Guilt, Shame and Society

According to Max Wind-Cowie shame should be liberated rather than legislated for. By this I take Wind-Cowie to mean that shame should play a greater part in regulating our society and this regulation should replace the need for some legislation. In my posting "me and my values"  I suggested the balance between pride and shame has shifted in most people’s psyche and that this shift damages them as persons. I believe shame is important to us as persons but I also believe shame is important to society. It follows that I broadly agree with Wind-Cowie’s aim. However in what follows I will argue that whilst this aim is desirable it is by no means easy to achieve.

Wind-Cowie suggests that for “a myriad of pressing, modern problems - from tax avoidance to obesity - society needs to judge more and legislate less”. Exactly how is a more judgemental attitude linked to shame? It seems Wind-Cowie’s argument runs roughly as follows. If society was more judgemental then more people would feel shame when contemplating actions society finds unacceptable. This shame would stop them from undertaking these actions. If the above argument is sound it follows in the context of a more judgemental society there would be less need for legislation. Wind-Cowie then uses, the example of Jimmy Carr’s use of an apparently legal tax avoidance scheme and his subsequent change of heart after others judged this scheme to be morally wrong, to support his argument, see the Guardian . I have two important reservations about society becoming more judgemental even though I accept that shame should be liberated.

My first reservation is that, even if it is accepted our society needs to be more judgemental, these judgements might be carried too far. For instance in my previous posting I suggested that in the past some gay people were ashamed of their homosexuality and this unjustified shame led them to lead inauthentic lives. They were ashamed because society judged their homosexuality to be wrong. My first worry is certainly not an insubstantial one because in the past some people such as Alan Turing may have committed suicide partly in response to such judgements. Perhaps society should only be judgemental about matters that harm society rather than harm individuals. I would suggest one of the things that harms society most is unfairness. Tax avoidance even if legal is unfair. Unfortunately judgements about what harms society and what harms individuals are not always as easy to make as in the case of tax avoidance. For instance obesity harms individuals. But it might be argued the obese place an unfair burden on the non-obese if the latter are required to support them through taxes. It follows obesity also harms society. Should then society become more judgemental about obesity?

Let us accept making society more judgemental carries dangers as well as benefits. My second reservation is whether Wind-Cowie’s argument outlined above is a sound one. For surely it would be wrong to encourage a more judgemental society, if its judgements were not effective in solving society’s problems, due to the problems outlined above. Clearly society’s judgement was effective in the case of Jimmy Carr. But is society’s judgement always just as effective? For instance, if the judgement of the majority of society condemns some action but a sizeable subsection of that society condones the same action then the majority’s condemnation seems likely to be ineffective. Consider the traders working for Barclays Bank who tried to manipulate the Libor rate in order to benefit the bank. The majority of people would have condemned such an action. However these traders were not rogue traders and it seems possible that their colleagues and traders in other banks might well have condoned their actions. It further seems possible that despite society’s condemnation these traders might have felt no shame. They might have felt no shame because their actions were just the actions of any average bank trader.

Nevertheless even if these traders did not feel ashamed of their actions it seems probable that they did feel some negative emotions with regard to these actions for after all they kept them secret. In everyday usage the terms guilt and shame are often treated as interchangeable. At this point I want to try and differentiate between these terms. I must make it clear I am only interested in guilt as an emotion. David Velleman defines guilt as anxiety about being in an indefensible position that might warrant one’s being cut off from social interaction (1). Let us accept this definition. The traders who attempted to manipulate the Libor rate may well have felt no shame but I would suggest that they might well have worried about damaging their social interactions. Of course they would not have worried about damaging their social interactions with fellow traders nor would they have worried about being cut off totally from social interaction. Nevertheless they might have worried that their actions, if fully public, would have damaged their social interactions with the majority of the population. I would suggest such a worry is a form of guilt. Velleman also suggests guilt might be connected to the loss of love of one’s conscience (2). Guilt may well be tied to one’s conscience but I don’t believe it is tied to loss of love of one’s conscience. Shame however may be tied to loss of love of one’s conscience. Bennett Helm links pride and shame to our identity as a person (3). Let us accept that someone must love himself at least to some degree to be considered a person at all. Someone who feels absolutely no love for himself has no reason to act and so becomes a wanton. It might then be argued that for someone, who feels shame and as a result comes to love himself less, his shame acts a guardian of his identity. I would suggest shame can be partly defined as someone’s worry about the loss, at least in part, of his identity. I would further suggest the traders who attempted to manipulate the Libor were not worried about their identity and that any negative emotions they felt as a result should be characterised as guilt rather than shame.

I have attempted to differentiate between guilt and shame by claiming that guilt is a worry about social exclusion whilst shame is a worry about someone’s identity. If my claim is accepted then the following would seem to hold; because guilt is a worry about social exclusion whether we feel guilt depends on society’s judgements whilst because shame is worry about our identity shame is not. It follows if society becomes more judgemental it will liberate guilt rather then shame. Personally I see no reason why guilt should not be liberated in some contexts. For instance liberating guilt about tax avoidance would be acceptable whilst fostering guilt about someone’s homosexuality or obesity would be wrong. How then are we to differentiate between contexts in which liberating guilt is desirable and those in which it is not? It might be suggested that our politically correct society places restraints on our natural inclination to criticise and all that is needed is to remove these restraints. Unfortunately our natural inclination to criticise in a social setting usually applies to all those who don’t observe society’s norms. These norms may well include sexual orientation.  Nonetheless I still believe it would benefit society to remove some of the restraints society places on people in order to make society more judgemental and by so doing liberate guilt. An unfair society is an unjust society. It should always be perfectly acceptable in society to criticise unfairness.

