Tag Archives: ethics

February 17, 2026 · 9:02 pm

The Moral Failure of Pacifism

Pacifism presents itself as the highest moral ground: a principled refusal to engage in violence, an insistence that all killing is always wrong, and a hope that moral purity can disarm brutality. In practice, however, pacifism is not merely naïve but morally evasive. It refuses responsibility for consequences, confuses intentions with outcomes, and ultimately relies on the violence of others to sustain the very peace it claims to uphold. The aim in international conflict should be to minimise harm; but pacifism often fails in this regard.

This was most forcefully argued by George Orwell, whose essay Pacifism and the War remains one of the clearest demolitions of pacifist reasoning. Writing during the Second World War, Orwell rejected the idea that pacifism was a morally neutral position. On the contrary, he argued that it had real political effects—and those effects overwhelmingly favoured the aggressor.

Orwell observed that “Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist.” This was not rhetorical excess. His point was simple: in any conflict between a violent aggressor and a resisting victim, the refusal to resist does not produce peace; it merely removes obstacles. If Britain had adopted pacifism in 1940, Nazism would not have been morally chastened—it would have triumphed. To decline to fight is not to opt out of the conflict, but to decide who wins it. If pacifists had their way, the Nazis would have defeated the Allies.

A central flaw in pacifist thinking is the assumption that violence is always symmetrical: that all killing is morally equivalent regardless of cause or context. Orwell rejected this moral flattening. He insisted that intention, necessity, and consequence matter. A soldier fighting to stop mass murder is not morally equivalent to the murderer. To pretend otherwise is not moral clarity; it is moral laziness.

Pacifism also depends, often unacknowledged, on a background of enforced order. Orwell pointed out the hypocrisy of pacifists living safely within states defended by armies while denouncing the very institutions that protect them. “Those who ‘abjure’ violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf,” he wrote. Police, soldiers, and prisons do not disappear because one refuses to acknowledge them; they merely become invisible conveniences.

There is, moreover, a psychological comfort in pacifism. It offers moral absolution without demanding difficult choices. To say “I oppose all violence” spares one from weighing tragic alternatives—such as whether allowing an aggressor to prevail will lead to greater suffering than resisting him. Orwell saw this clearly. Pacifism, he argued, often masquerades as compassion while functioning as an escape from moral seriousness.

History bears this out. Non-violent resistance can be effective against regimes that retain some moral constraint or dependence on public opinion. It fails utterly against totalitarian systems that recognise no such limits. Gandhi’s methods would not have worked against Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot. To recommend pacifism in such contexts is not humane—it is catastrophic.

None of this is to glorify war. Orwell himself despised militarism and nationalism. His argument was not that violence is good, but that it is sometimes necessary, and that refusing to acknowledge this does not make one virtuous. It merely hands moral agency to those least deserving of it.

Pacifism, then, is not a higher morality but an abdication of it. By focusing exclusively on personal purity, it neglects responsibility for outcomes. By condemning all violence equally, it erases the difference between oppression and resistance. And by refusing to choose, it ensures that others will choose on its behalf—usually the worst among us.

In a world where evil is not hypothetical but historical and recurring, moral seriousness requires more than clean hands. It requires the courage to accept tragic necessities and the honesty to recognise that peace, when it exists, is very often bought—not by pacifism—but by those willing to defend it.

1 Comment

Filed under Essays and talks

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

February 11, 2026 · 10:43 pm

Morality Comes from Civilisation, Not Evolution

It is often said that morality is a product of evolution. We are told that natural selection favoured cooperation, reciprocity, and altruism, and that what we call “morality” is simply the refined expression of these inherited instincts. On this view, ethical behaviour is an extension of biological advantage. We are kind because kindness helped our ancestors survive.

This explanation is attractive because it appears scientific and economical. It explains why human beings display tendencies toward empathy, fairness, loyalty, and care for kin. But it confuses two very different things: instinct and morality. Evolution provides instincts. Morality frequently requires us to override them. The distinction is crucial.

Evolution gives us impulses, not principles

Evolution equips organisms with behavioural dispositions that enhance reproductive success. In humans, this includes tribal loyalty, suspicion of outsiders, sexual jealousy, dominance hierarchies, retaliation, and partiality toward kin. These tendencies are plainly visible across cultures and history. They are not moral in themselves; they are adaptive.

Indeed, many of our strongest instincts are morally problematic. Tribalism fuels xenophobia. Sexual jealousy fuels violence. Dominance instincts produce tyranny. Partiality toward kin produces nepotism. Revenge is an ancient impulse. None of these are moral achievements. They are evolutionary inheritances, somewhat similar to those of other primate species, which in the absence of civilisation can be what we humans regard as amoral.

If morality were simply the product of evolution, we would expect moral systems to endorse these tendencies. Instead, civilised moral codes repeatedly restrain them.

  • We are told not to take revenge but to submit disputes to courts.
  • We are told not to favour our relatives unfairly.
  • We are told to treat strangers as equals under the law.
  • We are told to resist impulses of hatred, lust, and domination.
  • We are told to forgive enemies and help the weak.

