Rats, Sperm Whales, and Altrusim

The following report comes from Discovery News, and while it’s a bit old, I think its relevance and implications remain secure.

Researchers started by housing 30 rats together in pairs, each duo sharing the same cage for two weeks. Then, they moved them to a new cage where one rat was held in a restraining device while the other could roam free.

The free rat could see and hear his (or her — six of the rats were female) trapped buddy, and appeared more agitated while the entrapment was going on.

The door to the trapping enclosure was not easy to open, but most rats figured it out within three to seven days. Once they knew how, they went straight to the door to open it every time they were put in the cage.

To test the rats’ true bond to their cagemates, researchers also ran the experiment with toys in the restraint to see if the rats would free the fake stuffed rats like they did their comrades. They did not.

“We are not training these rats in any way,” said first author Inbal Ben-Ami Bartal.

“These rats are learning because they are motivated by something internal. We’re not showing them how to open the door, they don’t get any previous exposure on opening the door, and it’s hard to open the door. But they keep trying and trying, and it eventually works.”

Even when researchers rearranged the experiment so that the trapped rat would be set free into another enclosure, away from his hero friend, the rats still opened the door, indicating they were not motivated by companionship.

“There was no other reason to take this action, except to terminate the distress of the trapped rats,” Bartal said. “In the rat model world, seeing the same behavior repeated over and over basically means that this action is rewarding to the rat.”

This sort of behavior is perhaps unexpected, give that most people would hardly think of rats (mere pests that they are) as being capable of much sentience, let alone selflessness. Not only does this challenge  the notion that altruism is the sole purview of advanced cognitive capacity, but it goes against the popular perception that living things are concerned only with their own self-interest and survival.

There’s clearly nothing to gain from freeing another rat, other than the apparent “satisfaction” of alleviating the suffering of another living thing.  But is there a limit to this behavior? What would the rats do if given a more enticing alternative to freeing their comrade?

In one final test to truly measure the resolve of the rats, scientists presented them with a pile of chocolate chips in the cage. The rats were not hungry, and in prior experiments showed they liked chocolate because they would eat it instead of rat chow given the chance.

Still, free rats tended to act benevolently. Even if they munched on a few chips first, they would then free their pal and allow him to eat the remaining chips.

“It said to us that essentially helping their cagemate is on a par with chocolate. He can hog the entire chocolate stash if he want(s) to, and he does not. We were shocked,” said co-author Peggy Mason, a professor of neurobiology.

So even when given an irresistible temptation to spurn their friend, the rats still tended to prioritize the well-being of the other rat. In fact, they furthermore shared in the goodies, even though they could easily hog them after having done their part.

Rats are hardly the only animals to demonstrate this sort of behavior. Just about every social species that’s been studied – from dolphins to monkeys – have displayed similar behavior. Most recently there was a discovery that a group of sperm whales,  a species widely perceived as aggressive, had adopted a deformed dolphin.

Behavioral ecologists Alexander Wilson and Jens Krause discovered this unique phenomenon when they set out to observe sperm whales off the island of Pico in the Azores in 2011. Upon arriving there, they discovered a whale group of adult sperm whales, several whale calves, and an adult male bottlenose dolphin. Over the next eight days, the pair observed the dolphin with the whales six more times, socializing and even nuzzling and rubbing members of the group. At times, the sperm whales seemed merely to tolerate the dolphin’s affection, while at others, they reciprocated. “It really looked like they had accepted the dolphin for whatever reason,” Wilson reports to ScienceNOW. “They were being very sociable.”

This gregarious dolphin was easily recognizable by its spinal malformation, a rare spinal curvature that gave the dolphin’s back half an “S” shape. This malformation did not seem to affect the dolphin’s overall health, but  was likely the reason that the dolphin joined up with the sperm whales in the first place. In the highly social and clique-based world of dolphins, such a disfigurement could have given the dolphin low social status, or may have prevented the dolphin from fitting in and keeping up with its peers. “Sometimes some individuals can be picked on,” Wilson says. “It might be that this individual didn’t fit in, so to speak, with its original group.” The deformed dolphin could perhaps better keep up with the sperm whales, which swim more slowly, and could stay by their side at all times, as sperm whales always assign a “babysitter” to remain at the surface with the calves while the other adults dive deep to feed.

Could there be anything in it for the sperm whales? It’s possible there is a mutual benefit, as the article notes towards the end. Why else would they accept the member of another species into their cohesive group, let alone one that has “disabilities”?

While there are several likely possibilities for the dolphin’s advantage in the match, the whales’ reason for the adoption is less clear — there is no obvious advantage that the whales could gain by adding the dolphin to their group. Sperm whales have never been seen being affectionate to other species, and, further, scientists say that bottlenose dolphins and sperm whales often do not get along, as the dolphins have been known to chase and harass the whales and their calves.

Of course, there are some caveats to keep in mind. For starters, it’s still uncertain what the sperm whales’ motivations are, and as tempting as it is to view it as an act of compassion, it’s simply too soon too tell. Then there’s the fact that this is an isolated incident, and can hardly be extrapolated to represent the norm.

Still, this and the previous rat experiment suggests that there is something innate within other social species that seems to cause what we would otherwise call altruistic or compassionate behavior. This is definitely something that should be studied more, if only to give animals more credit for sentience, and thus more rights.

In any case, it makes sense that social species would have some innate inclination to help one of their own, since our individual survival is dependent on the group’s well-being. We depend on each other’s cooperation to thrive, so generosity is often a win-win for everyone. Maybe even altruism, which requires personal sacrifice, may confer some sort of advantage. Regardless,  I this suggests that morality does indeed have some natural origin, given that empathy and a sense of solidarity seems to underpin most moral actions.

Thoughts?

 

The Responsibility of Privilege

Noam Chomsky discusses many insightful things in the following video, but the one that stuck out most to me was the notion that privileged people – those with the most money and power relative to everyone else – had a greater responsibility to help the world. See the video in its entirety and judge for yourself.

A Short Overview of Kantian/Deontological Ethical Theory

Kantian ethical theory is one of several moral/ethical theories that provide the following: 1) a method for deriving moral rules and guidelines and 2) a justification and criteria for evaluating the moral value of particular human actions.

