Can Rights Go Wrong?

Invoking rights to champion a cause is a popular approach because it strikes a firm tone – declaring that the rights in question must be respected unconditionally.  To assert a right is to be like a judge banging the gavel – it is the end of discussion.  Case closed, except of course it isn’t.

 

Rights are not metaphysical entities that a few bright Platonic minds can grasp and anyone not recognising them have only got their intellectual limitations to blame.  They are signifiers of legal, political, and/or moral agreement that prevails in a given society.  Claims such as ‘no one in this country should be tortured’, or ‘every citizen should be supported in overcoming poor health’, may have varying degrees of moral backing amongst the general public, embedded in the political culture in some nation but not others, and translated into legal commitments with different specific implications.

 

If the basis for determining rights is ignored, then the invocation if rights can easily become an arbitrary exercise.  Once we discard as irrelevant what legal, political, or moral consensus there actually is, then ‘rights’ cease to be anchored to social reality.  Different people can insist they have a right to this or that, and interpret what they can expect from having that right in any way they wish without reference to any process or arrangement that exists outside their own mind.

 

Many people who use the language of rights in aid of compassion, justice, or fairness are suspicious of demands to unpack the basis of the rights they claim.  They think their case might get diluted if they engage with what agreement there really is in terms of current legal, political, and moral expectations.  They want to block off any challenge by hoisting the banner of ‘rights’.  

 

But if that is the position they want to keep to, it also opens the door for other people (who care little for compassion, justice, or fairness) to invoke rights in a similarly absolutist way.  These people will firmly claim, for example, that they have a right to hire and fire workers without any intervention from anyone else; they have a right to say what they like even if others regard it as spreading lies and hatred; they have a right to do business in any way they wish irrespective of the concerns of ‘do-gooders’; they have a right to live in a neighbourhood of their own ‘kind’; or they have a right to treat their own children as they see fit no matter how vile or cruel others may consider that treatment.

 

Ultimately, rights are not absolute licences that can be plucked out of metaphysical thin air and deployed to secure whatever someone wants.  Rights have to be justified, their implications have to be assessed, and what is to be granted as entitlements needs to be formulated with care.  To differentiate rights that ought to be safeguarded from rights that are asserted without legitimate foundations, we have to go beyond the surface language of rights and consider the legal, political, and moral positions that exist in society.  Rather than holding up ‘rights’ as some immutable shield against critical discussions, we should recognise the reality in which we need to persuade, challenge, campaign for the changing of attitudes and arrangements to further what we can obtain wider agreement in advancing the values we share.

3 Types of Con Supporters

To understand why Con politics thrives and how it can be countered, we should take a closer look at what type of supporters are behind it.

First and foremost, we have the Con leaders – people whose political career rests on tricking people into helping them secure power even though it would actually be detrimental to the unwitting helpers.  They have no compunction about cheating and lying, and are prone to falsely accuse honest politicians of cheating and lying.  They just want power to advance their self-centred ambitions – to enrich themselves, to celebrate their prejudices, and/or to intimidate anyone they like to designate as ‘enemies’ at home or abroad.  Anyone with the expertise and tenacity to expose their scam would be condemned by them as biased members of the ‘liberal establishment’.

 

Secondly, we have the Con enthusiasts – people who are highly susceptible to embracing the ‘values’ espoused by Con leaders: for example, the freedom to make money regardless of any harmful consequences for others; the importance of adhering to ‘traditional’ attitudes and practices no matter how oppressive they may be; and the adoration of the use of force irrespective of its efficacy or justification.  They don’t mind how their Con leaders abuse and exploit others so long as that leadership validates any abusive and exploitative behaviour they may indulge in themselves.

 

Thirdly, we have the Con fodder – people who do not actually share the core outlook of the Con leaders, but without adequate support or protection, are just too easily conned into believing Con spiel about how life would be made safer and more prosperous for all under leaders who routinely act against the advice of experts and the warnings of impartial observers. They want to live in a kinder and fairer society, but all too often fall prey to Con tricks which disparage sound political positions and present highly damaging policies as essential for the ‘good’ of the country (when in truth, the only beneficiaries are the Con leaders and their associates).

 

One strategy for countering the spread of Con politics is to enable potential Con fodder to see through the skulduggery of Con leaders.  There is, after all, a clear pattern to the tactics of charlatans who over and over again will push something they want against the wishes and judgement of everyone else, and they will self-righteously declare the vast majority of scientists, businesses, analysts, reporters, community organisations, health and security experts, and anyone else with the relevant experience as all wrong-headed or untrustworthy.  

