly argue that that premise needs some justification and, in the absence of such justification, could disregard the premise.

Of course, the fact that a premise is wrong or that an error is made in the argument's structure does not mean that the conclusion is false. For example (this may seem like a joke, but isn't far from the level of reasoning many people use):

P1. All fish are mammals.
P2. Purple is my favorite color.
Therefore, the earth is round.

In other words, it is possible to be right with respect to one's belief, yet have completely nonsensical "justification" for it. This leads to an important distinction between beliefs and knowledge. We believe many things. Hopefully, most of those things are true. Of these, some of them are justified in the sense of having some kind of solid grounding backing them up, which will usually be either personal experience of some kind, or a sound argument. Knowledge is justified, true belief.

A person who believes that the world is round because all fish are mammals and purple is his favorite color doesn't really know that the earth is round. He just believes it -- he doesn't actually have any justification for that belief (even though it is true). On the other hand, someone who believes that the world is round because he's personally flown around it, studied it, seen pictures from space, etc., knows that the world is round -- his belief is justified.

One of the most common errors we make, and one that leads to endless conflict, is to confuse beliefs for knowledge, and then to act thereupon in ways that are harmful to others. We will return to this later. For now, in the case of our school bond, not only is there the argument about whether the computers are needed for the children's education, but there is another about how they will be paid for:

Syllogism 2

P1. The computers cost 5 million dollars.
P2. The costs for education should be equally divided among the community.
Therefore, the 5 million dollar cost should be borne equally by the members of the community.

Both of these premises could be easily assailed. As mentioned earlier, perhaps there are other ways of acquiring the equipment, lower costs, donations and grants, etc. Whether the costs for education should be equally divided among the community, especially those who are against the program or simply can't afford it, is really the big issue here. Again, that doesn't mean that the conclusion is false -- only that it does not follow from the premises. The reason that this is important to understand is that someone might argue, as in this case, that the 5 million dollar cost should be divided equally among all people. But someone else could just as easily say, "no, those who are for it should pay for it," and give his reasoning. Different people will use different means to make a choice between those two options (assuming there are no others), but the rational person will make the choice that has the best reasoning. In theory, and assuming that the world operates in accord with some kind of rationale, beliefs, values and choices that correspond to rationality will tend to lead to better outcomes, and are better in and of themselves, than those that are irrational.

As you might have perceived, each of the premises is, itself, a belief (or assertion) that is subject to questioning. And so, questioning a common belief will often lead to other (implied or actual) beliefs, which lead to other (implied or actual) beliefs, and so on. Eventually, we come to fundamental beliefs -- ones that aren't predicated upon other beliefs, but are themselves predicated of many. Many times we aren't conscious of these, but it is important to dig down to them from time to time, inspect them, rearrange them. In many cases, the differences people have in particular "surface" issues are really symptoms of much deeper differences of beliefs. There is little point in trying to work out the surface differences without digging for the real root cause of the differences.

By going through the exercise, attempting to discern what premises -- which are nothing more than other beliefs -- are underlying the belief in question, we both practice using reason, and we inspect our own array of beliefs in the process.

Engage in Dialog... Carefully... with Others

Most people have anemic reasoning skills, but working with someone else, unless they are just a complete train-wreck, will often be an improvement over working in isolation. In boxing there is a saying that goes, "everyone has a plan until you get punched in the face." With respect to reasoning, we generally believe that our own reasoning is unassailable... until we share it with someone else.

But be careful here. When you've gone through a few introspective inquiries, find a friend (perhaps one you don't mind losing) and explain that you are working on becoming more rational. To that end, would he (or she) mind discussing some topic of interest to each of you over a drink? This is best to do in person with someone who knows you well, and whose judgment you respect, at least for now.

As soon as another person becomes involved, several potentially-derailing dynamics may come into play. The primary one has to do when one's ego rises up, usually resulting in a desire to "win" the argument. This leads to all kinds of problems. Be aware of your emotional state, too. A sense of anger, embarrassment or frustration tends to cloud one's intellect. If you sense any of these dynamics beginning to arise within you, it can help to acknowledge them and consciously attempt to refocus upon the topic and the quest for understanding and truth. These human dynamics can arise for many reasons. These include:

• Being faced with the reality that I don't know why I believe what I believe, and suddenly feeling a need to defend it. Rather than admitting this, the typical reaction is to get angry and attack the dialog partner.
• Some of us are naturally competitive, and this is stronger in some than others. When winning takes priority over discovering truth, truth and understanding are sacrificed, relationships are harmed, and no one really benefits.
• It is very common for your dialog partner to lack discussion skills and to engage in a number of fallacies. These can be hard to answer, and confuse the discussion. Sometimes this is deliberate. Other times the person just doesn't know any better. Either way, it is important not to be distracted by fallacies, personal attacks and other nonsense. We will discuss common reasoning errors and how to address them in a future entry.