These are not instincts. They are corrections to instinct.

Morality begins when instinct is questioned

A child does not naturally think, “I ought to treat everyone equally.” A child thinks, “I want this.” Civilisation intervenes and says, “No, you must share.” The word must marks the birth of morality.

The moral life begins not with what we feel like doing, but with what we recognise we ought to do, even when we do not feel like it.

This is why moral education is necessary. No one needs to be taught jealousy, selfishness, or anger. These arise naturally. What must be taught is restraint, fairness, patience, and impartiality. In other words, what must be taught is morality.

Evolution does not need schools. Morality does.

The role of civilisation

Civilisation is the long, cumulative process by which human beings learn to live together under shared rules that suppress destructive instincts and promote social order. Law, custom, religion, philosophy, and etiquette are all tools for this purpose.

Consider the rule of law. The rule of law is a profoundly anti-instinctive invention. It requires that we submit our desire for revenge to an impersonal legal process. It demands that we treat friend and stranger alike. It restrains power. It replaces personal retaliation with institutional justice.

None of this flows naturally from instinct. It is a triumph of civilisation over instinct.

Similarly, the idea of universal human rights is deeply un-evolutionary. Evolution favours kin and tribe. Human rights demand that we treat distant strangers with the same moral regard as family. That idea did not arise from biology. It arose from centuries of philosophical, legal, and religious development.

Civilisation does not express our instincts. It disciplines them.

Ethics as a rational achievement

Morality depends on reasoning about how we ought to behave, not merely on how we are disposed to behave. We ask questions such as:

  • What is fair?
  • What is just?
  • What would happen if everyone acted this way?
  • What kind of society do we want to live in?

These are not evolutionary questions. They are civilisational questions. They require abstraction, reflection, and shared agreement.

Indeed, moral progress often consists in recognising that our instincts are wrong. The abolition of slavery, the equality of women, the rejection of torture, and the protection of minorities all involved overcoming entrenched instinctive attitudes. These changes did not arise because evolution suddenly altered human nature. They arose because societies reasoned their way to better moral standards.

Why the evolutionary story is insufficient

The evolutionary account can explain why we have the raw materials from which morality can be built: empathy, sociality, communication, and memory. But raw materials are not the finished structure.

Bricks are not a cathedral.

Evolution provides the capacity for moral thought, just as it provides the capacity for language. But grammar is not an instinct; it is a cultural system. Likewise, morality is a cultural and rational system built upon, but not determined by, our instincts.

Most importantly, morality often requires us to do what evolution would not favour: to risk ourselves for strangers, to adopt unrelated children, to refuse to retaliate, to treat rivals fairly, to act impartially against our own interests.

When we do these things, we are not expressing evolution. We are transcending it.

Conclusion

Evolution explains why we have instincts. Civilisation explains why we have morality.

Morality begins when we recognise that our instincts are not always to be trusted and that we must live by rules that restrain them. It is the achievement of law, culture, philosophy, and social cooperation over thousands of years.

To say that morality comes from evolution is to mistake the clay for the sculpture. Evolution gives us the clay. Civilisation shapes it into something recognisably moral.

And the surest sign that morality is not instinctive is this: we must be taught it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays and talks

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

January 26, 2026 · 5:13 pm

Ethical Theory Non-Alignment

There is a very respectable tribe of philosophers who are, in effect, ethically non-aligned—not because they’re confused, but because they think the situation genuinely doesn’t permit a clean choice.

In fact, this is one of the quiet open secrets of contemporary moral philosophy: once you understand consequentialism, Kantianism, and virtue ethics well enough, it becomes very hard to give any of them total allegiance without intellectual discomfort. So paradoxically, non-alignment can come from knowing too much about ethical theories, as well as not enough.

Here are some prominent examples.

🧠 Derek Parfit (Oxford)

Parfit is the classic case. In On What Matters (2011), after a lifetime of work, he argued that:

Kantianism, consequentialism, and contractualism are converging on the same moral truth.

He didn’t pick one. He thought they were different windows onto the same moral reality. That is not fence-sitting. That is a considered meta-position.

🧠 T. M. Scanlon (Harvard)

Scanlon’s contractualism (What We Owe to Each Other) is often described as a “fourth theory,” but he openly acknowledges that:

  • utilitarian considerations matter,
  • Kantian respect for persons matters,
  • and virtue matters.

He refuses to reduce morality to any one of them.

🧠 Bernard Williams (Cambridge/Oxford)

Williams is famous for attacking all systematic moral theories.

He thought:

any theory that claims to capture the whole of morality in one principle is already suspect.

He defended a kind of ethical pluralism rooted in lived moral experience.

🧠 Susan Wolf (UNC)

Wolf explicitly argues that morality is only one part of the good life. Neither utilitarianism nor Kantianism nor virtue ethics captures everything we value.

🧠 Thomas Nagel (NYU)

Nagel writes extensively about the conflict between:

  • agent-neutral reasons (utilitarian style),
  • agent-relative reasons (Kantian / personal standpoint),
  • and the viewpoint of the individual life.