Expose them repeatedly and thoroughly, call them out as liars whenever they embark on another round of deception, and in time, enough support will drain from them to render them less of a threat to our common wellbeing.

The Hobhouse Challenge

The writings of L. T. Hobhouse (1864-1929) pose a far-reaching challenge to many social and political ideas which were at once influential and questionable.  Regrettably, quite a few of these ideas are still circulating today because, in part, Hobhouse has fallen out of academic fashion.  Instead of pointing to new ways of thinking, his arguments have been largely ignored.  But let’s look back on some of his key contributions and reconnect with their implications for contemporary debates.

 

To begin with, in works such as The Theory of Knowledge and The Rational Good, Hobhouse confronted the damaging dichotomy that insists we must either find some absolute belief system that no one can conceivably reject, or accept that there is no objective basis for identifying any particular claim as true.  Hobhouse argued that hypotheses, experiments, observations, gathered evidence, would cohere around particular interpretations or clash with each other.  If the former, increasing harmony of those elements would add to the reliability of the claim in question.  If the latter, the clashing would suggest that further examination is required.  Knowledge is thus obtainable, if provisional.  We do not have to act as though any claim (theory, report, judgement) is ‘as good as’ any other.  But we must remain open-minded about future revisions when new ideas and evidence emerge.

 

With an objective epistemological basis established, Hobhouse challenged the pseudo-Darwinian ideas that supposed ‘survival of the fittest’ meant that any form of life coming through evolutionary changes must be ‘superior’ to what existed before.  He remarked that in biological terms, different living things emerged through evolution, and while they had diverse habitats and behavioural patterns, none could be said to be inherently ‘superior’ to any other.  Furthermore, if ‘superior’ is to be taken in moral terms, then a theory of value is needed to distinguish intentional behaviour that is commendable from that which is contemptible.  It follows then that societal changes do not necessarily produce ‘winners’ who are morally praiseworthy, or ‘losers’ who merit neglect.  On the contrary, in books such as Social Development: its nature and conditions, and Democracy and Reaction, Hobhouse explained how moral progress related to the improvement of human relationships, and the activities of warring imperialists, racist conquerors, and economic oppressors should accordingly be censured and countered.

 

Building on his ideas on harmony and cooperation in attaining epistemological and moral progress, Hobhouse set out a theory of social development which explains how people throughout history would go through three stages of interpersonal governance (see, e.g., Morals in Evolution, and Social Evolution and Political Theory).  The first stage is that of kinship where family and tribal links provide familiarity, trust, and shared customs to hold groups together. Then came rule by authority where the power obtained by a few enable them to command compliance from larger, disparate groups.  Finally, there is the model of citizenship, which operates through democratic self-rule with diverse and equal citizens sharing power in shaping the laws that govern them all.  Hobhouse stressed that there was a moral case to seek progress towards the model of citizenship, but warned that anti-progressive forces could push societies into fragmented inward looking groups or towards subjugation by new forms of authoritarianism.  Progress is desirable but not guaranteed.

 

Having argued for making progress towards a more cooperative society structured around democratic citizenship, Hobhouse took aim at prevailing notions of the state and put forward an alternative goal for political action.  In Liberalism, he challenged the assumption that a liberal state should leave people to behave without constraint so that the fittest would survive.  He pointed out that those fittest in hurting, threatening, oppressing others might not be fit at all to have power over others in society.  Instead, the state should not only prevent individuals from intimidating or exploiting others, but also tackle the systemic disadvantages some people have been burdened with. Furthermore, public policies could support research, education, and collaboration to help citizens achieve more than they could on their own.  At the same time, Hobhouse was critical of the idealisation of the state that was popular with Hegelian academics and authoritarian politicians.  In The Metaphysical Theory of the State: a criticism, he rejected the idea that the state could by itself embody some higher purpose which it was then entitled to pursue regardless of what citizens think.  For Hobhouse, the state exists to serve the public, and its legitimacy rests on citizens’ own assessment of its actions.  Ultimately, the state must be held in check through democratic accountability.

 

It is not uncommon to hear these days that there is no coherent philosophy to guide social and political reflections.  Between ‘anything goes’ relativism and parochial dogmatism, there is no path for reasoned consensus or informed cooperation.  But Hobhouse gave us many insightful pointers a century ago.  We would do well to revisit them and take up his challenge to map out a route towards a more thoughtful and inclusive society.

Learning to Blame

‘Praise’ is generally well liked.  But ‘blame’ gets a bad press.

Nobody takes kindly to ‘blame culture’, or ‘blame game’.  Everyone is warned about ‘not throwing stones in glass houses’, or ‘casting the first stone when one is not without sin’.