My argument suggests that a more judgemental society would rely on guilt rather than shame. Nonetheless I still believe shame is important to society and that society should foster shame. What basis do I have for believing society should foster shame? I would argue the quality of any society depends in part on the qualities of the individuals who make up that society. A society composed mostly of rogues is likely to be a very limited poor quality society. I have previously argued shame makes people better people it follows fostering shame makes for better society. I would further suggest a society that is regulated for the most part by individual morality is a better one than one mostly governed by legislation. How then may society foster shame if society becoming more judgemental cannot be do this? To answer this question we must first ask why people feel shame. Let it be accepted the ability to feel shame makes someone a better person. Why is this so? I would suggest that shame like pride is essential in helping someone maintain his identity. I have frequently argued in this blog that someone’s identity is linked to Frankfurt’s ideas on loving or ‘caring about’. Frankfurt believes when someone cares about something he,

“identifies himself with what he cares about in the sense that he makes himself vulnerable to losses and susceptible to benefits depending upon whether what he cares about is diminished or enhanced.” (4)

In what follows I will follow Frankfurt is assuming that ‘caring about’ as defined above is equivalent to loving. Loving so defined differs from erotic love and the beloved may be for instance a person, a place or even an ideal. I would suggest that one of the ways someone who causes losses or damages to what he loves, becomes vulnerable, is because he feels shame. I would further suggest anyone who doesn’t love anything cannot feel shame. It follows if we want to foster shame we must foster a society in which people come to love things.

Someone might object it can’t be that simple and fostering a society in which people come to love things need not be any better than a society in which people don’t. She might suggest someone could come to love, identify himself with, getting rich and feel shame if he failed to do so. I have two responses to this objection. Firstly I doubt if someone can actually feel shame at his failure to become rich. I don’t deny someone may feel shame at his failure to support his family but this is different from becoming rich. It is easy to see how someone might identify himself with supporting his family but I would question whether someone can identify himself with becoming rich. This is an empirical question and it seems to me an experimental philosopher could do some useful work on shame. My second response is that if we foster a society in which people love things that help them to flourish. Becoming rich is not one of these things.

How do we foster people coming to love certain things that help them flourish? The certain things in this context being ideals or virtues. We teach them. My objector might respond you can’t teach people to love something. She might point out that love has an affective element and cannot be taught like arithmetic or even philosophy. In reply I would argue even if we can’t teach someone in a conventional sense to come to love something we can nevertheless help or foster him to learn to love something. For instance we may point out the things we love. We may encourage someone to persist in some activity in the hope he later learns to love it. We must make it clear what we love in the hope someone may emulate us. By so doing we are not becoming judgemental about someone else’s actions as Wind-Cowie would have us do but we are being judgemental about what we love and demonstrating this judgement. Lastly we may simply introduce someone to what we love in the hope he will come to love much the same sort of thing.

I believe fostering shame would benefit society as Wind-Cowie hopes. Unfortunately as I have argued fostering shame cannot be achieved by society becoming more judgemental even if by so doing we liberate guilt. Fostering shame is difficult. Indeed fostering a genuine sense of shame is best achieved in children by helping them become virtuous. It follows fostering a sense of shame is a long term process. Shame is related to our identities and should be fostered by fostering our identities by fostering our loving in ways I have suggested above. Because fostering shame is a long term process and society’s problems are pressing it might be argued that these problems are better addressed by liberating guilt or government legislation. In reply I would suggest many of society’s problems are related to personal problems and as such are best solved by helping people come to love or value certain things. For instance it seems to me that the problem of obesity is mostly a personal problem better dealt with by shame about what people ‘care about’ rather than making fat people feel guilty or forcing legislation onto reluctant food manufacturers as some sort of bandage. I would further suggest many of the problems facing society are not the kind that are amenable to quick fixes and can only be dealt with in the long term.

1. David Velleman 2009, How We Get Along, Cambridge University Press, page 99.
2. Velleman, page 101
3.  Bennett Helm, 2010, Love, Friendship & the Self, Oxford, page 109
4. Frankfurt, H. (1988) The Importance of What We Care About. Cambridge University Press page 83.

Autonomy and Love Enhancement

In a paper Earp, Sandberg and Savulescu suggest individual couples should be free to use pharmacological interventions, provided these interventions allow us to keep our values and our environment intact, to sustain and improve their romantic connection. They then proceed to suggest some parents might have an obligation to do so in order to enhance their relationships for the sake of their children. They further suggest that this might be done by the use of “love drugs” such as oxytocin. Their arguments run as follows. First they argue,

1)      Parents have an obligation to protect their children from harm, all else being equal.

2)      Marriage breakdown, and especially outright divorce, is harmful to children.

3)      Therefore parents have an obligation (all else being equal) to preserve and enhance their relationships—for the sake of their offspring.

They then proceed to argue,

1)      Parents have an obligation (all else being equal) to preserve and enhance their relationships for the sake of their offspring.

2)      In many cases, the only way to do this is through pharmacological intervention, in conjunction with other more conventional strategies like couple’s therapy.

In assessing this argument it is crucial to understand what is meant by all else being equal. I will assume that all else being equal means any pharmacological intervention must have no damaging physiological or psychological side effects. However it also seems the authors believe all else being equal also means our keeping values and our environment intact. In what follows I will firstly argue such a belief is mistaken. I will then consider the implications of this mistake for the argument as a whole.

Firstly it is clear any love drug must of necessity change the environment we live in if it is to be effective. Such drugs will not of course change our physical environment but they will change our psychological environment. If parents live in a psychological environment characterised by lots of minor discords, waning love and a general unhappiness then love drugs should change this environment. Indeed the whole point of parents taking love drugs is to change their psychological environment in order to stop them divorcing. However people take anti-depressants all the time in order to change their psychological environment with no ill effects. This suggests to me the fact that someone who takes love drugs will have her environment changed is not a reason to reject Earp, Sandberg and Savulescu’s argument.

Does the taking of love drugs change someone’s values? Change in the context of values could have two meanings. Firstly change might means someone acquires new values or loses some of her existing ones. Secondly change could mean she alters the priorities she gives to her existing values. Let us assume someone’s values are linked to what she cares about. Let us further assume her identity as a particular person depends on what she cares about, upon her values. It follows if she acquires new values or loses some of her existing values she alters her identity to some degree. However I would argue someone’s identity is tied not only to those values she possesses but also to the priorities she gives to these values. For instance someone might value both being a mother and being good teacher. However someone who values being a mother first and a teacher second has a different identity to someone who reverses these priorities. It follows if someone changes the priorities she gives to her values she also changes her identity. The taking of love drugs does not appear to change someone’s values using my first meaning. However the purpose someone has in taking of love drugs would be to change the priorities she assigns to her various values in order to benefit her children. It follows the taking of love drugs changes someone’s values using the second meaning of change outlined above. It further follows the taking of love drugs changes someone’s identity.