It will help if you each have a different position on the matter, or at least agree to take an opposite position for the sake of helping each other. Once other people become involved, it is important to remember that the point is not to win the argument or dominate the other person, but to, together, see if you can understand the issue better. See if you can lay out each of your positions as formal arguments, and then test each others' arguments. Are the premises solid? Is the reasoning sound? Is one argument more persuasive than the others. How do your emotions or other beliefs play into the question?

In the best of cases, your different apprehensions of the matter will draw closer together. At the very least, you'll (hopefully) have a better understanding of other perspectives.

For example, a couple weeks ago local police shot and killed a suspect at a local convenience store. A few hours prior, the man apparently stabbed another young man, killing him. The story going around was that he returned to the store and lunged at police, knife in hand. The police shot him to protect themselves. It seemed that justice was served, after a fashion, but then police car camera footage was released of the shooting, as well as some more information from the man's family.

It turns out that the attacker went home after the initial conflict, talked to his family, and decided to turn himself in to police. He returned to the store, and was identified as the attacker by someone on scene. Three police men immediately drew their guns, surrounded him and began to shout at him -- what they were shouting was not clear. He put his hands up, and hesitated for a couple seconds. Then police shot him many times. He dropped to the ground and died shortly thereafter. Some have said that he had a knife in his hands, but that isn't clear from the video. What is clear is that he did not lunge at the officers or act in any threatening way whatsoever (he lunges forward and falls when the shooting begins). If anything he looked kind of confused and submissive.

The video shows someone being shot to death. No blood is visible, but it is not for the squeamish. The actual shooting is at about minute 7.

The question one could ask is, "was this shooting justified?" Many people commented that "he got what he deserved," and "he shouldn't have attacked the police," etc. Many had the opposite opinion. You and your dialog partner could each take a different side and do your best not merely to win the argument at any cost -- there is nothing fruitful in that -- but to see which position is the most reasonable, the most rational.

On the side of arguing that the shooting was justified, some premises might include:

• Those who take a life forfeit their own.
• He didn't obey the officers.
• He had a weapon in his hands -- the police were rightly protecting themselves.
• Police actions should not be second-guessed.
• The police feel bad about it, therefore it is okay.
• The police chief and district attorney cleared the police of any wrongdoing.

On the side of arguing that it was not justified, some premises might include:

• His hands were up in a submissive posture. Police should not shoot people who are surrendering.
• We don't know why he stabbed the person earlier. Maybe it was provoked and he didn't intend to kill him.
• There is no evidence of someone in that posture then attacking multiple police with their guns drawn.
• That is not how knife-attacks happen.
• Police could (or should) have used non-lethal weapons like tazers.
• Most men carry knives at all times -- many men (and women) carry guns too. It isn't lawful for police to shoot you because you have a knife in your hands or on your person.

There are many other possibilities. You might not come to a unanimous position on this. But see how you could structure your arguments. Test your own and each others' premises.

Some people set up discussion groups at cafes, churches or community centers for just these kinds of discussions. In my own family, at dinner I'll sometimes bring up a topic -- usually not one this grave -- and ask each person to share his thoughts and reasoning.

In an upcoming post we'll go over some common mistakes that people make in their reasoning.

Seek Truth

One of my favorite contemporary philosophers is Dietrich Von Hildebrand. He passed away some years ago and wrote many fine books. In one of them he had a sentence that read (as I recall), "it is the vocation of philosophers to seek truth above the rhythms of history." This is correct.

And as budding practical philosophers -- people who are seeking to grow in wisdom -- we must learn to seek truth above the rhythms (and turmoil) of our daily lives. Or, to be more precise, seek truth within and through these waves as they wash over us and toss us about.