 

Of course, blaming others unjustly, incorrectly, or hypocritically deserves censure. Yet it is vital to understand where blame should go for the harm and danger we encounter.  If we routinely fail to identify the real causes of different problems that come our way, we won’t be able to deal with them or avoid further losses and sufferings.

 

Think of problems such as diseases, earthquakes, floods, that had been erroneously blamed on supernatural or magical forces.  Not only did laying blame in the wrong direction divert attention from the actual source of harm, it led to further mistakes like callous and futile sacrifices to imaginary beings.  Through scientific advancement we are able to determine what should really be blamed and how they could be averted. Unfortunately, many are still too easily misled about threats from climate change to vaccine rejection.

 

In human relations, inherited prejudices and lack of wide-ranging interpersonal experiences can make people susceptible to overlook blame that should be ascribed to culprits such as exploitative employment practices and plutocratic policies (which cause deprivation and marginalisation), and channel it instead towards misconceived targets such as immigration or multiculturalism.  There should be outrage against injustice, but anger bred from blind hatred against scapegoats must not be tolerated.

 

Without forensic examination, criminal trials can become farcical with innocent people being blamed for offences they have nothing to do with, while the guilty ones walk free because there is no process to connect the evidence of their wrongdoing to any police or court action.  It is a mark of arbitrary rule everywhere that the objective analysis of evidence is jettisoned in favour of autocratic judgements.

 

Last but not least, institutional arrangements to secure accountability are essential for establishing who are assigned the power and responsibility to act on behalf of all members of the institution in question (e.g., a company, a trade union, a country), and what credit or blame is to be apportioned to their actions. Blaming leaders when they deserve praise is as bad as backing those who ought to be chastised or removed for inexcusable transgression.  

 

Blame is not something we should shy away from attributing – so long as we do so on the basis of careful, systematic, and objective examination.  And that requires learning.  Education at all levels should enhance our understanding of how scientific research, behavioural psychology, forensic techniques, institutional accountability, help to pinpoint blame for the things we want to avoid.  

 

Blaming the innocent is unjust.  Never blaming the real culprit is folly.

The Sleaze of a Clown

Bullies like to taunt others and then dismiss their complaints as signs that they are not able to take a joke.  Soon the ‘jokes’ turn into intimidation and aggression, and if the bullies can continue to get away with their appalling behaviour, life would just get worse for everyone.

In politics, bullying becomes the default when those in power can get away with whatever they do.  Boris Johnson hides behind a façade of jokiness and pretends any transgression he may have committed in words or deeds should not be taken seriously. But that is the crux of the matter.  If we do not hold him to account for his wrongdoing, it would just confirm for him that the public are irrelevant.

 

The mounting allegations of sleaze against him and the government ministers he protects would suggest that the only accountability he cares about is that to those rich enough to give him large political donations when he is in office, and lucrative positions when he leaves.  To that end, he and those under his patronage would not hesitate to hand out public money to whomever they please, take funds from donors in return for favours, help the wealthy avoid costs other citizens would have to bear, or grant access to the privileged few while denying ordinary people and businesses even a courtesy response to their queries.

 

Of course, Johnson would reject that he has ever done anything wrong, and all the allegations are unfounded.  He might go so far as to preside over all investigations and declare that he would personally decide if he or any of his Cabinet members is guilty of any corrupt practice.

 

For all we know, he might even take his latest flag-fetishism to the next level and insist that any criticism of him and his government is unpatriotic because it damages the reputation of the country.  With the support of the Johnson-backing media, those who press for a thorough investigation of the many suspicious deals and transactions would be dismissed as whinging about nothing.

 

However, to meekly submit to political bullies is to go down the one-way street to arbitrary rule.  We are at a critical junction, and we must not allow him to be emboldened in disregarding the public’s views in what he does.

 

At present, he is riding high by taking credit for the dedication and achievements of university researchers and the NHS, but in reality, he is continuing to underfund their work, and furthermore, he has substituted transparent governance by secretive moves that appear to serve only him and his wealthy supporters.

 

We must not shrug off the charges of wrongdoing as though a joker should not be taken too seriously.  Sometimes, the most unscrupulous leader lurks behind the face of a clown.

--

For a helpful summary of Johnson’s scandalous behaviour, see: 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/30/scandal-charge-sheet-johnson-wallpaper-lying

Risks & Consequences

Many risk-takers like to insist that there should be no limit on what they do because “it’s their business and everyone else should leave them alone”.  But does it not become a matter for other people too if the risk in question could be detrimental to their wellbeing?