If we accept that someone taking love drugs will have her identity altered does this give us a reason to reject Earp, Sandberg and Savulescu’s argument? It might be concluded the taking of these drugs would make someone inauthentic and this fact alone gives us reason to reject the authors’ argument. However such a conclusion seems premature. Just becoming a parent might also change someone’s identity and alter her values. Indeed it might not only alter the priorities someone assigns to her values but generate new values. The fact someone’s identity sometimes changes over time is natural and should usually give us no cause for concern. Someone might accept that natural changes in our identity do not give us cause for concern but object that the taking of love drugs is unnatural. In response I would suggest simply talking about something being natural or artificial is not really helpful; it doesn’t really do any work. My objector might respond by arguing what really matters is the way the change is caused. I accept her point. I further accept if love drugs alone cause a change in someone’s identity that their use is unacceptable and that we should reject Earp, Sandberg and Savulescu’s argument because of the damage these drugs do to her autonomy.

However I am reluctant to accept love drugs alone cause a change in someone’s identity. After all someone doesn’t just take a drug randomly with no purpose in mind. She takes a drug for a purpose and it follows she uses the drug instrumentally. In what follows I will argue firstly that love drugs might enable a parent to make a better decision and secondly these drugs might enable a parent carry out a previously made autonomous decision. Prima facie it might appear there is no reason as to why the taking of a love drug might enable us to better decision. However the truth of this appearance depends on how a specific drug works. Some drugs enhance our cognition. It seems plausible that a cognition enhancing drug might permit parents to see beyond their short term marital problems and see that remaining married will give them greater satisfaction in the long term as well as benefiting their children. Indeed studies have shown oxytocin, a potential love drug, is involved in nursing behaviour, trust, and mind-reading (1). If oxytocin enhances mind reading it enhances cognition and might enable parents to make better marital decisions resulting in fewer divorces and less harm to their children. Moreover the taking of such a love drug might be seen as enhancing rather than damaging someone’s autonomy.

I now want to consider the situation when love drugs might be seen as enabling someone to enact her previously made autonomous decision. Let us return to my example of someone who is both a mother and teacher. Let us assume she desperately wants to be a good mother but finds it hard to bond with her child and gives far greater priority to her teaching. Let us also assume after some reflection she makes an autonomous decision to shed some of her teaching load in order to become a better mother. Let us still further assume she still finds it difficult to implement this decision and bond with her child. After some further reflection she makes an autonomous decision to take oxytocin to enable to enact her previously made autonomous decision. Prima facie it appears the taking of a love drug has once again enhanced rather than damaged someone’s autonomy and we have no reason to reject Earp, Sandberg and Savulescu’s argument. However I have some reservations about accepting this appearance.

My first reservation is connected to what sort of autonomy we want to respect. Let us accept the mother’s decision to take oxytocin is an autonomous one. However it is perfectly possible for someone to make an autonomous decision which has the result of damaging her capacity for autonomy. One can decide to take heroin or perhaps more realistically a terminally ill patient might decide to commit suicide. Is it possible that a love drug such as oxytocin might also damage someone’s capacity for autonomy? Perhaps such a drug might bind someone so close to her partner that this affects some of the other things she cares about and perhaps even her cognitive judgements. Of course if we give priority to respecting someone’s autonomous decision over preserving her capacity for autonomy this reservation becomes groundless. Personally I favour respecting autonomous decisions over respecting someone’s capacity for autonomy. For instance if we respect a terminally ill cancer patient’s capacity for autonomy rather than her autonomous decision to die then she might be left with her capacity for autonomy but use it only to make decisions to die which she is prevented from implementing.

My second reservation concerns whether a mother’s decision to love her child more is always truly autonomous. Let us accept she had all the relevant facts and was un-coerced. Moreover she was under no pressure from her partner, friends or grandparents. It might be thought by many the mother’s decision was clearly autonomous. However the fact that she needed to take oxytocin to implement her decision suggests this might not be so. I would agree with Frankfurt that for her to make an autonomous decision means she has to come to care about certain things and she must come to care about some of them more than others rather than simply reflect upon her decision (2). Frankfurt uses the example of a mother who after some reflection decides it would be in the best interests of her child if he was adopted. However when the moment for adoption comes she cannot go through with her decision. Her purely reflective decision was one she was unable to implement because she discovered what she truly cared about (3). Helm also holds that we sometimes discover our values rather than reach them purely through reflection (4). I would question whether, if the mother in the above example took love inhibiting drugs to enable her to let her child be adopted, we would say these love inhibitors enhanced her autonomy. Indeed it might be argued these inhibitors damaged her autonomy. The above example of course does not show love drugs might damage someone’s autonomy but it does support my reservations and emphasises the need for caution.

1. Domes, G., Heinrichs, M., Michel, A., Berger, C. & Herpertz, S. C. (2007) Oxytocin improves “mind-reading” in humans. Biological Psychiatry 61, 731–733.
2. Frankfurt H, 1988, The Importance of What We Care About. Cambridge University Press, page 91.

3.      Frankfurt H, 1999, Necessity, Volition, and Love. Cambridge University Press, page 111.

4.      Bennett Helm, 2010, Love, Friendship & the Self, Oxford University Press, page 131.

---

Me and My Values

There is a tendency in philosophy to believe we define ourselves. That we define ourselves by our values or what we ‘care about’, see for instance Helm and Frankfurt.

“I have claimed that one’s identity is fundamentally a matter of the kind of life worth living and that this is determined largely by one’s personal priorities and values; ….Thus when asked who I am I do not say a 6-4 –inch former soccer player who likes chocolate and is susceptible to the gambler’s fallacy … I respond by saying that I am a philosophy professor, father of three, etc.” (1)

“It is in the nature of a lover’s concern that he is invested in his beloved. That is, he is benefited when his beloved flourishes; and he suffers when it is harmed. Another way of putting it is that the lover identifies himself with what he loves. This consists of accepting the interests of his beloved as his own.” (2)

In this posting I do not want to deny we partly define ourselves by our values or what we ‘care about’. However I will suggest there is a tendency to overstate this self-definition. Moreover I believe this overstatement applies to the importance of values and what someone ‘cares about’ and ignores other things that help define her.