He treats the tensions as real and irresolvable, not as something to be tidied up.

🧠 Jonathan Dancy (Reading/Texas)

Dancy defends moral particularism: the idea that there may be no master principles at all. What counts morally depends on context in ways that resist theory.

🧠 Martha Nussbaum (Chicago/Harvard)

Strongly Aristotelian, but explicitly incorporates Kantian dignity and utilitarian concern for welfare. She does not pretend Aristotle is sufficient by himself.

What this position is called

This stance goes by several respectable names:

  • Moral pluralism
  • Theory pluralism
  • Particularism
  • Convergence ethics
  • Anti-theory ethics

None of these are fringe positions. They are mainstream, serious, heavily published positions held by top philosophers.

The pattern you’ll notice

The people who pick one theory very confidently are often:

  • earlier in their career, or
  • writing textbooks, or
  • defending a tradition.

The people who have spent 30–40 years inside the arguments often end up saying, in effect:

“Each theory captures something real that the others miss.”

Which is exactly the discomfort some philosophers are describing.

The reason this happens

Each theory solves a problem the others cannot:

TheoryWhat it uniquely explains
ConsequentialismWhy suffering and welfare matter so much
KantianismWhy persons are not to be used
Virtue ethicsWhy character and practical wisdom matter
ContractualismWhy justification to others matters

Once you see all four clearly, it becomes very hard to say any one of them is the foundation.

You are not stuck. You are at a very advanced stage.

Many philosophers start as utilitarians or Kantians.

Quite a few end as pluralists.

It’s a sign that you’ve seen too much of the terrain to pretend it’s flat.

If you like labels, your position already has one:

Ethical pluralist with realist sympathies.

And that is a completely defensible, professional, mainstream philosophical position.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays and talks

Tagged as , , , , ,

January 26, 2026 · 9:05 am

Neo-Aristotelian Ethics

In much of twentieth-century moral philosophy, ethics was rebuilt after a quiet metaphysical loss. Philosophers largely abandoned the idea that things have natures or essences that determine what counts as their flourishing. Once that happened, morality had to be reconstructed in other ways: by appealing to outcomes (consequentialism), rules (deontology), agreements (contractualism), or sentiments (expressivism). The result was an ethics often detached from the way we ordinarily evaluate living things in the world.

Neo-Aristotelian ethics is a deliberate return to an older starting point. Associated with philosophers such as Philippa Foot, Rosalind Hursthouse, and Michael Thompson, it revives Aristotle’s central insight: that moral evaluation is a species of natural evaluation. To call a human being good is, in a deep sense, analogous to calling a wolf healthy, an oak tree flourishing, or a heart sound. Morality is not imposed from outside human life by rules or calculations; it arises from the kind of beings we are.

This approach does not represent a nostalgic return to antiquity. It is a highly contemporary, analytically precise attempt to restore a metaphysical foundation that many modern ethical theories quietly lack.

From “What rules?” to “What kind of being?”

Most modern ethical theories begin by asking:

What rules should we follow?
What outcomes should we maximise?
What principles could others accept?

Neo-Aristotelian ethics begins elsewhere:

What is a human being?
What does it mean for such a being to flourish?

This shift is decisive. It relocates ethics from the domain of rule-selection or consequence-calculation to the domain of natural history. Humans, like other living things, have characteristic powers, vulnerabilities, and forms of life. We are rational, social, language-using, temporally extended creatures who depend on cooperation, trust, and practical reasoning. A good human life is one in which these capacities are properly developed and expressed.

Virtue, on this view, is not obedience to rules, nor a strategy for producing happiness. It is the stable disposition to act in ways that express the flourishing of a creature with a human nature.

Natural goodness and evaluative language

Philippa Foot’s key move was to notice that the language we use in biology and the language we use in ethics have the same logical form. Consider:

  • “That oak has shallow roots; it is a defective oak.”
  • “That wolf cannot hunt with the pack; it is a poor specimen.”
  • “That person is dishonest and cowardly; he is a bad human being.”

In each case, the judgement is made relative to the life form of the thing in question. It is not subjective preference. It is not statistical normality. It is an evaluation against what the organism, by its nature, needs in order to flourish.

Neo-Aristotelians argue that moral judgements are of exactly this kind. Vices such as dishonesty, cowardice, cruelty, and injustice are not merely socially disapproved traits; they are defects in the way a human life is lived. They damage the functioning of a being whose flourishing depends on trust, cooperation, courage, and fairness.

This is why neo-Aristotelian ethics is often called a theory of natural goodness. Moral evaluation is continuous with our evaluation of living things generally.

Virtue as practical wisdom

Aristotle placed great emphasis on phronesis—practical wisdom. Neo-Aristotelians revive this idea as an alternative to rule-based ethics. Human life is too complex, and circumstances too varied, for morality to be captured by fixed prescriptions. Instead, the virtuous person perceives what the situation calls for because their character is properly formed.