Dead-lifting and Rationality, Part 1

Precisely what rationality is and its importance can be puzzling to people who are born into, raised and conditioned in a society in which rationality isn't really encouraged. The reasons for this are complex. The purpose of this post (and the next one) is not so much to examine those reasons, but to examine our approach to growing in rationality -- how to become wiser. We will use an analogy to assist.

An analogy is an attempt to help someone increase their understanding of something complex and abstract by relating it to something more simple and easily understood. An analogy can be a good way of growing in understanding, as long as the analogy actually has any merit and is not pressed too far. For example, it would be correct to say, "this apple is like that car in that they are both red material objects," but to then argue that, like the apple, you could eat the car, or that cars grow on trees would, of course, be nonsense. The analogy we are going to employ is simply lifting a heavy weight. You could easily substitute other human skills (e.g., painting, singing, driving, chess, etc.).

Working Against Designed Atrophy

The human body is an amazing thing, constantly adjusting to its environment, stresses, challenges, etc. With respect to overall condition -- and especially flexibility and strength -- our bones, joints, muscles, tendons and such contract and weaken to accommodate common challenges. Suppose that, for whatever reason, you kept your arm in a sling for the next two years, never taking it out, never rotating your shoulder through its full range of motion, never extending your elbow, using your wrist or hand. When the sling was removed, the arm would be nearly-useless, weak and unable to move even though it was no longer restrained by the sling. During the motionless months, the body would not have wasted resources on the unused arm, but diverted them elsewhere. On the other hand, if you chose to exercise and stress regularly over a two year span, chances are that you'll experience increased strength, flexibility, endurance and other benefits as the body adjusts to its challenges.

Depending on one's work and life, on most days, we don't lift objects weighing more than 20-30 pounds (and many of us lift nothing heavier than a cup of coffee or a sandwich). When we hardly ever lift anything weighing more than a few pounds, to suddenly be confronted by a 40+ pound object -- like having to move a large box or piece of furniture -- can seem strenuous or even lead to an injury.

However, with a few pointers, and barring disability, people of average health can generally lift about 2/3rds of their body weight via an exercise called a dead-lift. So, if you weigh 150 pounds, you can probably lift about 100 pounds right now with a little coaching, or about 5x what we might actually pick up during a typical work day (except for those in labor-intensive work, of course).

But wait, there's more: With extended effort, diet, time, technique, etc., some people can progress to where they can lift 3- or even 4-times their body weight. In other words, it is conceivable that a person who weighs 200 pounds, with enough time and training, could lift 800 or more pounds. Compared to what we usually pick up in a given day -- things weighing maybe 20 to 40 pounds -- that is about 20 to 40 times greater. That is an incredible feat! (At present, the world record for dead-lift is a little over 1000 pounds, by a monster who weighs about 380. Heavier persons tend to be able to lift about 2x their body weight, while lighter people can lift more, relative to their body mass.)

A person's ultimate lifting capacity is often far beyond not only what he can presently lift, but even more-so relative to what we typically lift. As mentioned earlier, if we are used to only lifting a few pounds at a time in a day, suddenly being faced with a 40 or 50 pound weight may seem challenging or lead to an injury... but not if the person has trained and can actually lift hundreds of pounds. Such a person will be able to handle the 50 pound item -- the one that others find difficult and dangerous -- with relative ease. Indeed, he could handle much more, and he knows it.

Think about that for a moment. If a 40 pound object requires some effort, and maybe gets the heart pumping. Imagine what that would feel like if you had trained your body to be able to lift just 200 or more pounds? The 40 pound weight that now causes a flush of sweat and heavy breathing would feel like nothing.

In addition to the fact that every person, barring some kind of infirmity, is capable of lifting many times more than he typically does, we have to acknowledge a couple hard facts:

1. It requires a lot of hard work, training, sweat, pain, soreness, etc., to grow substantially in strength. It is much easier -- at least it feels easier -- to forego all of that and just get by as we are.
2. Different people have different innate capabilities. It may not seem fair, but that is just how it is. When it comes to lifting, there are people who can, with little training or effort, lift 400 pounds, and there are people who must expend great time and effort to lift 150 -- that 150 may be much more than they can lift now, and represents a great improvement, but they may never be able to lift 400 pounds, no matter how hard they train.

