Tamika Mallory Of Until Freedom Criticizes The California District Attorneys Association’s Request For The NFL To Pull Stephon Clark PSA – PRNewswire

Posted on by

NEW YORK, Aug. 5, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Until Freedom, a racial justice organization co-founded by leading activists Tamika Mallory, Linda Sarsour, hip-hop artist Mysonne Linen and civil rights attorney Angelo Pinto, today criticized the California District Attorneys Association's request for the NFL to pull its Stephon Clark PSA.

The league's Inspire Change platform initially released the educational PSA in late-July that shed light the 2018 murder of Sacramento's Stephon Clark in his grandmother's backyard. However, citing a "misrepresentation of facts," the California District Attorneys Association made the request on Aug. 4 to axe the Inspire Change public service announcement immediately.

Until Freedom is now pushing back on the CDAA's insensitive request.

"The CDAA has one set of facts, but our facts are clear Stephon Clark was unarmed, he was innocent and he was murdered in his grandmother's yard," said Mallory. "It's incredibly problematic and concerning for top law enforcers and officials to tell the NFL, Stephon's family and his community that police have the right to kill you for simply being suspected of a crime. The CDAA's statement is a perfect example of the huge conflict of interest when prosecuting cops and it lacks self-awareness. It is not the role of police officers to be the judge, jury and executioner."

Contact: Linda Sarsour: [emailprotected]

SOURCE Until Freedom

See the original post here:

Tamika Mallory Of Until Freedom Criticizes The California District Attorneys Association's Request For The NFL To Pull Stephon Clark PSA - PRNewswire

The never-ending struggle: blending freedom and justice, with a dash of compassion – MinnPost

Posted on by

I overheard them as they left the store: Requiring a mask is an attack on my freedom. It was fairly early in the pandemic, and it was my first curbside pick-up at the lumberyard. They walked by my car as I negotiated this new way of shopping. I was wearing a mask.

Immediately, I thought of my partner. For nearly 20 years, she was the faculty adviser for a campus Amnesty International student group. Amnesty International (AI) is the human rights organization supporting prisoners of conscience: people imprisoned for exercising their fundamental human rights.

There are many ways to think about freedom, but an international human rights perspective grounds your thoughts in the realities of freedoms denied. Members of Amnesty engage in the rituals of human rights work with the humblest of weapons: pen, paper, and emails.

Over many decades, with many friends, we have written thousands of letters and emails to different governments requesting respect for basic human rights. So many people in so many nations are denied fundamental freedoms and access to justice.

Article continues after advertisement

The Pledge of Allegiance has had its controversies in recent years, but freedom and justice for all is an important phrase to repeat to yourself. It should be the worlds mantra. But it is challenging to mix freedom and justice in a way that works for all citizens. That is a dilemma for democracy too much freedom eats away at justice, and too much justice eats away at freedom.

When Europe was divided by a wall, we saw incredible levels of freedom on one side of the wall and an eerie sense of justice on the other. It has not been easy for Europe since that wall came down, and there are now worrisome trends from England to Poland.

Democratic processes that endure are hard to create and maintain. Making them work requires constant work and involvement. Democracies do not tolerate idleness or short attention spans. The hard work of successfully blending freedom and justice greets a democracy every morning. That is why history provides so few examples. Historically, some of the cultures that developed and celebrated democratic principles were slave-based economies. Think Thomas Jefferson.

It appears this century provides a new context for exploring these problematic issues. What does it mean to be free? How do we pursue just resolutions in a messy world? What is democracy in the 21st century?

Democratic processes are dependent upon this elusive blend of freedom and justice. When democratic processes emerge, they fumble and swing from one extreme to another freedom impinging on justice, justice impinging on freedom. In a sense, every democracy carries the seeds of an ongoing civil war.

Separating a democracy into two camps is a formula for disaster. Imagine, for a moment, that you are making a quick, simple salad dressing. You pour a good measure of vinegar into a jar. Then you add a slightly larger amount of oil. Left alone, they separate into two distinct layers. To become a successful dressing for your salad, you must put a lid on the jar and shake vigorously to blend the two.

Democracy is the vigorous shaking that prevents these two principles from separating and following their separate paths. Democracy is the daily process of blending freedom and justice within our lives and the lives of those we encounter.

Put differently: Democracy is the constant work of keeping freedom and justice on the same path.

That is why my partner and I brought together interested students to discuss human rights issues for nearly 20 years. We were shaking the jar.

Article continues after advertisement

For many young people, the simple fact that democratic processes are dependent upon such an elusive blend and balance of values and responsibilities is a revelation. Consumer societies tend to create people who sit and watch rather than people who stand and do. Consumerism creates a world of simple, well-defined transactions rather than a world of listening and then formulating well-reasoned responses and ongoing interactions.

Democracy is hard work.

But there is a necessary third ingredient. Everyone who makes salad dressing from scratch knows our vinegar and oil mix needs one more component. After pouring together the vinegar and oil, add a small amount of water. Then vigorously shake the jar. That little bit of water helps the vinegar and oil blend while slightly muting the vinegar.