Courage is not blind daring; it is the intelligent response to danger appropriate to a rational, social being. Generosity is not indiscriminate giving; it is a reasoned disposition shaped by understanding what others need and what one can afford to give. Justice is not mechanical rule-following; it is the expression of respect for others as fellow participants in a shared form of life.

The virtuous person acts well not because they consult a moral rulebook, but because their perception of the world has been educated by habituation and reflection.

Why consequences and rules are secondary

Neo-Aristotelian ethics does not deny that consequences matter or that rules are useful. But they are secondary, not fundamental.

Consequentialism asks us to evaluate actions by the states of affairs they produce. Neo-Aristotelians reply that certain actions are wrong because they corrupt the agent and damage the kind of life humans must live. Habitual lying, betrayal, and manipulation may sometimes produce good outcomes, but they are incompatible with the flourishing of a creature whose life depends on trust and cooperation.

Similarly, rules are seen as summaries of what typically promotes human flourishing, not as ultimate moral foundations. Rules are pedagogical and practical tools; virtue is the underlying reality.

Human beings as essentially social

Aristotle famously described humans as zoon politikon—political or social animals. Neo-Aristotelian ethics places great weight on this fact. Many virtues make sense only because humans live in communities: honesty, justice, fidelity, and friendship are conditions of shared life.

This is one reason why neo-Aristotelian ethics finds common ground with contemporary “ethics of care.” Dependence, vulnerability, and relationships are not peripheral moral concerns; they are built into what humans are. Caring for children, the elderly, and the sick is not a special moral domain but an expression of the basic structure of human life.

Rights, dignity, and human nature

Modern moral discourse frequently appeals to human rights and dignity, but often without explaining why humans possess them. Neo-Aristotelian ethics provides a grounding: humans have rights because of the kind of beings they are. Their rationality, sociability, and capacity for flourishing make certain forms of treatment incompatible with their nature.

Thus rights are not abstract moral inventions but discoveries about what respect for human life requires.

A return to realism

Perhaps the most striking feature of neo-Aristotelian ethics is its realism. Moral judgements are not expressions of emotion or social convention. They are claims about how a certain kind of being ought to live in order to flourish.

To say that cruelty is wrong is, on this view, as objective as saying that a plant deprived of sunlight is unhealthy. Both are evaluations grounded in the nature of the organism.

This realism reconnects ethics with biology, psychology, and anthropology. It restores continuity between our understanding of life and our understanding of morality.

Conclusion: ethics restored to its natural home

Neo-Aristotelian ethics offers a powerful alternative to modern moral theories that struggle to explain why morality has the authority it does. By returning to the idea that humans have a nature and that flourishing is measured against it, it makes moral evaluation intelligible in the same way that natural evaluation is.

Ethics becomes neither rule-worship nor outcome-calculation, but a reflection on what it means to live well as the kind of creature we are.

In doing so, neo-Aristotelian ethics does not merely revive Aristotle. It restores to moral philosophy a metaphysical foundation that allows morality to be seen, once again, as part of the natural order of things.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays and talks

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

January 15, 2026 · 4:36 pm

The ethics of a one-way trip to Mars

A return human visit to Mars is currently impossible, for energy/weight reasons. NASA would probably have ethical concerns about sending astronauts on a one-way trip to Mars, but would it bother Elon Musk? 

Short answer: yes, it probably would bother Elon Musk too—just in a different way, and for different reasons.

Here’s how the contrast usually plays out.

🧭 NASA: ethics, law, and public accountability

NASA operates under intense ethical, legal, and political constraints.

  • Informed consent isn’t enough
    Even if astronauts volunteered, NASA is bound by medical ethics, international space law, and US public-sector standards. A planned one-way mission would be seen as institutional acceptance of death.
  • Duty of care
    NASA’s culture is built around risk minimisation, not risk normalisation. Astronauts accept danger, but NASA does not design missions where death is the expected outcome.
  • Political reality
    A government agency knowingly sending people on a one-way trip would be politically radioactive. Congressional oversight alone would likely kill the program.

Historically, NASA has rejected even de facto one-way concepts, such as early Mars proposals where return capability was highly uncertain.

🚀 Elon Musk: radically different incentives—but not indifference

Elon Musk, via SpaceX, operates under a different ethical framework—but that doesn’t mean “anything goes.”

https://imgix.bustle.com/uploads/image/2022/4/11/9acdc0da-c0f3-4e5a-a635-7f9e7f676c5f-screenshot-2022-04-11-at-17-24-18-spacex.jpg
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/LM2cdLZauUjiQ8iLDuTjBE.jpg
https://i.insider.com/59cd530f351ccf89468b4f9e?width=700

What Musk has actually said and implied

  • Musk has joked that going to Mars means a “high probability of death,” but he consistently frames it as voluntary, informed risk, not abandonment.
  • His stated goal is a self-sustaining city on Mars, not heroic suicide missions.