Helm when asked who he is does not say he was a soccer player or that he likes chocolate and is susceptible to the gambler’s fallacy but replies by choosing certain things he values. Helm is identifying himself with his values and seems to assume others will identify him in a similar way. However there are problems with this approach. Firstly someone may be unaware of some of the values she possesses. Secondly we must be careful about the idea of choice. As I noted in my previous posting what someone values need not be identical with the values she explicitly identifies with. She can be mistaken about some of her values. Our values are determined just a much by what someone actually does as by what she thinks she should do. I believe Helm would accept this point as he argues someone sometimes discovers her values.

However even if someone is unaware of some of her values, does she sometimes choose her values and in so doing is she creating her identity like some existential hero? Personally I am unhappy with such a position. Recent research in experimental philosophy has shown that sometimes someone’s choices are influenced less by her character and more by the situation she finds herself in; see for instance Appiah (3). It follows someone’s choices may sometimes be determined less by her character and more by her situation. It further follows some of someone’s values might well be determined by the circumstances she finds herself in. Helm holds our identity is determined by our values. It still further follows if we accept Helm’s position that in practice someone’s identity is not simply chosen by her. Accepting the above is one of the reasons I rather like Helm’s idea of someone discovering her values; discovering her identity. In spite of the above I do not want to completely downplay the role someone’s explicit choices about value play in creating her identity, I only want argue such choices do not play as big a part as we might assume. The fact someone has some value may in many cases be partly be due to the fact she made a choice. But even if someone has genuinely chosen something as a value does not guarantee it is in fact value. She must also be able to live up to her choice. In some cases she may discover she cannot, see Frankfurt discussion of Sartre’s young man (4). It might be objected there is some circularity in the above arguments concerning character, value and identity. I will not pursue this objection here but believe it can be overcome, see (5).

Helm and Frankfurt hold that our identity depends on what we value or ‘care about’. However I would suggest the fact that we often appear to discover our identity means other factors play a part in determining this identity. In my posting of 12/12/11 I argued that the fact someone suffers from Asperger’s syndrome partly determines her identity. Asperger’s syndrome affects someone’s neural development and hence the way she thinks, she chooses. I would go even further than this and suggest factors independent of our neural makeup also affect our identity. Consider someone born without legs and as a result of this is confined to a wheelchair. I would argue this fact affects the choices open to her and hence her identity. She may not for instance become a mountaineer like her parents. An objector to the above might use my wheelchair example to argue against me. She might argue if a soldier who loses his legs in Afghanistan and becomes confined to a wheelchair that this does not change his identity. Our intuitions about the mountaineer’s daughter and the wounded soldier seem to lead us to a paradox. I believe this paradox can be resolved. I accept soldier’s identity is not changed at the time of his injury but I would argue his identity will be changed over time. Let us assume prior to his injury the soldier identified himself with being a soldier leading his men into battle. This option is now closed to him. Let us further assume that post his injury he becomes a Para-Olympian and identifies himself with sport. It would appear then that over time the fact he has become a wheelchair user has in some ways affected his identity.

I have argued that in practice someone’s identity is not simply chosen by her but is also determined by her physical body and the circumstances she finds herself in. Part of these circumstances is the way other people see her. It follows our identity is linked to the way others see us. Let us return to a soldier example. Let us assume our soldier is a paramedic who does not see herself as brave. Let us further assume one day she tends to a wounded colleague under enemy fire. Her colleagues see her as brave and because of this she discovers herself to be brave. Of course she was brave before her discovery but her bravery was unreflective whilst after her discovery her bravery came to play a more central part in her life, in her identity and this centrality would not have happened had not others seen her as brave.

1.      Bennett Helm, 2010, Love, Friendship & the Self, Oxford University Press, page 130.

2.      Harry Frankfurt 2006, Taking Ourselves Seriously, Stanford University Press, Page 41.

3.      Kwame Appiah, 2008, Experiments in Ethics, Harvard University Press, chapter 2.

4.      Frankfurt, 1988, The Importance of What We Care About. Cambridge University Press, page 84.

5.      Helm, page 140.

Damaging Self-Love, Pride and Shame

In the New Scientist of 28/04/12 Laura Spinney examines whether too high self esteem damages us. Self-love is related to though not identical to self esteem. In this posting I will argue some forms of self-love are damaging but not by being excessive like too much self esteem. Rather I will argue that damaging forms are in some ways incomplete forms of self-love. Before setting out I must make it clear I believe we must of necessity love ourselves to some degree. For instance Frankfurt believes caring about and loving are equivalent. (1) He suggests caring about oneself is necessary to be a person,

“perhaps caring about oneself is essential to being a person. Can something to whom its own condition and activities do not matter in the slightest properly be regarded as a person at all. Perhaps nothing that is entirely indifferent to itself is really a person, regardless of how intelligent or emotional or in other respects similar to persons it may be. There could not be a person of no importance to himself.” (2)

If we accept Frankfurt’s position, which I do, it follows a person must of necessity love himself. However if a person loves himself so much that he ignores or even harms those close to him his self-love is damaging.

Unfortunately the idea of love as based simply on ‘caring about’ isn’t a very useful concept in examining damaging forms of self-love. If we accept Frankfurt’s account of love then a damaging form of self-love is perhaps one in which someone simply ‘cares about’ himself too much. But Frankfurt’s account offers us no idea of how much self-love is too much. In order to overcome this problem I will turn to Bennett Helm’s account of love (3). I will argue that damaging forms of self-love are not defined by the degree of love but rather by a lack of something. I will argue that damaging self-love is deficient.