So there are some simple facts about lifting heavy things. No doubt this has made your day! But, in all seriousness, I explain this not in hopes that you go out and work on your dead-lift (though it might have its benefits), but because there are many parallels between a person's ability to lift a weight, and his ability to think deeply. Please note that I used the word parallel and not correlation! :)

That is, we spend most days barely exercising our minds. They are engaged just enough to get by. We keep them numbed with music, talk radio, gossip, television, video games, drugs, etc. We are just barely awake. If really pressed -- if someone drops a 50 pound intellectual/emotional weight on us -- we might be able to give it a decent push, but it will seem really hard compared to what we typically handle, and there is a decent chance of error or some kind of psychological panic. However, such a load is practically nothing compared to what we can do if we exercise our minds over time and train ourselves to think deeply.

(Who else finds this image disturbing?)

Of course, like the heavy lifter, this doesn't mean that you then have to spend every moment of every day lifting massive objects. All it means is that the typical challenges will gradually become easier, to the point that they seem nearly effortless. Indeed, you can become capable of lifting (understanding) things that, to most people, are untouchable (incomprehensible). And that is kind of bad news, for while some people will respect your growth in wisdom, others will deem you crazy or dangerous.

Does this mean that life will suddenly become easy and wonderful, or that everything will be perfect? Absolutely not, for we live in a culture that is deeply irrational. Becoming more rational, more wise, might help you in your life, and perhaps those immediately near you, but we will all still experience tragedy, loss, heartache, betrayal, etc.

So how do we do this? How can we grow in rationality and wisdom? What kind of "exercises" should I do to avoid psychological atrophy?

This will be the topic for the next post.

How Can Philosophical Counseling Help Me?

The goal of philosophical counseling is to help the person grow in understanding (or wisdom, if you prefer), both with respect to a specific issue and in general. For example, Jim wanted to talk about a frustration in his work -- the sense that he is not appreciated. The purpose of our discussion is to grow in understanding regarding the situation, and to find ways of discerning meaning and value in his work (and, really, in himself) even if someone else doesn't recognize it. In addition to addressing the current situation, though, we want also to equip Jim with tools that will help him deal with similar situations as the years progress. That is, through listening, discussion, reflection and action, we set about to both address a specific issue and, at the same time, become better equipped to handle future difficulties. In this sense, it is kind of like exercise or fitness conditioning for the mind.

Specifically, there are two areas that philosophical counseling is equipped to address:

• Our emotional response to events and circumstances.
• Our decision making process with respect to practical and moral questions.

Our emotional response to events and circumstances is often rooted in our interior beliefs, values and habits, and how these are complemented or challenged by the circumstances in which we find ourselves. A common, simple event can result in very different emotional states, depending on our beliefs and values. For example, suppose your paycheck is late. Some people might become rather distressed. However, you might handle this "in stride" by just recognizing that, even though it is inconvenient, it isn't the end of the world, and it will probably show up in a day or two. Your emotional response may vary further depending on whether you believe it was simply delayed in the mail, versus the belief that a malignant coworker deliberately intercepted and cashed your check as part of a plot to financially destroy you.

The philosophical counseling process helps us understand the circumstances in a more complete way, as well as our beliefs and values, and how these are interacting and affecting us. Once these are better understood, a person can then make better decisions with respect to the event, how to respond, how to feel, etc. A person might also recognize that his own beliefs, values or habits need to be adjusted, and we can then work together on ways of doing that.

Another common life situation is just having to make a difficult decision (often in response to some event or circumstance). While some decisions seem easy and can be made quickly, others are more complicated and involve competing beliefs, values and goals. Even when a decision is made, there can be difficulty in carrying it out, both as a matter of will, and in terms of practical considerations (e.g., I might lack the will to do what I believe is right, or perhaps I know what the right thing is, but am not sure how to accomplish it, or am worried about the consequences of doing what I think is right). Discussing the issue with a philosopher can help a person clarify his own thinking and understanding, thereby assisting in the current decision as well as future ones.

Some of the practical matters with which a philosopher can help include:

• Interpersonal conflicts
• Career- and life-direction
• Moral dilemmas and ethical questions
• Finding meaning or direction in one's life
• Coping with difficulties, disappointments or loss
• Moderating emotions
• Tough business decisions

In the end, our goal is to help you grow in understanding with regard to (1) the issue before you, (2) your life in particular, and (3) life overall. We do this not by imposing our own beliefs upon you, but by helping you uncover and improve your own gift of rationality, so that you can apply it in various aspects of your life.