So like cultural relativism, which was discussed beforehand, the Kantian theory of ethics seeks to establish an organized approach to how morality is formed and how various actions can be judged and analyzed in terms of their moral legitimacy. As we will see, however, there are vast differences between the two methodologies.

Kantian ethical theory is named after its founder, Immanuel Kant, an 18^th century German thinker of the Enlightenment Age. It is important to keep in mind the context in which Kant formulated his ethical theory. During this optimistic time period, there emerged a strong belief in the ability of human reason to help understand the world and solve its various problems – including ethical ones.

Thus, Kant sought to establish an approach to morality that would be reason-based. Indeed, Kant believed that to be ethical is to be perfectly rational, and that the most rational behavior is naturally the most ethical one. He also believed that behaving morally was a matter of obligation for which there could be no exception or loophole – hence the emphasis on rules rather than on consequences.

For this reason, the Kantian approach to morality is classified as a type of Deontological ethical theory. Derived from the word deon, which is Greek for duty, this ethical theory holds that there is an innate aspect to a given moral rule that makes it either good or bad. Put another way, it judges the morality of an action not on, say, its consequences or utility, but on said action’s adhere to a rule or set of rules.

Thus, Kantian/Deontological ethical theory is based around established rules and guidelines, and as such, considers morals to be unconditional, obligatory, and universal. So it is best defined as a rules-based or duty-based system of ethics. For a Kantian ethicist, the ends of an action never justify the means; rather, it is the action itself that is intrinsically good or bad. We can’t control consequences anyway, since there is no telling whether a particular action will lead to the intended results.

Categorical and Hypothetical Imperatives
But what does it mean to have a moral system that is obligatory and rules-based? Keep in mind that Kant is not trying to create any moral rules himself. He’s not directly telling us what is good or bad. Rather, he wants to establish a universal method for determining what is moral. Basically, he’s giving a way to test the legitimacy of other moral rules and actions.

The core of this approach is something known as the categorical imperative. This is a command or recommendation of action that is completely absolute. For example, “you should never lie” or “you should always keep your promises.” Kant contrasts this with the hypothetical imperative, which is a dictate that is based around certain conditions or desires. An example of this would be, “you ought to tell the truth if you want people to trust you, or if you want to be a good person.” A hypothetical imperative usually contains keywords such as “ought,” “should,” or “if” in order to connect the command to a particular condition or motive; categorical imperatives have no such considerations: basically, it’s “you ought to do something, period.”

Intuitively, there doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with believing that you should tell the truth for the sake of winning people’s trust. After all, this appears to be a perfectly rational expectation and motivation, and Kant was all about basing morals on reason. So why does Kantian ethical theory hold that rules must be unconditional in order to be legitimate and rational? What’s so irrational about conditional morals?

The problem is that having one’s actions contingent upon particular conditions builds into them a loophole: if you don’t care about the conditions, you have no reason to follow through with the moral action. If I don’t care whether or not people will trust me or see me as a good person, I have no reason to tell the truth. I’ll only be moral insofar as doing so meets certain relevant desires, circumstances, or environments.

Thus, the categorical imperative obliges us to behave a certain way out of duty, with no other external or ulterior factors in mind. This makes for a more reliable moral system, since it ensures that we do indeed always tell the truth or behave justly no matter what. But what compels us to follow these categorical imperatives? Why should we be good for the sheer sake of it? And how do we determine what should be a categorical imperative?

The Formulations of the Categorical Imperative
Kant’s answer to these questions is based on an appeal to reason: just as hypothetical imperatives ought to be done for certain desires, categorical imperatives ought to be driven by rational considerations. The first formulation, or principle, for determining whether an act is morally permissible is as follows:

Act only according to that maxim by which you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law

In other words, when you’re considering doing something, ask yourself the following:

1)      What rule would you be following were you to go through with the act? This would be the “maxim” or guideline for said action.

2)      Would you be willing to have this rule become universal law, to be practiced by everyone else around you at all times?

If the action you’re considering meets these requirements, then you’ve devised a categorical imperative – a sound moral rule for which you must oblige yourself to follow absolutely. If not, however, then this action is not moral and therefore not permissible. So if I’m thinking about making a categorical imperative that states “you ought to lie,” I must measure it against the first formulation: would this be a maxim that I’d want to become universal? Would I want to live in a world were everyone has a duty to be dishonest in every circumstance? If I’m a reasonable person, I would most certainly be opposed to this.

The second formulation of the categorical imperative states the following:

Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.

What this basically means is that we should treat people as intrinsically valuable. Indeed, Kant held that human beings are valuable “above all price,” because unlike objects, a person is irreplaceable. Furthermore, objects can only serves as a means: a car is only valuable insofar as it serves its purpose as a form of transportation. People, however, have an inherent value to them that is beyond serving anyone else’s means. Humans have dignity.

But more importantly, they’re autonomous moral agents: they have free will and the ability to guide their actions. Because we humans are rational agents capable of making our decisions and setting our own goals, we are innately valuable. After all, without humans, there would be no conception of either morality or reason.

It is because of this that we should never be used as mere instruments for another’s ends. People must be respected as the rational, independent actors that they are, and must not be reduced to the roles of objects. Thus, a proper moral action must preclude manipulating someone for the sake of self-interest, or forcing them to commit actions against their will. Hiring someone to fix a problem wouldn’t be a problem given that they’re doing so knowingly and willingly; using a slave to do the task, however, would no doubt violate this formulation and make for an unacceptable moral maxim.

It is interesting to see how Kantian ethical theory would apply to the justice system. Kant would be opposed punishing someone to deter criminal behavior because he doesn’t deal in consequences and hypothetical scenarios. Recall that for the Kantian, morality is based solely upon the intent of a particular action and whether it comports with a rule – thus, consequences or other considerations don’t matter.

Instead, Kant would approve of punishment for the sake of retribution; rather then correct a criminal’s behavior, this sort of punishment simply addresses a wrong that has already been committed (albeit proportional to the crime, as Kant was keen to clarify). Furthermore, punishing a criminal treats them as an autonomous moral agent – i.e. ends themselves – and to not punish them would treat them as objects that have no self-guiding morals. In a sense, retributive justice acknowledges the criminal’s human dignity.