Helm holds like Frankfurt that if someone is to be considered of as a person at all he must of necessity love himself. However unlike Frankfurt he does not believe that everything someone cares about is a form of love and defines him as a person. Helm links our identity to the things we value, our values. It is important to note what we value need not be identical with the values we explicitly identify with. Cocaine may be of value to me but when I reflect I might wish it wasn’t. Helm believes valuing is not just caring about something a lot, it is caring about something which is connected to your identity. According to Helm,

“for something to have value for one is for it to be the focus of a projectible pattern of felt evaluations. Because what is at stake in one’s values are oneself and one’s own wellbeing as this person, and because values involve an implicit understanding of the kind of life it is worth one’s living, the felt evaluations constitutive of this pattern …. are emotions like pride and shame.” (4).

A felt evaluation is an emotion which is focussed on something linked in some rational way to other emotions with the same focus. For instance, if I feel anxiety focussed on driving in dense traffic then it is rational that I should feel relief when driving in traffic if the traffic is less dense than I had anticipated. Helm argues when my focus is on me, on my values, the felt evaluations are pride and shame together with some second degree emotions, emotions about emotions. Helm holds someone’s pride and shame are a kind of attention, a kind of vigilance, about himself and his identity and that this attention or vigilance is a form of self-love. I don’t want to go into Helm’s position in greater detail but I do want to accept that someone who cannot feel pride and shame cannot truly love himself.

Accepting Helm’s ideas about the importance of pride and shame means we are now in a position to be able to see why some forms self-love might be damaging. It might be suggested that if someone has too much self-love he has excessive pride. However if someone must of necessity love himself then from the above he must at least have some pride. Nonetheless it is clear pride can damage us. Shakespeare’s Coriolanus is a deficient character who is damaged by what most people describe as his excessive pride. I will now argue what is usually described as excessive pride might be better described as either empty or exclusive pride. I will start my argument with empty pride. If someone is proud about something then intuitively it should be something which he believes to be good, which he desires and something or some quality he believes he possesses. If his pride is simply focussed on himself, rather than some of the attributes he possesses or values he holds, then it seems to me his pride is of a deficient form. Helm argues someone’s pride in his values helps to form his identity; it follows that if someone’s pride bypasses his values and simply focuses on himself it doesn’t really focus on anything at all and as a result is an empty and hence deficient form of pride.

I now want to turn to what I mean by exclusive pride. Coriolanus had real achievements to be proud of and so his pride was not simply empty pride. Nonetheless Coriolanus was damaged by his pride. An excellent discussion of Coriolanus and his pride is given by Gabriele Taylor (4). Taylor argues Coriolanus’ pride was an arrogant pride and that it was this arrogance that damaged him. I do not disagree with Taylor that Coriolanus’ arrogance damaged him but would suggest that his arrogance was due to the exclusivity of his pride. Helm argues if someone genuinely loves himself that he must feel both pride and shame. I would define exclusive pride as the pride someone feels who doesn’t or is incapable of feeling any shame. If we accept that someone must of necessity love himself and that Helm is correct, when he argues that to truly love oneself someone must be capable of feeling both pride and shame, then someone who feels exclusive pride is damaged as a person. Taylor suggests Coriolanus is damaged as a person because he lives in a world apart seeing himself as sole arbitrator of right and wrong. Coriolanus has limited perspective meaning he does not have the ability to change his focus. This inability to broaden his perspective is caused by his exclusive pride which excludes shame. I would suggest that the same argument can be applied to exclusive shame but I will not repeat the argument here.

Let us accept that the ability to feel both pride and shame is necessary for us if we are to love ourselves in a way that doesn’t damage us as individuals. In practice of course most people do feel both pride and shame. Nonetheless it appears to me that the balance between them has shifted and shame plays a less important part in most people’s psyche. Perhaps this shift was needed in the past. For instance in the past some Gay people were ashamed of their homosexuality and this unjustified shame led them to lead inauthentic lives. However it also seems to me this shift has gone too far so that it damages both individuals and society. For instance the fact that this shift has occurred at the same time as drunken behaviour in major UK cities has increased might well be significant.

1.      Frankfurt, 1999, Necessity, Volition, and Love, Cambridge University Press. Page 129.

2.       Necessity, Volition, and Love, page 90

3.      Bennett Helm, 2010, Love, Friendship & the Self, Oxford.

4.      Helm, page 109.

5.      Gabriele Taylor, 2006, Deadly Vices, Oxford, chapter 5.

6.      Taylor, page 79.

Tiberius and Realistic Optimism

In this posting I want to question whether optimism is really a virtue. The type of optimism I want to consider is realistic optimism and not some excessive Panglossian optimism. Traditionally the main virtues are wisdom, courage, humanity, justice and temperance. There are of course many more minor virtues. Valerie Tiberius (1) suggests some new virtues. These are flexibility and wisdom, perspective, moderate self-awareness and realistic optimism. In this posting I want to consider Tiberius’ approach to realistic optimism and question whether it is indeed a virtue.

Before proceeding to consider whether realistic optimism is a virtue we must be clear about what a virtue is. Tiberius considers her new virtues to be reflective virtues. For Tiberius a reflective virtue is one that is justified by its usefulness in helping an agent to live a life which she can justify on reflection. I want to consider optimism from a more traditional conception of a virtue. For the purposes of this posting a virtue is roughly a disposition to think, act and feel in certain ways which are good in some way and help the agent to flourish. An optimist is someone who has a disposition to think and act in certain ways due to her optimism. Using the above definitions mean whether optimism is a virtue or not depends on whether optimism helps an agent to flourish. There is some evidence that unbridled optimism does not help everyone to flourish. A study in Japan of 101 obese men and women undergoing a program of counselling, nutrition and exercise therapy found that slimmers with a happy-go-lucky bright outlook at the start of the therapy were less likely to succeed in losing weight see Telegraph  . It follows that optimism may not be a virtue. However it does not follow from the study that optimism is not a virtue. For instance courage is not always a virtue. Unbridled courage or rashness might be classed as simple stupidity. Aristotle believed there was a mean attached to a virtue and that someone could be either too courageous or lack courage altogether and be a coward. Further he believed the virtues had a certain unity which constrained the unbridled excesses of any single virtue. Much of the above might be applied to optimism. Perhaps Tiberius believes realistic optimism must be seen in the context of her other reflective virtues of, flexibility, perspective, and moderate self-awareness; perhaps so doing places some constraints on unbridled optimism. Perhaps a slimmer’s optimism about her weight loss should be constrained by her moderate self-awareness.