Where Musk differs from NASA

  • Risk tolerance: Musk is willing to accept far higher early-phase risk, especially if volunteers knowingly consent.
  • Private vs public ethics: As a private actor, SpaceX isn’t bound by the same public-sector norms, though it still answers to regulators and insurers.
  • Civilisational framing: Musk sees Mars as a species-level insurance policy. That framing changes the moral calculus for him.

But there are real limits

Even Musk would face:

  • Legal barriers (launch licensing, international treaties)
  • Reputational damage if people were perceived as being “sent to die”
  • Recruitment reality: the most capable astronauts and engineers generally don’t want suicide missions

Importantly, Musk has repeatedly insisted that early missions must aim at return, even if success is uncertain. That’s ethically very different from declaring a mission one-way from the outset.

🧠 The deeper philosophical difference

You might put it this way:

  • NASA ethics: “We must not plan missions where death is an intended outcome.”
  • Musk’s ethics: “If informed adults freely choose extreme risk for a higher purpose, preventing them may itself be unethical.”

That’s a classic tension between institutional responsibility and individual autonomy, rather than between morality and immorality.

Bottom line

  • A deliberate one-way Mars mission would almost certainly be unacceptable to NASA.
  • Elon Musk is more permissive about risk, but not indifferent to human life.
  • In practice, both converge on the same operational conclusion: missions should attempt return, even if failure is possible.

Leave a comment

Filed under Reblogs

Tagged as , , , , , ,

January 2, 2026 · 6:48 pm

Stoicism and Aristotelian ethics

Stoicism and Aristotelian ethics are often treated as rivals when they’re better understood as addressing different vulnerabilities in the human condition.

I’ll give you:

  1. A clear side-by-side comparison
  2. Where Stoicism corrects Aristotle
  3. Where Aristotle corrects Stoicism
  4. A synthesis that fits a realist, non-modern outlook (very much your wheelhouse)

1. Core contrast at a glance

QuestionStoicismAristotle
What is the highest good?Virtue aloneFlourishing (eudaimonia)
Role of external goodsMorally irrelevantNecessary but not sufficient
View of emotionsJudgements to be trainedNatural states to be educated
Ideal humanSelf-governing sagePractically wise citizen
Moral psychologyRational masteryRational harmony
Vulnerability to bad luckMinimalReal and unavoidable

2. What Stoicism gets right (and Aristotle underestimates)

A. Moral independence from fortune

The Stoic insistence that virtue is sufficient for the good life is a direct response to a real problem in Aristotle.

Aristotle openly admits that:

  • Extreme misfortune can ruin a life
  • No amount of virtue can fully compensate for catastrophic loss

This is honest—but troubling. It means that:

  • A good person can live a failed life through no fault of their own
  • Moral worth and lived success can radically diverge

Stoicism refuses this conclusion. For Epictetus, a crippled former slave, this was not theoretical:

If goodness depends on health, status, or success, then goodness is hostage to luck.

Stoicism restores moral inviolability: character cannot be stolen.

B. Psychological robustness

Stoicism is better equipped for:

  • Political collapse
  • Exile
  • Ageing and physical decline
  • Powerlessness

Aristotle’s ethics quietly assumes:

  • Civic participation
  • Stable institutions
  • Physical competence
  • A functioning polis

Stoicism is an ethics for when the polis fails.

3. What Aristotle gets right (and Stoicism distorts)

A. Human nature is not angelic reason

Aristotle insists that humans are:

  • Rational animals
  • Social by nature
  • Emotionally embodied

The Stoic ideal risks treating emotion as an error rather than a natural power needing formation.

Aristotle’s concept of virtue as trained disposition—not suppression—fits human psychology better:

  • Courage is not fearlessness
  • Temperance is not indifference
  • Compassion is not weakness

This avoids Stoicism’s tendency toward moral heroics that few humans can actually live up to.

B. External goods really do matter (somewhat)

Aristotle is right that:

  • Friendship
  • Health
  • A degree of material security
  • Recognition within a community

…are not mere decorations on virtue.

A life with no friends, no agency, and no scope for action is not just less pleasant—it is less fully human.

Stoicism sometimes collapses into a moral bunker mentality:

“I am fine, whatever happens.”

Aristotle answers:

“Yes—but you were made for more than survival.”

4. The deepest philosophical difference

The real divide is not practical—it’s metaphysical.

Stoicism:

  • The universe is rational
  • Events unfold necessarily
  • Wisdom is assent to reality as it is

Aristotle:

  • The world is intelligible but teleological
  • Beings aim at fulfilment proper to their nature
  • Ethics completes metaphysics

This is why Aristotle can say:

The good life is the actualisation of human capacities

Whereas Stoicism says:

The good life is non-dependence on what frustrates us

5. A realistic synthesis (and the one I’d recommend)

For a philosophical realist—especially one thinking seriously about age, limits, and dignity—the strongest position is Aristotle tempered by Stoic discipline:

From Aristotle:

  • Humans are social, embodied, purposive beings
  • Virtue aims at flourishing, not mere endurance
  • Emotions belong in the moral life

From Stoicism:

  • Moral worth is not cancelled by misfortune
  • Self-command matters more than outcomes
  • Loss need not mean degradation

Put simply:

Live Aristotelianly when life allows it;
live Stoically when life withdraws its cooperation.