Pros and Cons of Kantian Ethical Theory
Kant put a lot of thought into his ethical theory, and he established a rather sophisticated universal methodology for determining proper morality. Even so, like any ethical theory, it has its strengths and weaknesses.

Among the greatest attribute of Kantian ethical theory is its consistency: because this theory is rules-based and absolute, it requires us to be consistent in our morality. Recall that the first formulation of the categorical imperative obliges us to follow rules only if we’d want everyone else to do so too. Similarly, if one accepts considerations as reasons to do (or not do) something in one case, then you must accept those reasons in others. To quote James Rachels, “moral reasons, if they are valid at all, are binding on all people at all times.” All this makes for a moral system that is as stable as it is rational.

On the other hand, this same absolutism is a major weakness as well, for it leads to a possible conflict of rules. What happens when we face a scenario that forces us to choose between two or more obligatory moral rules? Consider the two imperatives “never tell a lie” and “never allow innocents to die if you can help it.” Within the Kantian framework, both these moral rules would be unconditional.

But what happens if, during Nazi-era Germany, you’re secreting harboring Jews and the Gestapo come knocking on your door? In this instance, you’d be forced to choose between lying or letting innocent people die, thereby violating one rule by virtue of choosing another. Absolutism in such circumstances can be very troubling and arguably irrational: shouldn’t a rule be broken if following it would lead to harmful consequences?

Furthermore, Kant underestimates the importance of taking consequences into account when considering an action. He believed that we could never be certain of the results of our actions, whether they’re well-intended or not. But is this realistically applicable to all scenarios? Aren’t there certain cases where we could be pretty sure of the consequences? Moreover, Kant suggests that regardless of the consequences of our actions, what matters is our intention and adherence to an unconditional rule. But could we really be blameless if we commit an act that we’re reasonably sure would lead to more harm than good, even if we were being consistent in our morality?

Ultimately, while Kantian ethical theory provides some crucial moral insights, it also seems ill-suited to deal with the complex reality of many ethical problems.

 

The Casualties of Veterans Day

Unfortunately, I was too busy yesterday to make a proper post about this commemoration. And while I’m tempted to make an idealistic and reflective post about the courage and tribulations of those in uniform, or to share the origins and history of the event, I wanted to take a different route from what is the norm.

I read an article in Foreign Policy that reminded me not only of the true origins of Veterans Day, but on how the loss of its original source of commemoration has been detrimental to our understanding of war.

All of our nation’s veterans are honored on November 11, but it is important to recall that the origin of this observance was revulsion at the horrific casualties suffered by so many countries during World War I. Yes, a second and even more destructive conflict followed all too soon after the “war to end all wars,” impelling a name change from Armistice Day to Veterans Day. And the rest of the 20^th century was littered with insurgencies, terrorism, and a host of other violent ills — most of which persist today, guaranteeing the steady production of new veterans, of which there are 22 million in the United States.

But despite the seemingly endless parade of wars waged and fresh conflicts looming just beyond the bloody horizon, World War I still stands out for its sheer horror. Over ten million soldiers died, and more than twice that number were wounded. This is a terrible enough toll. But what makes these casualties stand out even more is their proportion of the total numbers of troops mobilized. For example, France put about 7.5 million soldiers in the field; one in five died, and three out of four who lived were wounded.

The other major combatants on both sides suffered horribly as well: the Austro-Hungarian Empire’s 6.5 million soldiers had a combined rate of killed and wounded of 74 percent. For Britain and Russia, the comparable figures totaled a bit over 50 percent, with German and Turkish losses slightly below one-half of all who served. The United States entered the conflict late, and so the overall casualty rate for the 4.3 million mobilized was but 8 percent. Even so, it is more than double the percentage of killed and wounded from the Iraq War, where total American casualties amounted to less than 4 percent of the one million who served.

Few conflicts in all of military history have seen victors and vanquished alike suffer such shocking losses as were incurred in World War I, so it is worth taking time to remember how this hecatomb came to pass. A great body of evidence suggests that this disaster was a product of poor generalship. Historian Alan Clark’s magisterial The Donkeys conveys a sense of the incredible stubbornness of high commanders who continued, for years, to hurl massed waves of infantry against machine guns and rapid-firing artillery. All this went on while senior generals stayed far from the front. A British field commander, who went riding daily, even had soldiers spread sand along the country lane he followed, to make sure his horse didn’t slip.

Indeed, World War I is often overshadowed in its barbarity by what followed it only around two decades later. But in many ways, as the article notes, it was just as tragic and horrific (all the more so because its very occurrence, along with the failure and arrogance of its victors, gave way to a second world war). It was also an ultimately unnecessary conflict that dragged on for far longer than any participant expected – a war that perpetuated itself beyond the need to rectify its original casus belli, and which did so at the literally unimaginable cost of millions of lives. Millions of individual persons (I feel the need to emphasize this as sheer numbers make it hard to remember the humanity of those they represent).

WWI was also but a large-scale example of what average troops, mustered mostly from the lower and middle-classes, have had to endure throughout history: being at the mercy of military and political leaders who were often too detached, elitist, and arrogant to take into account the well-being of their grunts. So long as there remained an ample supply of politically and economically powerless young men, there was little reason – in WWI or elsewhere – to be concerned about attrition – there were plenty of other men where those came from (though cruelly, this brutal calculation on the part of the Soviets in World War II is arguably what helped us win the day: they took on the overwhelming majority of Axis forces by sheer numbers, tenacity, and ruthlessness).

So after having read this piece, I came away with the idea that not only should veterans be rightly recognized for their courage and service, but that we mustn’t forget the horrors and brutality they (among others) had to endure in the wars they fought. All too often, I get the impression that we honor the valor and glory of those who served while forgetting that in most instance, even the “good” and victorious wars they partook in are tragedies in themselves. We should honor veterans not just be recognizing what their service but also by ensuring, as much as possible, that generations of young men won’t be grinded up or maimed in the cold machinery of war.