I however want to examine optimism using the more traditional definition of a virtue. Before doing so I want to consider the domain of optimism. What does Tiberius mean by realistic optimism? She does not regard realistic optimism as just the mean between unbridled optimism and pessimism. She argues that realistic optimism helps us to live a life which we can justify on reflection by combating cynicism. She limits cynicism to human nature (2). I myself cannot see how cynicism can extend to things outside human nature. One may well be pessimistic about the weather tomorrow, but can one be cynical about it? Accepting Tiberius’ position, which I do, means accepting realistic optimism is limited to the domain of human affairs. According to Tiberius,

“Cynics in my sense doubt that human beings have truly good qualities; they attribute ugly ulterior motives to others without much evidence and they react to other people with scorn and disdain, whether or not they have information about the particular person’s character.” (3).

I agree with Tiberius that cynicism is harmful. I would argue it is harmful to the cynic as it damages her agency because she is likely to attribute ugly ulterior motives to herself. Cynicism damages people’s autonomy. If someone believes the reasons she acts on are ulterior, not really hers, then she may well question why she should act at all. However even if it is accepted that cynicism is harmful it does not automatically follow we should adopt an attitude of realistic optimism. We could, as Tiberius acknowledges, simply adopt a more realistic attitude. I will present three connected arguments against adopting a purely realist attitude. I will firstly argue that a purely realist attitude is inadequate for dealing with life’s complexities. Secondly I will argue trust depends on realistic optimism. Lastly I will argue that a purely realist attitude is, like that of the cynic, harmful to agency.

Let us assume that we should adopt a purely realist attitude to life. Unfortunately in many situations we encounter we don’t have the information needed to adopt this attitude. If I meet someone for the first time having no information whatsoever about her what should I do? Should I adopt an attitude that is indifferent and detached because of this lack of information? A realistic attitude. I would suggest that I should adopt a different attitude, a pleasant and welcoming one in the hope that this will be beneficial in any future relations. Tiberius argues that we should adopt hopeful attitudes, realistically optimistic attitudes, to combat cynicism (4). Perhaps she is right but I would argue that in some circumstances, such as the above, a realistic attitude is an empty attitude and cannot form a meaningful basis on which to base our actions. It seems to me that in such circumstances we should adopt a realistically optimistic attitude. This brings us to my second reason connected to my first reason as to why we should not adopt a purely realist attitude. Society depends on trust. If we adopt a purely realistic attitude we have no basis for trust. Trust depends on us being optimistic about the good intentions of others. Lastly realistic optimism seems conducive to agency. Hume famously argued reason alone gives us no reason to act. If I am completely indifferent or detached from something then I do not care about it. If I do not care about something I have no reason to act. If I don’t believe my actions will benefit me or avoid harm I have no reason to act. It follows indifference and detachment alone give me no reason to act even if I am well informed. I may of course act; but as I have no reason to act any action, or none, will do equally well and I act wantonly. I have argued previously someone who acts wantonly is not a real person and lacks agency, see wooler.scottus  . It follows a purely realist attitude in life, like that of the cynic, damages our agency, damages our autonomy. It would seem then if we value our autonomy we should adopt an attitude that has some import to us.

Nonetheless the question still remains as to why we should adopt an optimistic attitude. The fact that we should adopt an attitude that has some import to us does not mean this import must be positive. It might be argued that pessimism might give us equally as good a reason to act as optimism. I have argued above that cynicism can damage us as autonomous agents. I would further argue that because pessimism can easily slip into cynicism we have a good reason to choose a realistically optimistic attitude over a pessimistic one. Let us accept that if we wish to preserve our agency we have reason to be realistically optimistic but the question remains is this realistic optimism a virtue, does it help us flourish? The above suggests to me that realistic optimism is a disposition to think, act and feel in certain ways which are necessary for flourishing. It follows realistic optimism is a virtue. Of course someone may be realistically optimistic and not flourish but same is true of more accepted virtues one may be brave but still not flourish.

It seems to me that games theory offers some support for the above conclusion. Let us consider the prisoners dilemma. In this game the police arrest two men but do not have enough evidence for a full conviction and so offer a deal. The deal is this if one prisoner confesses and testifies against his partner and the other does not the prisoner goes free and his partner will receive the full sentence. If both remain silent each receives a short sentence. The best outcome is achieved if both remain silent. If this game is repeated several times the most successful strategy is one called tit for tat. This strategy calls for a prisoner to remain silent initially. In subsequent round if his partner confessed in the previous round then he should confess in this round. If however his partner remained silent then he should remain silent. I would suggest tit for tat is a realistically optimistic strategy. In the first round the prisoner when choosing to remain silent is being optimistic in hoping his partner will do likewise. In subsequent rounds his choice is determined by his partner’s previous choice. Tit for tat is not however an over optimistic strategy in which the prisoner always assumes his partner will remain silent nor is it a pessimistic strategy in which the prisoner always assumes his partner will confess.

1. Valerie Tiberius, 2008, The Reflective life, Oxford.
2. Tiberius, page 140.
3. Tiberius page 141.
4. Tiberius, page 150.

Deceit and Unintentional Fathers

Elizabeth Brake (1) argues that unintentional fathers do not have an obligation to support any children they father. She bases here argument on equal rights for men and women. She argues if a women has right not to become a parent because she has a right to have an abortion then it follows that a man also has a right not to become a parent. She believes this means that a man has the right not support any child he unintentionally fathers. Her argument is based on the idea of consent. It assumes a woman must consent either explicitly or implicitly if she gestates. Her argument assumes that consent forms the basis for parental obligation. Clearly this assumption is true for adoptive parents but is it also true of biological parents? Lindsey Porter (2) argues it is not and that all parents have an obligation to support any children they create and that this obligation includes unintentional fathers. In this posting I will firstly outline Porter’s argument which I accept. I will then move on to consider a slightly different question as to whether her argument should also apply to unintentional fathers who have been deceived.