How is this done?

The process we employ is an adaptation of the Socratic dialectic. What this means, practically-speaking, is that the philosopher does not explain or impose his own beliefs or philosophy upon the dialog partner. Rather, after listening carefully to the overall situation, the philosopher asks questions that can really only be answered if the dialog partner (client) exercises rationality.

For example, suppose a client has asked to talk about being passed over for a promotion and raise at work. She is angry and frustrated because she has worked for the company for seven years, yet they promoted someone else with less experience. The anger she is feeling is very disruptive to her work, sleep, and free time. Once we both agree that the situation has been fully explained and understood, we step back and look at its meaning, as well as the client's beliefs and values.

This involves asking questions such as (in this case):

• What does your work mean to you?
• Why do you think you deserved the promotion?
• Is not getting promoted a bad thing? How does it harm you?
• Why is this important to you?
• How do you know that the chosen person isn't a better match?
• Are there others who perhaps deserved promotion but did not get it?
• 4 years from now, will this event have really mattered? How so? What about 40 years? 400?
• Many people experience a variety of injustices throughout their lives. How does this compare to others'? (Discuss various examples.)
• Whose decision is it to make? 
• What do you think (or how do you feel) when others make decisions that you believe are wrong, especially if they negatively affect you?
• How does it help you to be feeling so much anger about this event? Is there some way you can direct that emotional energy in a positive, productive way?
• And so on.

In this way, the philosopher is not imposing his views upon the partner, but helping the partner think more deeply about the situation, to exercise his own rationality. This helps him deal with the current situation, as well as develop the ability to deal with future challenges.

In the final analysis, the reality is that people are a lot more likely to pursue solutions that they came up with themselves -- that make sense to them -- than ones that they don't understand and are being proposed from outside. When carefully applied, the Socratic dialectic is a method by which a philosopher can help someone discern the truth and arrive at better solutions to the issues they are facing.

Socrates and Forgiveness

I saw a post to Facebook that read:

"Forgive them,
Even if they're not sorry."

It sounds like a good idea.

The post was followed by several comments and affirmations, as well as some mild disputation. The original poster added:

"Sometimes people haven't apologized because they're ashamed. Forgive them anyway! Sometimes you have to be okay with a sorry you never got. Forgiveness unblocks your blessings. Do it. You're worth it!"

More affirmation followed, such as:

• This is the GREATEST LESSON in life!!!!
• Yes, one has a clearer long term vision on the high road.
• Forgiveness heals.
• Very true! Thanks!

I frequently find myself being drawn (by myself) to comment on such discussions. It is an illness. Most of the time I either write nothing, or prudently delete the comment before posting it. But I went through with this one. I wrote:

"Many say that this is such an important lesson, and perhaps it is, but what does it actually mean to forgive someone? If someone has harmed you, what is the material difference between forgiving and not forgiving them?"

One person wrote in reply:

"It sets one's own heart free. It releases the burden. It's a gift to give yourself so you can move forward and not be bound by pain, revenge or entitlement."

Another added, in the same vein:

".... [By forgiving] you set yourself free from negative energy which actually brings harmful chemistry to you body."

These responses might be sincere and true, but they don't really answer the question of what forgiveness is. Many things "set the heart free" (whatever that means). Many things "release the burden" (again, whatever that means). I can think of many gifts to give to myself, none of which are forgiveness. I can also assure you of two things:

1. The writers believed that they answered the question.
2. Any further questioning from me would likely be received as odd, and perhaps even hostile.

We frequently talk about principles and such that we believe we understand... until someone asks us to explain them, at which point it gradually becomes apparent that we have, at best, a mushy conception of what we really meant. "Forgiveness" is one of these, along with freedom, democracy, love, and any number of other concepts that we banter about casually but really don't understand, in some cases at all.

Though the education and intelligence of the average person is a something of a concern, this experience of not really understanding the concepts we use in common conversation is neither exclusively contemporary nor limited to just one culture or country. Socrates made a meager living, many enemies, and a famous death, dealing with this very dynamic about 2300 years ago. While defending himself from accusations of offenses against the gods and corrupting the youth, among other things, he said the following:

Well, Chaerephon, as you know, was very impetuous in all his doings, and he went to Delphi and [...] he asked the oracle to tell him whether there was anyone wiser than I was, and the Pythian prophetess answered that there was no man wiser. Chaerephon is dead himself, but his brother, who is in court, will confirm the truth of this story.