War, even when just and victorious, is always a terrible thing. It will always cost lives and create acrimony between men who may otherwise have no good reason to hate each other, let alone kill one another. I know that there will always be a need for war. I know some wars may be necessary. But just because something is needed doesn’t mean it isn’t detrimental or regrettable. Whether or not men and women had to answer the respective calls of duty that they did, doesn’t change the horror that they faced. They did something few of us would ever want to do – for good reason.

Lying, By Sam Harris

The following is an excerpt from a relatively new e-book by neuroscientist Sam Harris titled Lying. It’s an in-depth analysis on the psychology and ethics of deception, and it is by far one of the most interesting things I’ve ever read on the subject.

At least one study suggests that 10 percent of communication between spouses is deceptive. Another has found that 38 percent of encounters among college students contain lies. However, researchers have discovered that even liars rate their deceptive interactions as less pleasant than truthful ones. This is not terribly surprising: We know that trust is deeply rewarding and that deception and suspicion are two sides of the same coin. Research suggests that all forms of lying—including white lies meant to spare the feelings of others—are associated with poorer-quality relationships.

Once one commits to telling the truth, one begins to notice how unusual it is to meet someone who shares this commitment. Honest people are a refuge: You know they mean what they say; you know they will not say one thing to your face and another behind your back; you know they will tell you when they think you have failed—and for this reason their praise cannot be mistaken for mere flattery.

Honesty is a gift we can give to others. It is also a source of power and an engine of simplicity. Knowing that we will attempt to tell the truth, whatever the circumstances, leaves us with little to prepare for. We can simply be ourselves.

This is one of many sections that stood out to me, and I highly recommend this for everyone, given the ubiquity of the issue. You can download the e-book, which is less than a hundred pages, for a mere three dollars on Harris’s website.

I’ve been reflecting a lot on the implications of this data. Lying is so prevalent, even between confidants, that it makes me wonder whether it’s just a natural part of being human. Every society has a moral prohibition towards dishonesty – indeed, the importance of truthfulness is one of the few universal norms across human society – yet we seem unable to reign in on our own fibbing, let alone keep others in line.

If everyone is a hypocrite (albeit to varying degrees) who has the moral high ground with respect to lying? Heck, who can we even trust to be truthful? Even the most seemingly honest person can turn out to be an expert fibber.

And if lies of all kinds factor into our daily interactions, what good would truth-telling be in the long run? It may help your reputation in some respects, but it may also hinder you in others. After all, many people don’t take the truth as well as they claim they would. Honesty is valued in principle, but I’ve long observed (and been guilty of) the ambivalence people have towards being given a truth they don’t want to hear. Many of us have an almost duplicitous attitude towards honesty – we like it so long as it doesn’t inconvenience us or our own neat perception of the world.

In light of all this, is it possible to imagine a world with less lying? Is it possible to go through life with only a minimal amount of deception? Is lying really all that bad if everyone does it, and if society and human psychology seem tacitly structured around it? I don’t mean to sound cynical or misanthropic – I’m far from it – but I think this is something to think about. Please, share your thoughts.

A Guide to Being Civil on the Internet

Those who know me personally, or who have been reading my blog for some time, know that I place a lot of value on courteousness, both on and off the web. My blog (along with my Facebook profile) is geared toward promoting open-ended discussion that is carried out with mutual respect and politeness.

I even devoted an entire post to extolling the virtues of dialectics and good manners. I firmly believe that aside from being the right and ethical thing to do, such principles can help you grow intellectually, emotionally, and socially. There’s always room for improvement in these areas, but the point is to at least try. I won’t pontificate too much on this, since you can read all my arguments there.

The web – while more developed, populated, and ubiquitous than ever – is still something of a wild frontier: people can get away with almost anything they want. From petty trolling to malicious cyber-bullying to destructive hacking, the internet can be a cruel place, which makes it quite a challenge to sit on your gentlemanly pedestal.

Arguably, the same can be said about the real world too, but there’s a huge difference – the very nature of the internet makes it far easier to engage in this sort of behavior. And given the web’s growing prominence in our everyday lives, it’s more difficult than ever to avoid encountering nasty people. It’s getting crowded, and you’re bound to cross paths with someone that will upset you.

So how does one maintain any sort of high-minded courtesy in the face of such debauchery – which, I might add, is often intended to shatter your decency?

Luckily (and unsurprisingly) I’m not the only one reflecting on this conundrum. A light-hearted but insightful website called Art of Manliness has raised the same issue: how do you remain a gentleman online? (Regardless of the terminology, this almost certainly applies to women too; the site is just geared towards men, obviously).

Before addressing that point, they start by identifying a troubling problem: people behave exceptionally mean and spitefully on the internet, more so then we’d ever expect them to in real life. Why is this so? Again, it has to do with the very nature of the internet.

Certainly the loss of empathy from interacting as anonymous, disembodied selves is a major factor. But the real root of the problem is how we view our time online; many see it as a break from their “real lives”—a place where they can let it all hang out. In their off-line lives they must be civil and refrain from telling their boss how they really feel about him, yelling at the customer service rep who’s giving them the runaround, and getting out of the car and punching the rude and reckless driver in front of them. The anger from this restraint boils inside of them, and online, freed from any real consequences, they unleash their pent-up venom.

But the world is spending more and more of its time online. For many, it has become our major source of education, entertainment, communication, and debate. Isn’t it time to let go of the false wall between our online lives and our “real” ones and act with the same kind of civility on the internet that we do in our day-to-day interactions?

Exactly, context shouldn’t matter – when you’re interacting with fellow human beings, you should always strive to be a decent person. Any medium of communication, no matter how impersonal or concealing, still involves living, breathing people who rightly desire a certain level of respect. Even if they don’t deserve it, there is still good reason not to stoop to their level, as is explained below.

Why a Man Should Strive to Be More Civil Online
A gentleman treats others with dignity and respect, regardless of the kind of forum in which he participates. He treats life’s fellow travelers as he himself would like to be treated. And in doing so, he makes the world a little better of a place everywhere he goes. He leaves those he interacts with feeling edified and uplifted instead of depressed and angry. Every man has the power to brighten his corner of the world, whether that corner be in the office, his home, or online. The more men who decide to take the higher road of civility, the more enjoyable everyone’s lives become. And choosing to reject our baser impulses in favor of our higher ones is a big part of becoming our best selves and building our legacy.

