Wealth is not necessarily greed

By ChatGPT-4

Wealth itself is not inherently a sign of greed. The distinction between simply having wealth and being greedy often lies in the manner in which wealth is accumulated, used, and perceived. Here are some key factors that differentiate wealth from greed:

1. Means of Acquisition: Wealth obtained through honest, ethical means and hard work is not typically considered a product of greed. In contrast, greed is often associated with wealth accumulated through dishonesty, exploitation, or manipulation.
2. Attitude Towards Wealth: If a person views wealth as a tool for positive impact, such as through philanthropy, community support, or fostering social development, it is less likely to be seen as greed. Greed is more about an insatiable desire for more wealth, often for personal gain alone.
3. Use of Wealth: The use of wealth plays a significant role. A wealthy individual who uses their resources responsibly, supports charitable causes, invests in community growth, or helps others in need is typically not viewed as greedy. Greed is often linked to hoarding wealth or spending it in excessively extravagant ways that serve only personal vanity or pleasure.
4. Impact on Others: Wealth that is used in ways that benefit society, improve lives, or contribute to the common good is usually not seen as a product of greed. In contrast, greed often involves ignoring the needs or wellbeing of others in the pursuit of personal wealth.
5. Contentment and Perspective: A key aspect is the level of contentment. People who are wealthy but content with what they have, showing no obsessive desire for more, are generally not considered greedy. Greed is characterized by a constant and excessive dissatisfaction with one’s current level of wealth.
6. Balance in Life: Maintaining a balance between the pursuit of wealth and other life aspects, such as family, relationships, and personal growth, can be an indicator of wealth without greed. Greedy individuals often prioritize wealth accumulation over all other aspects of their life.

In essence, it’s not the presence of wealth itself but the relationship with it and the behaviors surrounding its accumulation and use that determine whether it’s associated with greed. Wealth can coexist with generosity, ethical values, and a sense of social responsibility, thus distinguishing it from greed.

Invincible ignorance

“Invincible ignorance” refers to a state of ignorance that cannot be overcome because the individual has no way of accessing or understanding the necessary information. This concept is often discussed in moral and ethical contexts, particularly in philosophy and theology.

In these contexts, invincible ignorance is the lack of knowledge that is literally impossible for a person to obtain. This could be due to various factors such as cultural, geographical, or temporal barriers. For example, someone living in a remote part of the world without access to certain information cannot be blamed for not knowing it.

In moral theology, especially within the Catholic Church, the concept of invincible ignorance plays a significant role. It is believed that if a person is invincibly ignorant of the moral wrongness of an act, then their culpability for that act is diminished or even nullified. This is because moral responsibility is often linked to the knowledge and intent behind an action.

However, it’s important to distinguish invincible ignorance from “vincible ignorance,” which is ignorance that can be overcome but isn’t due to the individual’s lack of effort or willful avoidance of the truth. In moral discussions, vincible ignorance does not typically absolve an individual from responsibility in the same way invincible ignorance might.

Naming and shaming

by Tim Harding and ChatGPT-4

When I worked as a regulatory consultant, I was often asked to consider the option of “naming and shaming“ as an alternative to regulation. Every time, I successfully argued that this would be unjust, but I think that ChatGPT-4 now presents the case better than I did.

“Naming and shaming” refers to the act of publicly calling out individuals or entities for perceived wrongs or failures. While some view it as an effective strategy to hold people or organizations accountable, many believe it is unjust for the following reasons:

1. Violation of Due Process: In many democratic societies, individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Naming and shaming might bypass due process and could result in misjudgments based on incomplete or inaccurate information. People might be wrongly accused or shamed based on unfounded rumors or biased perceptions.

2. Amplification of Mistakes: People make mistakes. When an error is magnified and publicized, it can disproportionately impact someone’s life. This is especially the case in our current digital age, where information can spread rapidly and persist indefinitely online.

3. Cyberbullying and Harassment: Naming and shaming can often lead to cyberbullying, as it encourages a mob mentality. This can result in the targeted individual receiving disproportionate backlash, including hate messages, threats, and more.

4. Lack of Context: Many times, situations are complex, and there might be reasons or circumstances unknown to the public. Naming and shaming can provide a one-sided view of an incident, leading to misunderstandings.

5. Prevents Rehabilitation: Rather than encouraging individuals to learn from their mistakes and make amends, naming and shaming can alienate and stigmatize them, making rehabilitation more challenging.

6. Affects Mental Health: The stress and humiliation from being publicly shamed can have severe mental health consequences, including depression, anxiety, and even suicidal thoughts or actions.

7. Potential for Misuse: Naming and shaming can be weaponized for personal vendettas or to target particular groups or individuals, even if they haven’t done anything wrong.

8. Unintended Consequences: Naming and shaming might impact not just the targeted individual but also their families, friends, or associates who had nothing to do with the perceived wrongdoing.