Why do I mention this? Because I am going to explain to you why I have such an evil name. When I heard the answer, I said to myself, What can the god mean? and what is the interpretation of this riddle? for I know that I have no wisdom, small or great. What can he mean when he says that I am the wisest of men? And yet he is a god and cannot lie; that would be against his nature. After a long consideration, I at last thought of a method of trying the question. I reflected that if I could only find a man wiser than myself, then I might go to the god with a refutation in my hand. I should say to him, "Here is a man who is wiser than I am; but you said that I was the wisest." Accordingly I went to one who had the reputation of wisdom, and observed to him - his name I need not mention; he was a politician whom I selected for examination - and the result was as follows: When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and wiser still by himself; and I went and tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me. So I left him, saying to myself, as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is - for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him. Then I went to another, who had still higher philosophical pretensions, and my conclusion was exactly the same. I made another enemy of him, and of many others besides him.

After this I went to one man after another, being not unconscious of the enmity which I provoked, and I lamented and feared this: but necessity was laid upon me - the word of God, I thought, ought to be considered first. And I said to myself, Go I must to all who appear to know, and find out the meaning of the oracle. And I swear to you, Athenians, by the dog I swear! - for I must tell you the truth - the result of my mission was just this: I found that the men most in repute were all but the most foolish; and that some inferior men were really wiser and better. I will tell you the tale of my wanderings and of the "Herculean" labors, as I may call them, which I endured only to find at last the oracle irrefutable. When I left the politicians, I went to the poets; tragic, dithyrambic, and all sorts. And there, I said to myself, you will be detected; now you will find out that you are more ignorant than they are. Accordingly, I took them some of the most elaborate passages in their own writings, and asked what was the meaning of them - thinking that they would teach me something. Will you believe me? I am almost ashamed to speak of this, but still I must say that there is hardly a person present who would not have talked better about their poetry than they did themselves. That showed me in an instant that not by wisdom do poets write poetry, but by a sort of genius and inspiration; they are like diviners or soothsayers who also say many fine things, but do not understand the meaning of them. And the poets appeared to me to be much in the same case; and I further observed that upon the strength of their poetry they believed themselves to be the wisest of men in other things in which they were not wise. So I departed, conceiving myself to be superior to them for the same reason that I was superior to the politicians.

At last I went to the artisans, for I was conscious that I knew nothing at all, as I may say, and I was sure that they knew many fine things; and in this I was not mistaken, for they did know many things of which I was ignorant, and in this they certainly were wiser than I was. But I observed that even the good artisans fell into the same error as the poets;because they were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom - therefore I asked myself on behalf of the oracle, whether I would like to be as I was, neither having their knowledge nor their ignorance, or like them in both; and I made answer to myself and the oracle that I was better off as I was.

This investigation has led to my having many enemies of the worst and most dangerous kind, and has given occasion also to many calumnies, and I am called wise, for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess the wisdom which I find wanting in others: but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise; and in this oracle he means to say that the wisdom of men is little or nothing; he is not speaking of Socrates, he is only using my name as an illustration, as if he said, He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing. And so I go my way, obedient to the god, and make inquisition into the wisdom of anyone, whether citizen or stranger, who appears to be wise; and if he is not wise, then in vindication of the oracle I show him that he is not wise; and this occupation quite absorbs me, and I have no time to give either to any public matter of interest or to any concern of my own, but I am in utter poverty by reason of my devotion to the god.

Socrates was a bit of a scoundrel in the sense that it is much easier to pick apart someone else's position when you refuse to take a position, yourself -- sometimes referred to as the "no-position position" -- but he was also onto something important. Socrates' point (for anyone who missed it), isn't that he knows so much more than anyone else, but that he merely knows that he does not know, while most other people think they know, yet do not -- in other words, they don't know that they don't know. This is a dangerous position, and it is hard to help people who believe they know something when the really don't (hence the tactic of just asking open-ended questions rather than making assertions).