We all have daily annoyances that build up a well of anger inside of us. But instead of taking this rage out on others, it should be released healthily through things like exercise, meditation, and time spent in nature.

Satisfyingly, I’ve more or less made the same argument. Being civil is mutually beneficial – it makes you a better person while making the world around you a better place. It also sets an important example, so that even if you don’t win over your opponent (which rarely happens anyway), you can inspire others to pay-it-forward.

Of course, being well-mannered is easier said than done. If decent behavior was an obvious and undemanding thing to do, it would be far more widespread:

How to Be More Civil Online
Being a gentleman online simply involves the application of common sense. But anyone who leaves their home each day knows how uncommon common sense can be.

In our grandfathers’ and great-grandfathers’ time, etiquette books were extremely popular; believe it or not, Emily Post’s tome on the subject was one of the most requested books by GI’s during World War II. Our forefathers understood something we often forget: no matter how common sense something is, without frequent reminders and practice, humans are drawn to the path of least resistance. While our culture has largely dropped these reminders to be our better selves, today we’ll fill in the gap by reviewing some common sense principles for being a gentleman online.

Aside from genes, we are the product of social and environmental conditioning. There is a reason why academic education spans several years, why musicians always rehearse, and why athletes must constantly train – nothing stays with us indefinitely without effort. Skills and personal traits, no matter how seemingly straightforward, cannot simply be downloaded into us – they must be practiced, refined, and improved upon.

That fact applies to civility as much as anything else. Good behavior isn’t easy, especially in the face of temptations that seek to draw us away from our better nature. Heck, that’s what makes being a good person so…good. The fact that we can resist immoral behavior despite the challenges only reinforces the virtue of our attempt.

I’m no expert in this regard – I slip up and behave stupidly all the time, no matter how high-minded I try to act (or write) on the web. But what’s important is being conscious of this and making the attempt. So without further ado, here is what the folks at Art of Manliness see as some key tips to being a gentlemanly web-user:

1. Remember that there are real people on the other side of the computer.
This is so easy to forget. We see only our screen and our empty apartment; the faces of folks out there who will be reading what we write seem unreal and nebulous. But they are out there. And your words can truly wound them. So when writing something, keep this rule in mind:

2. Never say something to someone online that you wouldn’t say to the person’s face.
Perhaps the most important rule for online interactions.  People level the kind of vitriol online they would assuredly never say to someone’s face. I know a website owner that sometimes figures out the phone numbers of those who leave extremely rude comments and calls them up to ask what made them say something like that. Inevitably, the confronted person, hearing the voice of a real human being, is reduced to a stammering, apologetic mess.

Empathy is the key to civility. You can’t be a good person to someone if you don’t recognize they’re a person in the first place. As we’ve discussed, the web conceals our humanity quite well, but that doesn’t mean we can’t overcome it: our society has fundamentally changed over the last few decades, so that most people now live in a world of strangers. That doesn’t mean we should all start behaving callously to one another. The world is increasingly becoming a smaller place, both on and off the web. Like it or not, it’s about time we start to adapt to that.

3. Use your real name.
This is simple: if you’re not proud enough of something to have it associated with your real name, then why are you writing it?

Yes, there are caveats to this rule – legitimate reasons for anonymity. But when typing in an alias, ask yourself why you’re doing it. Do you have a valid reason for doing so, or do you simply wish to avoid ownership of your words because they are rude?

I’ve been on both ends of this, and I find that names do humanize a person more. It also gives more weight to what you’re saying, and grants legitimacy to you as an authority. One way people recognize trolls is by their use of an alias, especially an odd one. It may be wrong to profile people this way, but the established precedent is that people who rely on such cover are aiming to cause trouble, and it’s easier to do that when you lack an identity.

Keeping this in mind, using a pseudonym can give others the wrong impression, leading to needless assumptions that may blow up into conflict. Again, there will always be exceptions, as the article states, but that’s just what I’ve observed.

4. Sit on it.
This is something I’ve had to learn by experience and still struggle with. You see something that makes your blood boil, you’re filled with the desire to absolutely eviscerate a person, and you furiously type out a scathing response and press send. And later you regret it.

Instead, go ahead and write out your comment to get it off your chest, but sit on it for several hours or even a day. I know it feels like you simply have to get it off your chest at that very moment, but your adrenaline and heart rate are up and you’re not thinking clearly. Give it some time and you’ll be amazed at how “I must respond!” will transform into “Eh, who cares?”

5. Or don’t respond at all.
Your mom was right: If you don’t have something nice to say, sometimes it’s best not to say anything at all. This is another thing I’ve learned from experience and still slip up with. I used to want to rebut every bit of criticism directed at me, but I’ve learned to choose my battles and that it’s often better not to get involved at all. Just let people do their thing. I know it’s difficult because when we feel someone is wrong, it’s so hard to let it go. We want to show people the error of their ways and change their minds.

But as sure as you are about being right, you can never win an online argument. Why? Because of something called the “backfire effect.” In this article on the effect by David McRaney, which I highly recommend reading, he explains the fact that far from changing people’s minds, threatening someone’s beliefs actually strengthens and entrenches them further. This is why I generally abstain from heated internet debates; they get you all worked up, waste your time, and go absolutely nowhere.

If you come across a discussion where you really feel like a different perspective needs to be added, just jump in and civilly state your case instead of responding directly to specific people. People are much more likely to consider your point of view when they experience it indirectly as opposed to feeling attacked.

These are probably the two most difficult things to do, because they deal with what is also the most challenging aspect of our nature: ego. Pride leads to bad behavior because it clouds our judgment. All we end up caring about is saving face, looking good, and being right, and we’ll stop at nothing to ensure this. The cruel irony is that in trying to preserve our dignity, we only undermine – we come off as petty, aggressive, arrogant, and bitter. Even if you’re just fighting fire with fire, you’re still bringing yourself down to your opponent’s level, and that could be just as bad for your ego.