Porter points out that a biological parent is someone who causes a new person to exist. She argues biological parental obligation is based on the idea that because a biological parent is responsible for a child’s vulnerability he/she must take steps to remedy this situation. Prima facie this obligation means assuming a full parenting role in most cases. Of course there may be exceptions, for instance a fourteen year mother might best fulfil her obligation as a biological parent by allowing her child to be adopted. Unfortunately as Porter notes there is a problem with this account. Gamete donors and even IVF doctors might appear to have parental duties. Porter attempts to overcome this problem by presenting a bifurcated account of parenthood. A parent can either mean someone who causes a child to exist or secondly someone who “stands in a unique and invaluable social, personal, love relation to the child.” Her argument depends on the idea that a certain class of parents in the first meaning has a prima facie obligation to become a parent as defined by the second meaning. In what follows assuming full parental obligations means being a parent in sense of both of the above meanings. I agree with the thrust of Porter’s argument but believe we must be able to define which of those people who cause a child to exist have a prima facie duty to assume full parental obligations.

Porter correctly points out that in some cases people such as gamete donors and IVF specialists play a part in causing some children to exist. Without these people some children would not exist. It follows they cause vulnerable children to come into the world. Surely this causation means they have responsibilities. Clearly they do have responsibilities. Equally clearly gamete donors and IVF specialists should not offer their services to people who will not become good parents. However the question remains if gamete donors, IVF specialists and biological parents can all play a necessary part in causing a child to exist, then why should only biological parents have a duty to assume full parental obligations?

Of course it is impractical that gamete donors and IVF specialists should fully parent the children they cause to come into existence simply because of the numbers involved. However if they only caused one or possibly two children to come into existence is there any reason why they should not be obliged to assume full parental duties for the same reason as the biological parents are? It might be objected that in practice this just doesn’t happen and that my question is purely of theoretical interest. But this is not so let us consider two sisters Ann and Carol. Ann is married but is incapable of carrying a child because she has had a hysterectomy followed by chemotherapy due to cancer. Prior to her treatment some of Ann’s eggs were saved. Carol has two children of her own but nonetheless offers to act as a surrogate mother for Ann. Carol successfully undergoes IVF using her sister’s eggs together with her brother in laws sperm and produces a child. Let us assume Carol will never undertake surrogacy again or have any other children. Clearly Carol played a necessary part in causing Ann’s child to exist. Does it follow that in this situation that Carol has an equal obligation with Ann to assume full parental duties? I would argue it does not. Ann wanted a child. Having a child of her own was of intrinsic value to her. Carol only acted instrumentally to serve Ann’s wants. Carol may have played a necessary part in the creation of the child but she would not have done so without Ann’s need. Ann and Carol caused the child to exist in different ways. Ann’s need was the original cause of the child. Carol served this original cause instrumentally. I would suggest only those people who cause a child to exist by being the original cause of that child have a prima facie duty to assume full parental obligations. Those people who cause a child to exist by acting instrumentally to fulfil someone else’s need for a child do not. It follows that gamete donors, IVF specialists and surrogate mothers do not have a prima facie duty to fully parent any children they help to come into existence.

I now want return to the question as to whether unintentional fathers have full parental obligations to any children they father. I have suggested above that only those people who cause a child to exist by being the originating cause have a prima facie duty to become full parents. If my suggestion is accepted it follows most unintentional fathers do have a prima facie duty to accept parental obligations because by fathering a child a father is not usually acting instrumentally to serve someone else’s purpose. Moreover by engaging in normal sexual relations becoming a father, causing a child to exist, is a foreseeable risk. Of course not all unintentional fathers might be in a position to fully assume a full parenting role. In some cases an unintentional father or his child’s mother may be in another relationship. Or perhaps, like the fourteen year old mother mentioned above, he may be better able to discharge his parental duties in a different way. Nonetheless most unintentional fathers have a prima facie duty to assume a full parenting role.

However there is a subset of unintentional fathers to whom the above might not apply. A woman might intentionally deceive a man regarding contraception for some purpose of her own. For instance she might simply desire a child. In this case the child’s father seems to be being used by her instrumentally in much the same way a gamete donor is. Prima facie I can see no reason as to why he should be treated differently from a the donor and hence should not be subject to full parental obligations. Secondly a woman might seek to bind her partner to her by having a child. She might secretly stop taking any contraceptive measures in order to achieve her objective. In this context the man is being deceived but is he also being used instrumentally? It is of course true he is not being seen as an end in himself and this is wrong. The deceit is also wrong. However it is not clear that these wrongs mean he should be free from full parental obligations. It is clear is that this case the child is being used instrumentally by the woman to bind her partner to her. I would suggest this means the father in this case is also being used instrumentally. Once again prima facie it seems clear to me that he should also not be subject to full parental obligations.

Prima facie I have argued that those unintentional fathers who have been deceived do not have a duty to assume full parental obligations. Are there any reasons as to why my conclusion should not be accepted? Unfortunately applied philosophy like real morality is messy and there is at least one reason not to accept my conclusion. This reason is also concerned with deceit. Many unintentional fathers who have not been deceived might lie and say that they have been in order to avoid full parental obligations. It seems clear to me that those unintentional fathers whose partners admit to deceiving them and those for whom it can be shown that they have been deceived do not have a duty to assume full parental obligations. Again unfortunately this is likely to be only a small subset of unintentional fathers who have been deceived. It would appear we have almost arrived back at my starting point. Elizabeth Brake argued that unintentional fathers do not have an obligation to support any children they father due to equal rights for men and women. I have accepted Lindsey Porter’s argument that most unintentional fathers do have a prima facie obligation to fully support their children. However in the light of the above argument some might suggest that in practice, even if this obligation remains, unintentional fathers should not be made to support any children they father if they say they have been deceived and it cannot be shown that they are lying. It is not always possible to differentiate between unintentional fathers who have been deceived and those who merely say they have been deceived. In addition I have argued that unintentional fathers who have been deceived do not have a duty to assume full parental obligations. It might appear to follow that the right of unintentional fathers who have been deceived not to support any children they father means that all unintentional fathers, who say they have been deceived, should not be compelled to assume full parental responsibility. Personally I am reluctant to accept the above. It seems to me that children’s interests may well trump the right of unintentional fathers who have been deceived, but who are unable to show this, not to assume full parental obligations.