The good news is that we don't have to end lost in the state of realizing we don't know what we're talking about. As amazing beings with an innate capacity for rationality (in most cases), we can take steps forward in understanding by listening, reflecting and asking careful questions. Unfortunately, many online "discussions" are little more than an exchange of emotional, irrational assertions, but by asking honest questions, being gentle, thinking things through and answering each other, we can often arrive at a greater understanding than that with which we started. This may have happened, at least to some degree, in the forgiveness-discussion, depending on how open and reflective the other participants were.

....

But, yes, what of forgiveness? One definition floating about on the interwebs reads:

Forgiveness is the intentional and voluntary process by which a victim undergoes a change in feelings and attitude regarding an offense, lets go of negative emotions such as vengefulness, with an increased ability to wish the offender well. Forgiveness is different from condoning, excusing, pardoning, forgetting, and reconciliation.

Other sources refer to the elimination of feelings of anger or resentment.

That is a pretty good definition. I don't think that we forgive acts, but we forgive people who do them (or we don't). In that way the word "forgiveness" describes a kind of change in disposition toward a person who has wronged us. This still doesn't reveal precisely what it is, so let us examine it further.

Forgiveness doesn't get much ink in philosophy proper. It gets more in religious texts, as well as psychology. However, it is very much implied in the moral philosophies of virtue ethics and deontology; it is present in the spaces that haven't been filled in. From a philosophical perspective, the question is generally going to revolve around:

1. Precisely what does someone mean by the word, "forgive"?
2. Is this something real and distinct in itself, or something that encompasses other dynamics (or is it purely a mental construct/fiction)?

In virtue ethics there are several virtues related to our interactions with others, the most fundamental of which is (arguably) justice. Stated simply, justice is the virtue by which we give others what is due them. If I withhold from someone what I owe him, if I take from him what does not belong to me, or if I otherwise harm him without any cause, I am violating the person and demonstrating that I lack the virtue or excellence of justice. My act creates a relational imbalance, a kind of debt between me and my victim. This harm has multiple dimensions, and the effects in different dimensions can have very different intensities, depending on the act and the relationship between the parties. For example, there is a vast difference between buying a product worth $100 from a distant company and them failing to deliver it (or it arriving junked), and having a member of your family or trusted friend steal $100 from you (or steal something with sentimental value, but little monetary value). Both involve the loss of $100, but the difference in proximity, relationship, intention and overall circumstances are important and relevant. The meaning and effects of each act differ substantially.

In some cases that debt can be repaid and in some it cannot. And it is easier to do in some dimensions than in others; that is, one can usually easily return stolen property, but it is another matter to restore the purity to a sullied relationship. Some things take time to make right -- a long time -- and some things, once broken never can be repaired, no matter how hard one tries. Even when or if the situation can be remedied, it is often the case that the person who created the debt will refuse to take steps to do so, whether callously or ignorantly. For example, if I destroy your good name through libel, or if a spouse is betrayed by infidelity, how can that really be repaired or made right? In some cases, an apology, even a genuine one (as rare as that is these days), just isn't sufficient. Some wounds never really heal, and some debts cannot be repaid by any sum.

In this sense, forgiveness seems to represent a choice to not pursue retribution in one or more dimensions, to "let it go." There are many possible motivations for such a choice. Perhaps the forgiver genuinely loves the other and is acting out of charity. Perhaps the offender has made suitable efforts to repair the harm he caused and is contrite. Perhaps the forgiver recognizes that contrition will not be forthcoming and cannot be expected. Perhaps the forgiver recognizes that he should, if only for his own peace, take this step. Obviously, this doesn't mean that there isn't still a debt owed, that the relationship is necessarily repaired, or that the forgiven person is now trusted, worthy of trust, or otherwise restored. Further the choice to forgive doesn't mean that the forgiver is not suffering, and he may still struggle with feelings of anger or resentment. What it does indicate is a choice to attempt to temper these with respect to the aggressor, and that might be very wise.

Degrees of Forgiveness

Forgiveness is neither digital nor permanent. In addition to recognizing that human actions, and therefore any forgiveness thereof, have dimensions (or, as one dialog participant wrote, "layers"), there are also degrees of forgiveness. That is, forgiveness with respect to a person and his actions can vary from none to partial to full or comprehensive. This is another, perhaps complementary way, of thinking about the various layers of interaction and forgiveness. For example, someone might forgive an offender in the sense of re-accepting him and moderating his anger about the event, yet still require the return of stolen property. On the other hand, someone might forgive (in the sense of not require or demand) the return of stolen property, yet not forgive in the relational sense -- still holding anger and resentment, refusing personal reconciliation, etc. In some cases, depending on the particular event, such partial forgiveness may be prudent, perhaps even the best that one really can do. In other cases, an ongoing refusal to forgive might indicate a problem on the part of the victim.