Again, not everyone will agree that it’s not worth it to get the last word or explode on someone else. For some people, that might feel great, and it might even score them some “victories.” But I’m not one of those people, and while I may feel smug about it at first, I also end up feeling like an ass who lost his cool and put personal satisfaction ahead of decency and self-control. This segues nicely into the next point:

6. Say something positive.
Studies have shown what people already know from experience: folks are more likely to make negative comments in online forums than positive ones. It makes sense; when something makes you angry, you’re much more motivated to complain about it and want to vent. McRaney explains why this is:

“A thousand positive remarks can slip by unnoticed, but one “you suck” can linger in your head for days. One hypothesis as to why this and the backfire effect happens is that you spend much more time considering information you disagree with than you do information you accept.Information which lines up with what you already believe passes through the mind like a vapor, but when you come across something which threatens your beliefs, something which conflicts with your preconceived notions of how the world works, you seize up and take notice. Some psychologists speculate there is an evolutionary explanation. Your ancestors paid more attention and spent more time thinking about negative stimuli than positive because bad things required a response. Those who failed to address negative stimuli failed to keep breathing.”

Well, I certainly want to keep breathing, but I don’t want to only respond to things that make me angry. So this is something I’ve been working on too. When I read a blog post I enjoy, I find it easy to think, “That was great,” before surfing away. So I’ve been trying to take a minute to type those thoughts out before moving on. As a blog owner myself, I know how incredibly encouraging it is to hear something positive.

Nothing will disarm your opponent’s more, and diffuse a belligerent situation, than words of kindness. I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve whittled a debate down into harmless academic discussion by acknowledging my opponent’s decent points, or ensuring them that, in the end, I found their confrontation a valuable and educational experience.

Disagreements have the silver lining of testing our positions and giving us an alternative perspective we need to consider, so why not put that out there? Not only will it calm you down and make you realize that it’s not something to get made about, but it may give your combatant pause as well. The best part is that, by my experience, most people don’t want to fight.

Except for the most malicious of trolls, the majority of folks just have strongly worded opinions that they want to share as much as you do; or maybe there was just a misunderstanding all along, and all the two sides needed was a reminder that maybe we’re getting angry for nothing. Again, this isn’t always the case, and not every fight can be mitigated this way. But as always, the point is to at least make the attempt, try to set the example, and err on the side of caution.

So the article ends by asking, how else can we cultivate civility online? That’s a great question, since civility encompasses many things and must constantly evolve with time and experience. I’ve got one major answer:

7. Learn the other person’s story.
Another way to put this would be to simply get to know the individual. Not just the one you’re butting heads with, but anybody and everybody you can make the time for.

Ultimately, most fights are worsened – and often emerge in the first place – because of the “otherness” of the individuals involved. We don’t know them, so we don’t see them as one of us (again, the web’s impersonal nature doesn’t help). Once we hear their story – who they really are, what they believe and why, what they do for a living, etc – it’s arguably much more difficult to verbally fillet them. You can’t demonize someone (as easily) once you’ve already humanized them.

Even close friends fight too, of course, but it’s much less hostile and visceral than when it’s between strangers who know nothing of each other. Most of us make no effort to understand the human on the other side of the screename or profile picture. But why not? Even if we don’t like them, or come to find out that they’re just as unlikeable, if not more so, once we learned about them, at least we’ve learned a valuable lesson: that’s you can’t reason with some people, so you’re better off not sacrificing your civility trying too.

This leads to an unanticipated second answer: to be civil, you must be humble. Admit to yourself and others that you could be wrong on certain issues or that even if you’re right, you could be wrong about your approach. Accept that you’ll always have flaws that you’ll constantly have to work on, and make an effort to do so. Civility is not a destination – it’s a constant process, something akin to a muscle: you must flex it to keep it from atrophying, but also to make it stronger and better. When we recognize that fact, both on and offline, we’ll be better people.

What is Proper Justice for the “Unintentionally” Evil?

As I’ve argued here before, few people willingly choose to be immoral. An evil nature is often the product of evil forces, such as childhood abuse, abject poverty, social oppression, psychological illness, and so on.

It’s no coincidence that the overwhelming majority of the world’s tyrants, murderers, and criminals had traumatic or otherwise troubled upbringings; even those evil individuals that endured no such experiences often display signs of some sort of mental illness (although poorer folks would have a harder time identifying these issues, let alone receiving the proper care).

It is for this reason that I am often conflicted about the extent to which we can assign blame for the evil actions of certain individuals. Certainly, I’m every bit as disgusted and shocked by the immorality of criminals as anyone else, and like the rest of society, I believe lawbreakers – especially the dangerous kind – should of course face justice and imprisonment.

But this doesn’t mean I view such people as unequivocally bad; that is to say, I don’t see them as evil for the sake of evil, but as evil due to forces beyond their control. Arguably, had these factors not been present in their lives (namely in their formative years as children), they would’ve turned out different. They wouldn’t be criminals. It’s hard to say of course, but it’s a reasonable conclusion to draw given what we know about the early lives of evil men.

A case in point is the recent news about Cristian Fernandez, which was the trigger of these thoughts. This thirteen year-old boy was recently charged as an adult for the brutal murder of his two year-old brother, as well as the sexual molestation of his five year-old brother. It should go without saying that no well-adjusted child would do something so heinous without explanation. Indeed, were you to read about this boy’s life while unaware of his crimes, you’d feel tremendous pity for him. As HuffPo reports:

Fernandez was born in Miami in 1999 to Biannela Susana, who was 12. The 25-year-old father received 10 years’ probation for sexually assaulting her.

Two years later, both mother and son went to foster care after authorities in South Florida found the toddler, filthy and naked, walking in the street at 4 a.m. near the motel where his grandmother did drugs.

In 2007, when Fernandez was 8, the Department of Children and Families investigated a report that he was sexually molested by an older cousin. Officials said other troubling incidents were reported, including claims that he he killed a kitten, simulated sex with classmates and masturbated at school.