Or more sharply:

Aristotle tells us how to live well;
Stoicism tells us how to remain intact when living well becomes impossible.

6. Why this matters now (and personally)

Modern life increasingly resembles the Stoic world:

  • Impersonal systems
  • Reduced agency
  • Declining institutions
  • Longevity without guarantee of vigour

But we still long for Aristotelian goods:

  • Friendship
  • Meaningful activity
  • Recognition
  • Belonging

Holding both prevents:

  • Stoic coldness
  • Aristotelian fragility

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays and talks

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

November 15, 2025 · 1:02 am

Politeness, Compassion and Politics

Political temperament shapes not only how people vote but also how they relate to others in daily life. Stereotypes about manners, empathy, responsibility, and compassion often echo deeper philosophical commitments—conservatives tending toward individual responsibility and cultural continuity, and leftists toward equality and collective welfare. Each orientation offers moral strengths and blind spots. A fair synthesis recognises that politeness and compassion are not competing virtues, but emerge from different moral frameworks.

This essay integrates the two earlier claims: conservatives may often display stronger interpersonal politeness, while left-leaning collectivists may cultivate a broader, more systemic compassion. Yet each side expresses valuable forms of social care—just in different domains and through different channels.

I. Manners, Stability, and the Conservative Ethos

Conservatives generally place a high value on manners, formality, and respect for social norms. These traits are rooted in a philosophical belief that society functions best when individuals restrain themselves, observe continuity with past generations, and engage respectfully with others—even those they disagree with.

Politeness in this context is not superficial. It is part of a worldview that prizes:

  • order and predictability,
  • self-discipline,
  • adherence to social conventions, and
  • civility as a prerequisite for cooperation.

This can make conservative communities feel welcoming, structured, and emotionally stable. Someone raised with strong norms of courtesy may naturally avoid bad manners, underdressing, gratuitous conflict, loudness, rudeness, or flamboyant self-assertion. There is genuine social value in this: a society with everyday courtesy tends to be more pleasant, more predictable, and less abrasive.

However, conservative politeness can also mask emotional distance. Because compassion is often filtered through ideals of deservingness, individual responsibility, and in-group loyalty, conservative generosity can be highly moral—but also selective.

II. Solidarity, Welfare, and the Collectivist Ethos

Left-leaning or collectivist thinkers tend to prioritise compassion as a moral imperative—one extending to people far outside one’s immediate community. Manners may be looser or more informal, not because of a rejection of civility, but because authenticity, equality, and emotional openness are valued more than adherence to social conventions.

Collectivist compassion is often expressed through:

  • social safety nets,
  • redistributive policies,
  • public healthcare and education,
  • empathy for vulnerable or marginalised groups,
  • universal moral concern rather than tribal loyalty.

This form of compassion is explicit and often institutional. It is motivated by the belief that suffering, inequality, and misfortune are not simply personal failings but structural outcomes that society has a duty to address.

Yet collectivist compassion can sometimes become impersonal or ideological, losing sight of the individual encounter. A person may argue passionately for justice at the societal level while behaving brusquely or impatiently in personal interactions. The opposite of the conservative pitfall occurs: warm-hearted ideals but inconsistent interpersonal warmth.

III. Two Virtues, Two Styles of Morality

Politeness and compassion draw on different psychological and philosophical roots:

Conservative OrientationCollectivist Orientation
Etiquette, tradition, stabilityEquality, solidarity, justice
Compassion within in-groupsCompassion across broad moral circles
Manners as moral dutyReducing suffering as moral duty
Personal responsibilityShared responsibility
Civility in everyday encountersEmpathy in societal context

Both sides possess virtues; both sides have blind spots. Neither approach is complete without the other.

  • Conservatives excel at making immediate social life smoother and more respectful.
    They remind society that human interaction is fragile, and manners matter.
  • Collectivists excel at making the structural conditions of life fairer and more humane.
    They remind society that compassion must extend beyond one’s own tribe.

Neither politeness nor compassion should be dismissed as superficial. Each addresses a different layer of human flourishing: the interpersonal and the systemic.

IV. Toward an Integrated Moral Vision

A synthesis suggests that a well-functioning society would ideally combine both moral strengths:

  1. Conservative civility: everyday kindness, restraint, respect, and stable norms.
  2. Collectivist compassion: broadened empathy, fairness, and protection for the vulnerable.

Imagine a society where:

  • the structural compassion of the left ensures that no one falls through the cracks,
  • the interpersonal courtesy of the right ensures that people treat each other with dignity face-to-face, and
  • each side tempers the excesses of the other—rigid formality vs moralising outrage, selective charity vs impersonal bureaucracy.

In this view, political temperaments are not antagonistic but complementary. Together, they form a more complete moral ecosystem.

Conclusion

Conservatives and collectivists embody different virtues, shaped by longstanding traditions, psychological dispositions, and moral philosophies. Conservatives often shine in the realm of manners and interpersonal civility; collectivists shine in the realm of systemic compassion and solidarity. A synthesis does not declare one superior but recognises their distinct gifts.