The reasons for this are complex and many. One of them is the recognition that comprehensive forgiveness involves genuine reconciliation between the offender and his victim -- a restoration of a trusting relationship. However, that may not be realistic or possible, depending on the nature of the offense, the psychology of the victim, the proximity of the event, the relationship between them, and the contrition or lack thereof of the offender, among other things. If a person steals something from me, for example, I might choose to forgive him in the sense of moderating my feelings of anger, and genuinely desiring his good, but complete forgiveness may be difficult or impossible if I sense that he isn't actually sorry for what he did, engaged in it deliberately, makes no attempt to repay and reconcile, etc. When someone does something to intentionally harm you, full forgiveness might not be a realistic or appropriate expectation, especially if the offender has no change of heart. That is, the circumstances that foster complete forgiveness are not merely the responsibility of the victim, but depend to a large degree on the subsequent actions and contrition of the offender. When contrition and repentance are not present, complete forgiveness not only doesn't happen -- it cannot happen. Indeed, the pretense of forgiveness in the context of an offender who is not truly repentant and contrite -- or who has a vice/disorder such that he is only going to repeat the same behavior -- is, as one commentator painfully wrote, little more than tacit approval and permission to harm me again.

Along with justice, prudence (wisdom), and fortitude (courage), temperance is another of the cardinal virtues for human beings. "Cardinal" mean "hinge," indicating that this is among the key virtues upon which human character hinges. Our response to events, especially injustices, exhibits the degree to which virtue of temperance is present within us (or not, as the case may be). Many people confuse Stoicism or temperance with being unfeeling. That is not the case. A genuinely temperate person is not one who never or rarely shows emotions, but whose emotions, words and behaviors are proportional to the gravity of the situation, whereas an intemperate person's reactions are disproportionate (by definition). Temperance is also known as moderation or balance. 

We seem to naturally respond to injustices -- whether actual or perceived -- with feelings ranging from mild annoyance to rage, depending on the totality of the circumstances. If someone carelessly cuts you off in traffic, or says something thoughtless and rude, mild annoyance might be a proportional response. If someone kidnaps, tortures and murders your child, severe grief and rage might be appropriate. The difference between being rational and irrational is whether the emotional response (and any behaviors it prompts) is proportional to the event. To respond to an inconvenience with rage and violence is irrational in a way similar to responding to the murder of innocents with indifference.

When anger or any emotion is properly ordered, it can propel us to do amazing things. When it is not properly ordered -- when we are angry at the wrong things, or to a disproportionate degree -- it can become extremely destructive to us and those around us. Choosing to forgive -- choosing to moderate one's feelings with regard to a person and unjust situation -- can help a person grow and expresses the virtue of temperance. As rational beings, we can make efforts to mitigate anger and similar emotions when they are inappropriate or unfruitful. These efforts may not always be completely successful, and may take time and repeated attempts, but a good initial step is to simply think through a situation and ask myself:

• Is anger appropriate here? Why?
• Is this much anger appropriate here? Does this call for rage or mild annoyance?
• What good thing can I do with this anger, or is it just going to harm me and those around me?
• What has happened has happened. Given the current circumstances, what is the best thing I can do, and how can my emotions fuel my efforts in that direction?
• If this anger can't be an engine to help me or others, what can I do to redirect, quench or moderate it?
• How would a virtuous person respond to this situation?

This is something that everyone experiences. Is there someone in your life -- renting space in your head (without paying, of course) -- about whom you feel very angry or resentful? Do these feelings interfere with your peace? Do the words or events play over in your mind?

Reflect on it. Is your anger proportional to the event, or is it perhaps excessive? Do you find yourself meditating upon bad things that happened to you in the past, playing them over in your head? If so, perhaps it is time to try to forgive, to accept what has happened and move forward, no longer expecting or demanding some apology or compensation (or retribution, or revenge) that may never come and wouldn't make up for the harm, anyway. You can choose to moderate your emotions, to temper and direct them. This may take many attempts, and to that end it can be best to start with a small issue first. With practice you will become better at it, to the point that it becomes like second nature to you.