9. Mistakes are Permanent in the Digital Age: Once something is posted online, it’s almost impossible to completely erase. Even if a person is later found to be innocent or if they genuinely change and rehabilitate, the digital trail of their past shaming can haunt them indefinitely.

10. Erosion of Empathy: Societies thrive when there’s mutual respect and understanding. A culture of naming and shaming can erode empathy and reduce the willingness to understand or forgive others.

That said, some argue that in specific contexts, public accountability can be a tool for justice, especially when institutional systems fail to hold wrongdoers accountable. However, it’s essential to approach such actions with caution, ensuring they are based on facts and that the response is proportionate to the wrongdoing.

‘That’s just semantics’

By Tim Harding

When people say ‘That’s just semantics’, they are dismissing differences in the meanings of words or phrases, implying that such differences are unimportant.

Semantics is the study of meaning in language. This broad field addresses how words, phrases, sentences, and texts are used to convey meaning, both literal and implied. Semantics is involved in interpreting the meaning of words (lexical semantics), sentences (sentential or phrasal semantics), and larger units of discourse.

In linguistics, semantics is typically considered one of the core areas of study, along with syntax (the study of sentence structure) and phonology (the study of sound systems). However, semantics is not confined to linguistics alone; it has implications for philosophy, psychology, anthropology, computer science, and artificial intelligence, among other disciplines.

Sometimes the differences in meanings of words can be quite important. For example, when I was working on new fisheries legislation, I recall being lobbied by commercial fishing interests to include a provision in the draft Bill stating that commercial fishing licences are property. A fisheries manager with little legal knowledge said that this was ‘just semantics’. On the other hand, the commercial fishers obviously thought that such a provision was important. Why? Because this would substantially increase the value of their licences for sale or buyback. They would make windfall profits, estimated at up to $320,000 per licence. Instead, the ensuing Act referred to these licences as access licences rather than property, thus maintaining the status quo in licence values. Just semantics?

Proposals are not propositions

by Tim Harding and ChatGPT-4

Some politicians and other celebrities substitute the word ‘proposition’ when they really mean a ‘proposal’. These words are not synonyms; that is, their meanings are not interchangeable. Perhaps they think that using the word ‘proposition’ makes them sound more erudite; but for those who understand these words, the opposite is the case.

So, what are the differences in the meanings of these words?

The word ‘proposition’ is a central concept in philosophy and logic. It means a statement that is the bearer of truth or falsity.  Every proposition is either true or false but not both; and a true proposition is one that corresponds to reality. It is a statement that asserts a fact which can be subject to verification or testing. For example, ‘The Earth orbits the Sun’ is a proposition because it is a statement that can be scientifically verified as being true.

More colloquially, the Collins Dictionary has a definition for proposition as ‘a statement or an idea that people can consider or discuss whether it is true’. In this way, propositions are assessed in terms of their truth properties rather than their values, preferences or aesthetics.

On the other hand, a proposal is an act of putting forward a recommendation or suggestion for consideration by others. It can be a formal document that outlines a plan, project, or business offer in detail. For example, research proposals, business proposals, and marriage proposals are all types of formal offers to undertake a particular action. In academic or professional settings, a proposal might be a document that outlines a plan requesting approval or funding. They can also be less formal than a written proposal document; for example, ‘I propose we go to the movies tonight.’ Proposals are assessed by their recipients on the basis of values, preferences or aesthetics, rather than truth or falsity.

The racism of low expectations

From ChatGPT-4: The “racism of low expectations” refers to a form of prejudice where people, often educators or managers, underestimate or hold lower standards for individuals from certain racial or ethnic backgrounds, often under the guise of being supportive or understanding. This form of racism can be subtle, as it involves implicit biases rather than overtly racist actions or statements.

For example, if a teacher assumes that students of a particular race or ethnic background will inherently perform worse academically and, therefore, does not challenge them as much, this is a manifestation of the racism of low expectations.

The problem with this kind of racism is that it can limit the opportunities and hinder the potential growth of those on the receiving end. It reinforces negative stereotypes and can have serious implications for the self-esteem and aspirations of those affected by it.

It’s important to note that individuals who are displaying the racism of low expectations may not realize it, and may even believe they are being helpful or empathetic. That’s why ongoing education about implicit bias and active efforts to challenge stereotypes are key in addressing this issue.

Policy vs rule confusion

Some people seem to be wittingly or unwittingly be confused about the distinction between policies and rules. Unwitting confusion stems from not understanding the difference in meaning between these terms. Witting confusion stems from knowing the difference, but trying soften the apparent strictness of the word ‘rule’, possibly for ideological motives.

A policy is a general guideline or principle that is used to make decisions and guide actions. It is a high-level document that provides direction for decision making, but allows for some discretion and flexibility in implementation.