1. Elizabeth Brake, Fatherhood and child support; Do men have a right to choose?, Journal of Applied Philosophy, 22(1), 2005.

2. Lindsey Porter, Adoption is Not Abortion-Lite, Journal of Applied Philosophy, 29(1), 2012.

Sport, Performance Enhancing Drugs and Character

 

Julian Savulescu argues in a posting in Practical Ethics that “performance enhancement is not against the spirit of cycling; it is the spirit cycling” he goes on to suggest that “we should focus on monitoring the athletes’ health rather than on losing a war on doping”, see Practical Ethics. In this posting I will argue performance enhancement is against the spirit of sport and because cycling is a sport it is against the spirit of cycling. At first hand it might appear that this will be a difficult task for me as I have previously argued that there is nothing wrong with taking cognition enhancing drugs subject to certain safeguards, see cognitive enhancement . I still stand by this position. In addition I would also support the use moral enhancing drugs, once again subject to suitable safeguards. In must be noted drug enhancement is usually not as straightforward as it sometimes seems initially and adequate safeguards are extremely important; for instance nasal sprays containing oxytocin may not be as effective as first thought and in some circumstances may even be counter productive. 

Let us assume certain cognitive enhancing or moral enhancement drugs are as safe as any of the drugs used in medical practice, if this is so I see no reason why someone should not take these enhancement drugs. Prima facie enhancing someone’s cognitive abilities or her capacity to feel empathy will not damage her as a person. Moreover if any enhancement drug is as safe as those used in medical practice and reasonably cheap I can see no reason why this drug should give someone an unfair advantage over others. I will not pursue the argument here. Of course in this situation cognitive enhancing or moral enhancing drugs will have to be tested and approved by some appropriate authority just as the drugs used in medical practice are now. Savulescu, as I read him, believes the above should also apply to cycling. The cycling authorities rather than testing cyclists for drugs should test drugs for cyclists in order to ensure these drugs are safe for cyclists to take. Whether cyclists take advantage of these drugs would be up to them.

Before proceeding with my argument I must make it clear the type of sport which concerns me. My argument will not concern non-competitive sports, for in these sports there seems no spirit to contravene. For instance, if someone is a lone cyclist who cycles either because she simply enjoys it or to keep fit then she is of no concern to me here. If such a cyclist takes performance enhancing drugs in order to cycle faster or further then I see no reason why she should not do so provided these drugs are safe. I hasten to add as a lone cyclist myself I personally can see no good reason to go faster or further than I am normally capable of. My argument is limited solely to competitive sports.

I want to argue that all competitive sports incorporate the ideal of fairness. A cycle race, in which only one competitor was permitted to take enhancing drugs whilst the other riders were forbidden to do so by the cycling authorities and in which the authorities rigorously tested these other riders to ensure their compliance, could not possibly be regarded as fair. Nonetheless could such a race possibly be regarded as sport? I would argue if such a race could be regarded as sport then there is no essential difference between sport and spectacle, between sport and showbiz. Someone might suggest that the demand for tickets at the Olympic opening ceremony by some supposed sports fans shows that in practice there is really no difference between sport and spectacle. I would reject such a suggestion for it seems to me even if sport can be spectacular it cannot be regarded simply as a spectacle. Intuitively the hypothetical race suggested above cannot be regarded as sport. It would appear the idea of fairness is an essential part of sport, but the question remains why? 

I would suggest fairness is an essential part of sport because it engenders what we find admirable about sport. Able bodied Olympians don’t compete with Para-Olympians, heavyweight boxers don’t compete with lightweights and golfers have handicaps to ensure fair competition. It follows what we find admirable about sport must be connected to sports men and women. What we find admirable about sportspersons cannot be that they are winners. If this was so we would not find anything admirable about the vast majority sportspersons. I would now suggest what we find admirable in sportsppersons is linked to their character and this character is connected to certain virtues. Virtues such as determination, dedication, fortitude and courage. If we accept the above then it seem competition between women born as female and women born as male damages sport. Such completion damages sport. These virtues can be best expressed if a sportsperson can compete equally, if sport is fair. Someone might object we don’t find all sportspersons admirable. She might point out we don’t have any reason to find some premiership footballers’ character as admirable. In reply I would argue we only find part of a sportsman’s character admirable. The fact that some footballer shows determination, dedication, fortitude and some courage when playing football is admirable. It may well be true that we find some of his activities off the pitch less than admirable. Nonetheless I would counter argue the fact that a footballer plays football to a high standard makes his character more admirable than if he did not. I would further argue that the same applies to amateur sportspersons who engage in sport purely for the pleasure it brings; engaging in sport may not make someone a good person but it nearly always enhances his character to some degree. Of course there may be a very few people who should not play sport due to their temperament, for instance someone might be unable to control his anger.

Savulescu might accept my argument. Nevertheless he might continue to argue if all professional cyclists could take drugs which are tested and approved by cycling authorities then cycle races would not be unfair and that we could still admire the determination, dedication, fortitude and courage of the cyclists involved. I would suggest he would be wrong to do so because such a situation would be hard to maintain. Let us assume some drugs are tested and approved by cycling authorities. However new drugs which might enhance a cyclist’s performance further might be developed. It follows the cycling authorities will have to continue testing cyclists for these new drugs to promote fairness. It follows that allowing cyclists to take some drugs would only change the current situation slightly. A partial ban on enhancing drugs would mean some drugs are acceptable whilst others are not. It would also seem to mean some new drugs initially unacceptable might, after suitable testing, become acceptable. It follows policing such a fluid situation might be much more difficult than trying to maintain the current position. Savulescu might of course revise his position and insist that cyclists should be free to take any drug and that drug testing should be abolished. It seems entirely possible that in this revised situation argue some enhancing drugs might be developed and only offered to selected cyclists. Real competition would then shift from cyclists to the scientists producing performance enhancing drugs; competitive cycling would be reduced to a mere spectacle.