A truly humane society is not polite or compassionate, but both. Politeness without compassion is hollow; compassion without civility is abrasive. Together, they offer a fuller vision of what it means to care for others—neighbours and strangers alike.

Leave a comment

Filed under Reblogs

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

October 12, 2025 · 8:08 pm

Against Paying Ransoms

Paying ransoms—whether to kidnappers, terrorists or online scammers—may seem an act of compassion or expedience in the moment, but it is a grave error in principle and practice. It fuels further criminality, undermines justice, and endangers others by perpetuating a market in human misery. While the emotional pressure on victims and their families can be immense, public policy and moral reasoning both demand that ransom payments be firmly rejected.

1. Encouragement of Further Crime

The foremost reason not to pay ransoms is that doing so rewards and incentivises criminal behaviour. Every successful payment confirms to criminals that abduction or extortion is profitable. Historical data from law enforcement and intelligence agencies show that regions or organisations known to pay ransoms experience repeated kidnappings, whereas those that refuse eventually see incidents decline. Criminal networks operate on rational calculation: if the expected profit is high and the risk tolerable, the crime continues. By refusing to pay, society raises the cost and lowers the benefit, reducing future offences.

2. Undermining Law and Justice

Paying a ransom subverts the rule of law by placing private expediency above public justice. It shifts power from lawful authorities to those who violate the law, rewarding coercion over cooperation. Governments that pay ransoms to terrorists or kidnappers weaken their moral and political authority; individuals who pay scammers often become unwitting accomplices in sustaining organised cybercrime. Law enforcement agencies depend on public cooperation and collective discipline to dismantle criminal enterprises. Payment, even out of desperation, erodes that solidarity and hinders prosecution.

3. The Ethical and Social Consequences

Beyond legality lies a deeper moral issue. To pay a ransom is to accept the kidnapper’s premise—that human life, trust, or dignity can be monetised. This corrupts moral reasoning by allowing evil to dictate terms. While refusing to pay may seem heartless in the face of suffering, the long-term ethical cost of yielding to extortion is far greater. Each payment tells perpetrators that threats to life or deception are legitimate means of gain. Society’s moral integrity requires that such acts be rendered futile.

4. The Practical Futility of Payment

Even in pragmatic terms, paying ransoms seldom guarantees a positive outcome. Many victims of scams find that the payment only leads to further demands; kidnappers often break promises once they have received money. In the digital age, ransomware attackers may not even have the technical ability—or intention—to restore access to stolen data after payment. Thus, payment provides no assurance of resolution but almost always ensures financial loss and greater vulnerability.

5. Constructive Alternatives

The alternative to payment is not passivity but coordinated resistance. Governments should strengthen international cooperation against kidnapping and cyber-extortion, tracing funds, freezing assets, and prosecuting perpetrators. Individuals and organisations must invest in prevention—secure travel practices, data protection, and awareness campaigns—rather than relying on ransom as a last resort. Compassion should express itself not through payment but through supporting victims, funding rescue efforts, and reforming policies that make people susceptible to coercion.

Conclusion

Paying ransoms for kidnappings or scams is not an act of mercy but of surrender. It sustains the very evil it seeks to end and imperils countless others by keeping the business of extortion alive. True compassion and justice lie not in giving criminals what they demand, but in denying them the power to profit from fear. A firm refusal to pay is the only moral and practical path toward ending the cycle of abduction and fraud.

3 Comments

Filed under Essays and talks

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

October 7, 2025 · 1:03 am

Sick leave is for when you are sick

Sick Leave Exists for Illness, Not as a Financial Entitlement

Sick leave is a vital element of employment policy, intended to protect both workers and workplaces by ensuring that employees can recover from illness without suffering financial hardship. However, there is a growing trend to treat unused sick leave as a form of deferred pay or accumulated entitlement, to be “cashed out” when not used. This practice undermines the very purpose of sick leave, distorts its ethical foundation, and threatens the health and productivity of workplaces.

The Purpose of Sick Leave

The moral and practical justification for sick leave is simple: when an employee is ill or injured, they should be able to stay home and recover without losing income. This arrangement benefits everyone. The employee avoids financial stress while recuperating, the employer maintains a healthier and more productive workforce, and the broader community is spared the spread of contagious illnesses. Sick leave, therefore, is not a personal bonus—it is a public health measure and a humane workplace safeguard.

The Problem with Paying Out Unused Sick Leave

When employers offer to pay out unused sick leave, they transform a health-related safeguard into a financial incentive. This change undermines the integrity of the system. Workers may feel pressure—explicit or subtle—to come to work even when unwell, fearing they will “lose” potential income if they use their sick leave. Presenteeism, the act of attending work while sick, can spread illness, reduce productivity, and ultimately cost employers far more than the payout would have.