A rule, on the other hand, is a specific and concrete statement that dictates a particular course of action. It is more specific and less open to interpretation than a policy, and is typically designed to ensure compliance with laws, regulations, or company policy. Rules provide a clear standard of behavior that must be followed and are typically enforceable with consequences for non-compliance.

Insinuation by questions

‘Insinuation by questions’ is a devious rhetorical tactic increasingly being used in political campaigns. It also a way of dog whistling to conspiracy theorists.

The aim of this tactic is to try to discredit popular political figures by undermining their trustworthiness. The method is to keep asking questions that have already been answered by the political figure under attack. These answers have often been corroborated by independent evidence. The theory is that if such questions keep being asked, voters will come to think that they must have some substance. This in turn will raise doubts and suspicions in the minds of some voters.

A notorious example of this tactic was the ‘birther movement‘ in the USA, before and during President Obama’s term of office. Questions were continually raised as to whether Obama was actually born in Hawaii rather than Kenya as alleged. These questions persisted despite Obama’s pre-election release of his official Hawaiian birth certificate in 2008, confirmation by the Hawaii Department of Health based on the original documents, the April 2011 release of a certified copy of Obama’s original long-form birth certificate, and contemporaneous birth announcements published in Hawaii newspapers. As usual, conspiracy theorists dismissed this convincing evidence as being part of the alleged conspiracy.

Closer to home, questions have recently been asked during the Victorian state election campaign about two incidents involving the Premier, Daniel Andrews. These were a car accident about 10 years ago, and his fall on some wet steps at his holiday accommodation in Sorrento. Both incidents were independently investigated, and Andrews’ account was corroborated. Yet questions continue to be asked via tabloid media such as the Herald-Sun newspaper. One of the world’s leading experts on the amplification of conspiracies, University of Oregon Assistant Prof Whitney Phillips, says mainstream coverage like the Herald Sun’s presents a ‘huge turning point’ in helping to legitimise conspiracy theories.

Human accident fallacy

Some years ago, when I was working as a regulatory consultant to VicRoads, they asked me to use the term “road crash” rather than “road accident”. They pointed out that an accident is defined as an unintended event not directly caused by humans.

Vehicle collisions are not usually accidents; they are mostly caused by preventable behaviours such as drunk or careless driving, or intentionally driving too fast. Vehicle collisions invariably have a human cause, so the use of the term “accident” is misleading in this context.

The use of the word accident to describe car crashes was promoted by the US National Automobile Chamber of Commerce in the middle of the 20th century, as a way to make vehicle-related deaths and injuries seem like an unavoidable matter of fate, rather than a problem that could be addressed. The automobile industry accomplished this by writing customised articles as a free service for newspapers that used the industry’s preferred language. These articles were deliberately fallacious.

For this reason, the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has since 1994 asked media and the public not to use the word accident to describe vehicle collisions.  Similarly, the Australian National Road Safety Strategy 2021–30, endorsed by the responsible Federal and State Ministers, uses the term “road crash” rather than “road accident”. More widely, health and safety professionals generally prefer using the term “incident” in place of the term “accident”.

Confusingly, the common current meaning of the English word “accident” has almost nothing to do with Aristotle’s philosophical concept of the “fallacy of accident”, which was one of the thirteen fallacies that Aristotle discussed in his book On Sophistical Refutations. Aristotle’s accident fallacy is difficult to explain here, but doesn’t have anything to do with car crashes or people slipping on banana peels.

Can does not imply ought

‘Ought implies can’ is an ethical principle ascribed to the 18^th century philosopher Immanuel Kant which claims that if a person is morally obliged to perform a certain action, then logically that person must be able to perform it. It makes no sense to say that somebody ought to do something that it is impossible for them to do. As a corollary, a person cannot be held responsible for something outside their control.

On the other hand, the converse relationship ‘Can implies ought’ does not apply. Just because a person can do something, it does not logically follow that they ought to do it.

When the Australian Governor-General Sir John Kerr dismissed the Whitlam Government in 1975, a common argument in favour was that he had the power to do it. However, this was an irrelevant red herring – hardly anybody disputed the power of the Governor-General to dismiss the Prime Minister. What they did dispute was whether he ought to have done it.

To give another example, in most cases it is lawful to tell lies, and it is often possible to get away with lying. But that does not mean that lying is acceptable behaviour (except for ‘white lies’ to avoid hurting somebody’s feelings or to otherwise minimise harm).  

In terms of logic, this reverse relationship is a logical fallacy known as ‘Affirming the consequent’ (sometimes called the fallacy of the converse) which consists of invalidly inferring the converse from the original statement. This fallacy takes the following form:

Premise 1: If P, then Q.

Premise 2: Q.

Conclusion: Therefore, P. 

Applying this form to the current case:

Premise 1: If you ought to do something, then you can do it.

Premise 2: You can do it.

Conclusion: Therefore, you ought to do it.

I realise that this is not a very common fallacy, and pointing it out might just seem like common sense, but it does have relevance for critical thinking and logical argument.