It is a tough call but I'm with the mountain strippers

Such an interesting question for those of us who like our ethics defined by neat ideology. Should we disapprove or celebrate the British tourists who got their kit off on top of the sacred Malaysian mountain this week?

Well where do you stand? What was your instinctive reaction?

We detest rudeness. We would never ourselves offend a host nation's cultural sensibilities while abroad. Being polite is an underexplored ethical philosophy but one which pretty much takes you most of the way through leading a good life. I value it.

However, it was just a bit of fun by young people. No-one was really hurt and it brought a burst of exuberant joy into the total of the world's happiness.

And of course it's a bit funny because it involves boobs and bottoms.

Put simply we have a battle here between libertarians (who was actually harmed?) and romantics (doing something silly in the moment for the experience alone) versus conservatism (it is so because of convention alone) and faith (the spirits live on the mountain).

Versus irrational forces

A guide to form all views is often who the opposition is. You don't need to think for yourself if the Daily Mail hates something, it's probably an excellent idea. In this case we have a government minister who said the strippers' actions caused an earthquake. Yes, he actually did say that. That sort of terrifying irrationality from someone in charge of a country cannot be condoned. 

I have no truck with postmodern cultural relativism. That way lies FGM and Isis. There is the truth and there is untruth.

I'm British and so accept the cultural bias my views contain. It wasn't my temple that was offended. I accept I would always more likely side with the bottom-outers. To do so on gut feeling would be amiss, to do so based on considering strands of ethical philosophy if different. 

Who would you rather be friends with or indeed ask to run your country? The irrational and joyless or someone who literally climbs mountains wants to experience the romantic thrill of mild naughtiness?

But don't get your willy out in my house!

The politics of Marvellous

The enjoyable BBC TV film Marvellous could be claimed by various political ideologies.

If you haven't seen it, it's the uplifting story a man with learning difficulties, 'a bit slow on the uptake' as his mum says. He has an eventful time of it, jobs as a clown and kit man for Stoke City. He meets Ken Dodd and Tony Benn. A successful, friend filled life making people around him happy.

I think individualists would claim him for their own. Despite his barriers, he hitchhikes, talks to people, charms his way into jobs and makes things happen for himself. Triumph of personal responsibility, of Tebbit's get on your bike theory.

However none of this would be possible without the support of civil society. The church look out for him, when the circus abandons him in Scotland he just walks to the nearest church and asked for a lift back to Stoke. Stoke City provide meaning, employment, friendship and belonging. 

These institutions are not set up by the state, they don't exist for profit. These are the community organisations which fill the gaps and define a place (MK Dons hang your heads). 

The state isn't mentioned much apart from the NHS. Housing benefit probably doesn't fit in the narrative arc but it's hard to imagine how he'd've got by on purely community support. 

Ultimately family (his mum) does the lion's share.

While statists, communitarians, libertarians and mums might all lay claim to his success, he actually only thrives because all four of agencies are present in his life. One fills the gaps of the other. Society requires you to get off your own arse as well as properly organised and funded services. You also need people to look out for you and the social glue of voluntary institutions.

  

Innate religious skepticism in children

Unprompted, a four year old used an argument taught to first year philosophy students.

He's been learning about god and Jesus at school, it's that time of year. It seems he's skeptical. 

"If god made everything" he said, out of the blue "then what made god?".

It is the classic refutation to the first cause argument for god's existence. I didn't have an answer (nobody does) so I said that I'm sure his teachers would enjoy explaining it all to him and he should ask them, when the donkey and stable business comes up again.

Problem with this first cause thing is that it applied to physics too. Big bangs out of nowhere makes as little sense as sudden men in clouds.

The other arguments

The other arguments that philosophy of religion students are taught are the problem of evil and the watch maker. Here they are.

If god is all powerful, all knowing and good; then why is there evil? If he's not some of those things then he's not much of a god.

It takes a very clever man to make a watch. People are much more complicated than watches, in fact it's amazing that we can see, think and do whatever complex organs do. So whatever made people, walruses and onions must be pretty much god. 

The best refutation of this I read is from Richard Dawkins who points out that this is like saying a puddle is really smart for fitting exactly in the hole. We are complicated because we've adapted to survive. If we were rubbish we wouldn't be here, like the puddles that aren't.

Innate skepticism then; healthy, human.         

In praise of specifics

On writing courses they will teach to you, that to make writing come alive, you should write for as specific an audience and subject as possible. Write for the one-legged Eskimo about the 10.37am tea break. 

This holds for other aspects of life too.

The music goes round on radio 2 (Desmond Carrington) might be an hour of German language pop (and nothing recent either) which entertains me so much more than Absolute's focus grouped generica.

Place a personal ad for moth enthusiasts in Bolton and you'll be stepping out with a lady on Friday night. Describe yourself tall with GSOH and no-one will reply. It's not about being wacky, it's about being specific.

No football fan will watch a champions league game full of superstars if a relegation scrap between AFC Wimbledon and MK Dons is on the other side.

Specific Jim

I think there's a strong case that specifics are more interesting. Yet, there's a cautious drive that tends us to be generic. 'Thanks for your copy Mr Socks, we'll just bland it for the everyman.'

Now normally I link my observations back to a proper philosopher but I don't know of any in this case ( do let me know if you know of any). So I'll name the idea myself. I'll call it Specific Jim after my nickname for my boy who knows very precisely how things ought to be. 