Risk taking in the midst of this Covid-19 pandemic has reminded everyone how the behaviour of some can seriously endanger others.  Getting close to others without wearing a protective mask, coughing in proximity to others, turning down opportunities to receive the approved vaccine – can all spread a potentially deadly infection to others while remaining asymptomatic oneself.  Simply focusing on the risk to oneself is clearly inadequate when the probability of dire consequences for others cannot be morally ignored.

 

But risk taking is not just a problem in relation to an infectious disease.  It occurs in all spheres of life, and society needs to take a much closer look at the possible consequences and consider what protective action should be taken.

 

For example, when people get routinely drunk, drive without wearing a seatbelt, or gamble away funds others rely on, it is not just the direct harm they may cause others that is of concern, but the costs in terms of rescue and healthcare that they expect society to bear on their behalf.  Private insurance premiums go up for people who smoke or leave their property unsafe, but in public policy, risk-takers often expect others to foot the bill for their reckless behaviour.

 

It is time we adopt a more coherent approach to curtailing irresponsible risk taking.  This should have three components.  First, evidence-based information and transparency that will ensure people understand the implications of the risks they might take.  What this covers may range from excessive gambling and borrowing from loan sharks that will very probably lead to disastrous consequences for one and one’s family; to voting for politicians/policies that would bring social and economic ruin to one’s country.  If people truly understand the dangers they are risking, more of them might pull back from the brink.

 

Secondly, those who, despite knowing the negative consequences their risky activities could bring, persist with them, will need to be made responsible so they either desist or have to pay to cover the damages.  Anyone addicted to gambling could be required to put an increasingly large proportion of their bets towards an insurance scheme that would provide financial compensation if necessary, while reducing the amount going to the betting companies.  Corporations that wilfully pollute the environment should be made to pay for dealing with the damages caused.

 

Thirdly, there will be cases where the risks are so high and the potential harm so severe, that the activities in question should be stopped outright.  There is no reason why some self-styled ‘business genius’ should be able to keep borrowing money to start businesses that, after they have paid themselves a fortune, are wound up with countless workers and suppliers left without pay.  The same goes for financial institutions that take the savings from ordinary families and gamble the money on high risk lending that could (and has been found to) leave major shortfalls that either wipe out individuals’ savings or require public funds to bail them out.  Such activities should be outlawed.

 

Viewed against the background of great explorers and brave adventurers, risk-taking might be seen as something to be glorified.  But in truth, not all risk-taking is worthy of celebrating, and many are plainly wrong-headed and irredeemably harmful.  We need to see bad risk-taking for what it is, and bring in the necessary measures to curtail it.

Stop Censoring Censorship

When comedians mock their latest targets, artists unveil their convention-defying creations, right-wing rabble rousers demand acceptance from all speech platforms, hate mongers insist on their right to express themselves on social media, they all converge on an unreserved condemnation of censorship.

They invoke it as an unassailable principle – people must be allowed to say, show, express whatever they want, and any attempt to block them (whatever the reason) is deemed censorship, and must therefore be rejected.

If something is true and harmless, of course we should be ready to resist any move to prevent it from being put forward.  But it hardly follows that nothing can ever be legitimately deemed so harmful that its propagation should be halted.  This assumption that forbidding any expression is inherently and absolutely wrong must be questioned.

 

Suppose the following is about to happen:

 

·      Someone is going to distribute a leaflet on ‘20 ways to help your children’ to every household in the country, and the 20 ways listed are all widely recognised as harmful to children (e.g. hit them hard on the head when they disobey; make them drink bleach, etc.)

·      A town council has agreed to erect a public monument to celebrate Hitler’s murder of millions of people.

·      A photographer who managed to take pictures of the victims of a serial killer is going to hold an exhibition of those photographs to showcase the skills of the killer, despite the protest from the families of the victims.

·      Someone known for routinely lying about people from minority ethnic backgrounds is offered a regular television show to tell horror stories about minorities and why they should all be deported.

·      A group is organising a public march to name various people as responsible for the death of a child – without any evidence, and demand justice be obtained by any means.

 

Those who decry censorship may respond by either saying such expressions should be stopped but it is not censorship (in which case, they’re just playing with words); or affirming that nothing should be done to stop them (in which case, they’re playing with people’s lives).

 

Censorship should not be imposed lightly.  It needs justification, and it has to be proportionate.  But it cannot be dismissed as unjustifiable.  As individuals and as a society, we need to be protected from the vicious, the unscrupulous, and the deranged.  Undoubtedly there are cases where threats should be halted before serious harm is done.