In October 2010, Fernandez and his mother were living in Hialeah, a Miami suburb, with his mother’s new husband. Fernandez suffered an eye injury so bad that school officials sent him to the hospital where he was examined for retinal damage. Fernandez told officers that his stepfather had punched him. When officers went to the family’s apartment, they found the stepfather dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

Soon, the family moved north to Jacksonville and Fernandez enrolled in middle school, getting straight A’s. They settled in a bland, beige public housing complex.

A few months later on March 14, 2011, deputies were called to the apartment: Fernandez’ baby brother, 2-year-old David, had died at a local hospital. The medical examiner determined that the toddler had a fractured skull, bruising to his left eye and a bleeding brain.

Susana, then 25, admitted to investigators that she had left Fernandez, David and her other children home alone. When she returned, she said she found David unconscious. She waited eight-and-a-half hours before taking him to the hospital and searched “unconsciousness” online and texted friends during that time.

Susana also revealed that two weeks before David’s death, Fernandez had broken the toddler’s leg while wrestling.

Susana was charged with aggravated manslaughter; the medical examiner said David might have survived if she had taken him to the hospital sooner for the head injury. She pleaded guilty in March and could get 30 years.

Fernandez, who had first been questioned as a witness, was soon charged with first-degree murder. The other felony charge was filed after his 5-year-old half-brother told a psychiatrist that Fernandez had sexually assaulted him.

The boy has talked openly to investigators and therapists about his life; the gritty details are captured in various court documents.

“Christian denied any plans or intent to kill his brother,” one doctor wrote. “He seemed rather defensive about discussing what triggered his anger. He talked about having a `flashback’ of the abuse by his stepfather as the motive for this offense … Christian was rather detached emotionally while discussing the incident.”

Based on psychological evaluations, prosecutors say that Fernandez poses a significant risk of violence. That’s why he is being detained pre-trial and why they charged him with two first-degree felonies.

I sometimes ask myself if I would’ve turned out any differently had I endured similar circusmtances in life. Obviously, not everyone who suffers through such trauma turns out to be a bad person; conversely, not everyone who is raised in a happy and healthy family end up a good one either. But it’s clear that one’s genes, environment, and social influences have some sort of bearing on your personality and health. It’s hard to imagine that young Fernandez would’ve ended up the exact same way had it not be for such horrific circumstances shaping his life. Indeed, that’s something that legal officials are grappling with too.

Based on psychological evaluations, prosecutors say that Fernandez poses a significant risk of violence. That’s why he is being detained pre-trial and why they charged him with two first-degree felonies.

Yet difficult questions remain for Judge Mallory Cooper: Should a child so young spend his life in prison? Does Fernandez understand his crimes, and can he comprehend the complex legal issues surrounding his case?

In August, Cooper ruled that police interrogations of Fernandez in the murder and sexual assault cases are not admissible, because the boy couldn’t knowledgeably waive his rights to remain silent and consult an attorney. Prosecutors are appealing.

The defense wants the charges dismissed, saying the U.S. Supreme Court ruling banning sentences of life without parole for juveniles makes it impossible for them to advise Fernandez since the Florida Legislature has not changed state law. Prosecutors say they never said they would seek a mandatory life sentence – they say the old Florida law that called for a 25-year-to-life sentence could apply.

Mitch Stone, a Jacksonville defense attorney who is familiar with the case, said Corey and her prosecutors are in a tough position.

“I know they’re good people and good lawyers,” he said. “But if a resolution short of trial doesn’t occur, this case is on a collision course to sending Cristian Fernandez to life in prison. That’s why this is one of those very difficult cases. It’s hard to understand what the appropriate measure is.”

Should child criminals with this sort of background be locked away from society for good? Or should they face a shorter sentence that includes rehabilitation? Would it be to late to “fix” people like Fernandez? Consider the similar case of death-row inmate Terrance Williams, another murderer who was horrifically victimized in his youth.

In fact, behind the image of Williams as a model student athlete was a childhood marred by horrific physical and sexual abuse that began from the time Williams was just 6 years old. Relentlessly beaten by his mother (herself a victim of abuse) and his alcoholic stepfather and gang-raped at a juvenile detention center when he was 16, by the time Williams killed Norwood he was regularly cutting himself, abusing drugs and alcohol, and had endured more than a decade of abuse.

Both the man’s victims were former abusers who no doubt pushed him further over the edge. This doesn’t justify murdering them in cold blood, but it should make us wonder if such cases merit special consideration. Do the traumatizing and mentally scarring experiences of people like Fernandez and Williams mitigate their resoonsibility? What would be an appropriate course of action that would be both fair and practical for the sake of public safety?

The Corruption Perceptions Index

The countries with the lowest rates of corruption, according to Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index  for 2011 (the only source of its kind).

Other countries in the top 10 include Canada, Australia, Norway, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. The US ranks 24. Note that countries with big governments can be found all across the spectrum, from cleanest to most corrupt. Many of the world’s most secular societies also rank highly as well.

I think Canada and Australia are particularly impressive in their performance, since they’re far more populous, diverse, and geographically large than the others that rank highly. The trend seems to be that countries which homogeneous, small, and demographically compact tend to be less corrupt. But of course, it’s far more complex than that, and many other factors contribute.

If you think we’re morally depraved more than ever…

…then read some of this graffiti excavated from the ruins of Pompeii:

• Weep, you girls. My penis has given you up. Now it penetrates men’s behinds. Goodbye, wondrous femininity!

• Restituta, take off your tunic, please, and show us your hairy privates.

• I screwed the barmaid.

• Apollinaris, the doctor of the emperor Titus, defecated well here.

• I screwed a lot of girls here.

• Sollemnes, you screw well!

You can read more amusing examples here. Needless to say, even a history buff like me finds it difficult to remember that, in many ways, we humans haven’t changed all that much. Our ancestors thought and behaved very much like we do.

We forget how the average person went about their everyday lives in the ancient world. We focus on the great characters and events of history – on the epic stories, on the glory and might of civilizations, etc – but neglect the humble, mundane, and very familiar qualities of the typical commoner.