 

Never read signs

I've found another philosophical justification for one of my grumpy tendencies.

I've decided to not read signs. It is not just the bad grammar (that needless capital letter or that apostrophe). It is that I have found, on the whole, that they tell you nothing that you couldn't decide on your own using your own common sense or common courtesy.

Laminated diktat 

Would you run headlong towards the cliff edge if the sign hadn't warned me? Throwing a child off a slide head first with his arms tied to his side might be in your scheme of sensible behaviour but I suspect you'd make the right call regardless of the helpful bullet point list from the authorities. 

If you have ever taken a thermos flask and sarnies into a cafe and tucked in without buying any of their food, you are a bit odd, I wouldn't need that specified to me by laminated diktat.

You can make these calls yourself and save yourself the time of reading the sign.

Weber - the steel cage

Weber had spotted that modern life and its institutions had become rule bound. That bureaucracies formed around institutions and with them brought their own procedures. From a company's HR team to a state's tax regime. Sport need rules but its joy is suffocated by an ever expanding list of micro-rules.

You can't escape these structures. The interesting observation that came with it was that following procedures came to replace making personal moral judgements. Follow the rules and you don't need to make a choice. It's easier.

He called this the steel cage of bureaucracy (usually mistranslated as iron cage). 

I heard an old timer policeman on the radio bemoaning the young plods for being unable to exercise judgement, instead being bound to the rulebook. He might have given the biscuit thief a warning, the newbies will literally lay down the law.

Isn't it better to think through your own moral judgements? Unthinking morality is less valuable and slavish rule following always leads to the Somme and the gulag. 

Apologise after 

A brilliant rule of thumb is to just apologise afterwards. If your own common courtesy compass leads to conflict with parky, saying sorry once is still quicker than having to spend hours reading signs.

I can't find a thinker who has worked this up though. So this folk morality isn't the territory of this blog, even though it works.

Do I need to say don't ignore road signs? No because your own judgement will have concluded driving on the right hand side of the road (UK) is stupid. 

I trust that you are nice, do what you think is right in the park.

    

Muddy and most of all short

Trouble with me is that when I'm face down in the mud being shouted at by a man in camouflage; I think about Thomas Hobbes.

British Military Fitness is refreshingly untouchy-feely. No excuses, no gloves, no water and you do those press ups properly. Because it is blokey and bantery and the trainer knows what he's doing, it is great fun. We did it as a one off work thing, me and the Finance department had a lovely time.

Made me think Hobbes was on to something 

Hobbes says a strong all powerful leader is vital for a state. The alternative being the freedom which results in chaos and crime. Famously he said life in the state of nature is bloody, brutal and most of all short.

Better to submit to supreme authority and have the trains run on time.

Coats and hegemony

I've never had much truck with it. I'm a liberal who isn't writing in a civil war context. I don't undertand why there isn't a middle ground between obeying God's representitive on earth and starving to death. Liberal democracy? 

Sometimes though it works much better to just be told what to do, rather than tedious consultation that results in grey compromise.

I also read in the Economist that periods of one state hegemony tend to result in better conditions for free trade. Hegemony meaning sustained dominance, cultural, military and economically (USA recently). It's the same idea; things work better when you just do what the man says.

Hobbes also wore the same coat for 40 years. There's a theme with philosophers and coats, I'll return to it another time.  

Soft skills or hard cash? Blair, determinism and the misplaced ego

Tony Blair recently said that he was so good as an international peace summit mediator because had had empathy.

He understood the pain of one party and was able to convey those emotions to their enemies. We all, at root, have human feelings and children to protect.

I won't dismiss these soft skills entirely. Experience at work tell me that the talent, determination and people skills of individuals are ultimately the key the getting stuff done. I think there's more to it though.

It's all about the cold hard cash?

Blair also said that this modest recognition of his superior empathetic qualities was a hard thing to accept as he'd been brought up in the Marxist school of economic determinism.

This states that the world evolves though economic states inevitably and there's nothing the individual does that affects that. Feudalism, capitalism and finally socialism will happen due to factors inherent in those system. For example the competition for finite resources and markets must lead to conflict within capitalism and to it's decline. The world rolls over us, we don't really make a difference.

As a liberal I'm a champion of an individual's impact on the world. Not least as it's depressing to be subject to external forces. But there's something in this underlying forces argument.

Individuals are just the icing on the cakes

The soft skills argument oversells itself. The waring parties wouldn't be at the table if the threat of US military wasn't lurking. I wouldn't be at the table being all caring with Tony because I'm not the prime Minister of a G8 country with a massive army, a predilection for invasion and a say in the movement of E.U. cash. Tony's Princess Di eyes are just the icing on the cake.

The X Factor winner is Christmas number 1 every year because the machine behind it provides 20 weeks of prime time advertising. The pretty singer can sing, the tune might be ok but if they had all that when they still worked in Greggs and no-one bought their records then. Icing on the cake.

Finally to Orwell: 'Pacifism is the preserve of people who live in a country with a large navy'. His point being that if you are overrun by goths, you would grab your pitchfork. Only in the Home Counties, over a glass of Chianti can you afford the luxury of such values because the Royal Navy sits in the channel sinking Vikings.

Larger forces are at work than the emotional intelligence of men who have honed their soft skills.