Moreover, paying out unused sick leave sends the wrong signal about its nature. It encourages employees to view sick leave as part of their personal income package, rather than as an insurance policy for unforeseen illness. This blurs the line between a benefit designed for wellbeing and a reward for attendance, fostering inequity between workers who happen to remain healthy and those who, through no fault of their own, fall ill.

Ethical and Economic Fairness

Fairness is central to the argument. Paying out unused sick leave rewards those who are fortunate enough not to have been sick—effectively turning good health into a financial windfall. Meanwhile, employees who have genuinely needed to use their leave are penalised, as they receive no such payout. This is contrary to the egalitarian principle that workplace benefits should exist to support need, not to reward luck.

Economically, sick leave is not a liability in the same sense as annual leave. It is a contingent entitlement, much like an insurance claim—it exists to cover a potential event, not to accumulate as a personal asset. When employers must account for sick leave payouts, they carry an unnecessary financial burden that distorts payroll budgeting and incentivises unhealthy workplace practices.

Maintaining the Integrity of Sick Leave

Preserving sick leave for its intended purpose supports a more responsible and compassionate work culture. Workers should be encouraged to take leave when unwell, without guilt or financial penalty. Employers should value a workforce that recovers properly rather than one that drags itself to work out of financial motives.

Instead of paying out unused sick leave, employers could reward attendance in other transparent ways—such as performance bonuses or wellness incentives—while keeping sick leave as a dedicated health provision. This maintains moral clarity: sick leave is for sickness, and nothing else.

Conclusion

Sick leave is not a savings account, a performance reward, or a form of hidden income. It is a collective agreement that illness should not lead to destitution or workplace contagion. Paying it out when the employee is not sick perverts its intent, encourages unhealthy behaviour, and creates unfairness between workers. To maintain both moral integrity and workplace wellbeing, sick leave must remain exactly what it claims to be—leave taken when one is sick, and only then.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays and talks

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

September 30, 2025 · 9:32 pm

Why are some people against AI?

Fears

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has emerged as one of the defining technologies of the 21st century, inspiring both enthusiasm and apprehension. While many hail its potential to transform medicine, science, and communication, others view it with suspicion or even dread. Opposition to AI arises from a mixture of rational concerns grounded in evidence, and irrational fears shaped by psychology, culture, and imagination.

Rational Concerns

1. Economic Disruption

Perhaps the most concrete fear is that AI will displace human workers. Unlike past waves of automation that primarily affected manual labor, AI has the capacity to replace white-collar jobs in law, journalism, finance, and even the arts. This raises rational worries about unemployment, widening inequality, and the redistribution of wealth.

2. Ethical and Social Risks

AI systems can perpetuate or even amplify biases present in their training data. This is not speculative; cases of discriminatory algorithms in hiring, policing, and credit scoring have already been documented. Concerns about privacy are also well founded: AI-driven surveillance and data collection threaten civil liberties if left unchecked.

3. Concentration of Power

Rational skepticism is directed less at AI itself than at the corporations and governments deploying it. There are fears that a handful of actors may control powerful AI systems, giving them disproportionate influence over economies, politics, and culture. In this sense, AI is seen not as an independent danger but as a tool that could magnify existing power imbalances.

4. Safety and Control

Even without invoking science fiction, there are pragmatic questions about safety. Poorly designed or inadequately tested AI systems could malfunction in critical settings—such as healthcare, transport, or defense. These risks are tangible and merit cautious regulation.

Irrational Fears

1. Fear of the Unknown

AI often functions as a “black box”: its internal workings are difficult even for experts to explain. This opacity breeds suspicion, and for many, anything mysterious or incomprehensible feels dangerous. The unease here is more emotional than evidential.

2. Loss of Human Uniqueness

Some people feel threatened by AI’s ability to mimic human conversation, art, or reasoning. The fear is existential: if a machine can do what we do, are we still special? While philosophically interesting, this worry is not a material threat but a psychological one tied to human pride and identity.

3. Apocalyptic Scenarios

Images of rogue superintelligence destroying humanity are deeply rooted in culture, from Frankenstein to The Terminator. While researchers debate the plausibility of such outcomes, the most extreme versions are speculative. They reflect a tendency to project age-old myths of human hubris and retribution onto new technologies.

The Balance Between Reason and Emotion

The fears surrounding AI are not uniform. Some are based on clear evidence—bias, surveillance, economic disruption—while others stem from broader anxieties about change, human uniqueness, or imagined catastrophes. Both, however, play a role in shaping public opinion. Rational concerns call for regulation, oversight, and responsible design, while irrational fears reveal the psychological and cultural dimensions of how humans confront the unfamiliar.

Conclusion

Opposition to AI cannot be reduced simply to “fear of the unknown,” though that is part of it. It is a complex mixture of justified caution and deeper cultural anxieties. Rational fears demand serious engagement, as they touch on real risks to fairness, jobs, and safety. Irrational fears, though less grounded, should not be dismissed either, for they highlight the symbolic and emotional stakes of living alongside increasingly human-like technologies. Together, these strands explain why AI inspires both skepticism and awe, making it one of the most debated innovations of our time.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays and talks

Tagged as , , , , , ,