There’s a lesson to be learned even from this crass and humorous display. I think it’s captured very well by Cord Jefferson of the The Nation:

Do a simple Google search for “America’s moral decline” and you’ll encounter thousands upon thousands of shrill rants from people convinced that our “sex-crazed” society is rapidly decaying. For decades now, the professional right has made a big business out of pretending that TV, the rise of gay culture, rap music, and dozens of other things have contributed to the fall of a once greatly moral world, all the while seeming to forget that Thomas Jefferson is known to have taken sexual advantage of his slaves and Benjamin Franklin is believed by some to have been part of a drunken orgy club.

It may make you feel nice to pretend that the societies that gave rise to the modern world were ones of pure honor and decency, but that’s not reality.The world isn’t on a moral decline, because there was never a time when the world was particularly morally superior. If we can glean anything from the Pompeiian graffiti, it’s that even citizens of history’s most immaculate and important civilizations liked their sex and poop jokes. And that fact is as humbling as any magnificent and ancient temple.

While it may be sad to think that we haven’t changed much as a species, I think in many ways it’s a good thing. We’ve come a long way, and while we still struggle to meet a higher standard of social justice and morality, we can put our present failings in perspective: we’re nowhere near as bad as we’ve always been. Progress may be a slow and often stagnating path, but we’re certainly not in any serious decline.

The Ways We Don’t Talk About Wealth

Wealth and money are touchy subjects in most societies. Americans are unique for being relatively passe about ostentatious displays of prosperity, as well as for tolerating high income inequality (indeed, we have the largest gap between rich and poor in the developed world).

But even in our (in)famously money-obsessed society, discussions about one’s income or class – the latter of which many Americans deny the existence of – can be very tricky, especially in light of the economic recession and subsequent focus on socioeconomic inequality. There’s increasing talk about class warfare and a political system beholden to the wealthy; about whether the rich should be taxed more and whether their greater wealth obligates them to “pay a fair share” – the definition of which opens up a whole other can of worms.

Charlotte Shane of The New Inquiry wrote an interesting piece about the way Americans, rich or otherwise, discuss wealth, and what that says about us both psychologically and as a society. Her longish article is a good read, but what stuck out most for me was the following assessment:

Having a lot of money creates a sense of responsibility — or at least, it should — as well as vulnerability. The knee-jerk “I’m not rich” refrain is fundamentally a denial of that responsibility, a deflection: I’m not the problem, though I may be implicated in a problematic system. There are people of far greater worth who are far more culpable.

Does having more money, whether your earned it or not, obligate you to pay more in taxes, share more with your workers, or give more to charity? In a system that allows for such astronomical inequality, is there really such a thing as being wealthy solely through fairness and hard work? Does lots of money come with lots of responsibility to your society? While chewing on this, consider a few other interesting points highlighted by Shane:

Witnessing richness usually means witnessing a profound loss of perspective. An infamous study in early 2011 found that 42 percent of American millionaires didn’t “feel” rich. In 2009, it was 46 percent.  Back in my 40k days, a friend (also a sex worker) commented to me that she was running out of things to buy. I was too, but that’s because we were both operating on our former 12k-a-year, minimum wage appetites, and those would soon morph into a hunger to match the harvest. Years ago, someone told me once that if he were to pursue his passion, he would be a physics professor. I asked him why he wasn’t. He replied that professors only made $90k a year to start, maybe $110,000, and “you can’t live on that.” The average American household income at the time was $50,000.

It’s well established that as families ascend through income brackets, so too do their tastes and spending habits, meaning that one’s lifestyle always feels more average than extravagant. As wealth accrues, it creates a new normal, again and again as required. My current annual income brings a pleasant blindness; I don’t have to actively worry about my finances, and I can be impulsive and carefree in how I spend. While in some respects I remain resolutely frugal, even downright cheap, it’s mostly a matter of principle (or neuroses.) I’ve been good about saving from the beginning, so when I sit down to check my bank statements and I see the numbers of what sits in my account, I’m always surprised. Aside from fraud-check sessions, I never bother to look at my balance. When a bank rep asked me last year if I was planning to buy a house with my savings, it took me at least a full minute to digest his question.

Speaking honestly about money is among the last remaining taboos in contemporary American discourse. Politics, religion, assaultive crimes, sexual proclivities, family secrets, and even health problems (including those involving bowel movements) will all be more warmly received into a conversation than the topic of what everyone in the conversation earns. It’s shockingly bad manners to bring it up. But even social censure isn’t trusted as a powerful enough deterrent: some companies contractually forbid employees to disclose their compensation to colleagues. (It’s obvious how this benefits employers, most notably when gender discrimination is at play.)

It appears that being rich – or poor – does in fact alter one’s psychology and social relations. This may seem obvious enough, given that our values and perspectives are clearly shaped by our environment and experiences, which in turn become influenced by your level of wealth.

But I think most Americans are hesitant to accept that money, or lack thereof, can indeed change your personality and behavior. What you make influences who you hang out with, what you do, what kind of things you enjoy, and even your perception of reality (research is revealing an increasing geographical divide between different classes, to the extent that rich and poor live on very different physical worlds).

The same applies to societies as a whole: entire cultures are changed by wealth. Witness the age-old struggle between modernity – resulting primarily from industrialization and higher incomes – and traditional, often simpler, ways of living. While wealth has given us many comforts, it also seems to make us more stressed, busy, and materialistic.

Granted, it’s not like we were better off poor; it’s just that having all this money seems to have done far less good than we would expect. Infrastructure is still crumbling, education and healthcare are still a mess, and politics seems to have actually worsened through the infusion of untold billions. This country, to say nothing of the world at large, is beset by all manner of problems that never seem to have enough funding. Whether it’s the cure for cancer or the need to raise crop yields, it always comes down to a lack of investment. Trillions of dollars are sitting in bank accounts across the world, or displayed all around us through superfluous luxury and over-consumption, and we can’t seem to find the will or resources to fix these problems.

So for all our tireless pursuit of commercial prosperity, both as individuals and as a society, we seem far and away from creating the better world that such capital can make possible. We’re not willing to foot the bill or make the necessary sacrifices, even if we could still live in relative comfort while doing so. Maybe that’s why we don’t talk about wealth: in the end, our ethics and sense of responsibility remain little changed despite the burgeoning potential to seem them through.