Keith Luebke

Compassion is at the heart of Eastern religions and philosophies. As the rift between East and West widens, a conversation about the role compassion plays in creating the sort of democracies we envision might be useful: consider the Easts thoughts about compassion and the Wests focus on balancing freedom and justice. Then consider how often we fail to live up to our aspirations East and West.

The world is in desperate need of conversations that rise above those that came before. Every past conversation matters, but we need new ones.

Rather than getting angry with the people who wont wear masks, maybe we should talk to them. Try to engage with them, not necessarily about not wearing a mask. Ask them if they are stressed or angry. Find the source of their unwillingness to wear a mask. Put yourself in their shoes. Demonstrate compassion. Then ask them to please wear a mask.

Scolding will get us nowhere.

Their souls are simply leaning too far into a perception of freedom inconsistent with our perceptions of justice and community. Be gentle. At some point, they may need to remind some of us that we are leaning too far towards justice. Remember this delicate balancing act and remember the frailty inherent to democratic processes.

Article continues after advertisement

If we start a conversation, there might be an opportunity to remind our mask-less friends of those who need and deserve fundamental freedoms. Those unjustly imprisoned, confined, and tortured should never be left to fend for themselves. Carry them into your thoughts, actions, and discussions. Their lives remind us that people can be picked up, thrown into a dark van, and tossed into a cell for no reason. Could that ever happen in your community?

The basis of our efforts should always start from this point: the never-ending struggle of communities to blend freedom and justice with a dash of compassion.

Keep shaking things up. Mix these vital conversations and thoughts into your daily life.

But in the short term: Please wear a mask, and converse with your fellow citizens while 6 feet apart.

KeithLuebkerecently retired from teaching nonprofit leadership courses and has several decades of experience directing nonprofit organizations.

WANT TO ADD YOUR VOICE?

If youre interested in joining the discussion, add your voice to the Comment section below or consider writinga letteror a longer-formCommunity Voicescommentary. (For more information about Community Voices, see ourSubmission Guidelines.)

Continue reading here:

The never-ending struggle: blending freedom and justice, with a dash of compassion - MinnPost

Freedom in THE SON! – Blogs – The Hutchinson News

Posted on by

August 06, 2020: SOAP #3899: Habakkuk 1-3; John 8 Scripture: John (NIV) 8:33 They answered him, We are Abraham's descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free? 34 Jesus replied, I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35 Now []

August 06, 2020: SOAP #3899: Habakkuk 1-3; John 8

Scripture: John (NIV) 8:33 They answered him, We are Abraham's descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free? 34 Jesus replied, I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36 So if THE SON sets you free, you will be free indeed.

Observation: Sin is a severe task master. It draws a person into its web and turns them into a slave. And they sin again, and again, and again.

Oh, but the verses above tells us that there is a weakness. The slave has no permanent place in the family!!! That means there is a way for a slave to be broken away. Sin is powerful, but not all powerful! Being a slave does not have to be permanent! There is freedom in THE SON!!!

Application: There is not only freedom in THE SON, there is sustaining freedom.If anyone who sins is a slave, then a son is free from the slavery of sin. If the son has a permanent place in the family, then THE SON has the power to keep this son from sinning. I must walk with Him and talk with Him every day and all day long. His thoughts into my mind are not interruptions; they are welcomed input!

Prayer: Holy Spirit, Jesus has set me free from sin. Your presence helps me to daily live free from sin. Especially when I receive the communion elements, and at many other times, remind me of the terrible price Jesus paid for my freedom. May I hate sin for what it did to the Father. May I hate sin for what it did to Jesus. May I hate sin for what it does to your churchand to me. Amen

Pastor LeonMaking friends for time and eternity!

Read this article:

Freedom in THE SON! - Blogs - The Hutchinson News

Pardon our noise, it’s the sound of freedom: Jaded Thunder returns – Salina Post

Posted on by

Photo courtesy Salina Airport Authority

More than 800 military personnel are set to converge on Salina and the surrounding area for the next several weeks to participate in the joint-service exercise, Jaded Thunder.

The exercise will include joint corps integration by members of Air Force, Marine Corps, Navy and Army units, as well as representatives of the U.S. Special Operations Command, according to information from the Salina Airport Authority.

The training provided during Jaded Thunder is essential for national defense.

All participants will comply with detailed COVID-19 mitigation measures. Exercise participants will maximize social distancing and wear face masks. Facilities will be sanitized daily.

The Salina Regional Airport's close proximity to the Smoky Hill Weapons Range is key for this type of training.Operating from the Salina Airport, military units get realistic and efficient training.The less time pilots spend in the air getting to the training venue, the more time, and fuel, they can spend over the range training with personnel on the ground.The availability of the Smoky Hill Weapons Range, coupled with a supportive community, make the Salina Airport a preferred location for military training.

Salina residents shouldn't worry if they hear any loud noise coming from the weapons range. The military will be using training ordnance during the exercise. The airports FAA air traffic control tower will work with all military aircraft to maintain safe operations in the skies over Salina.

See the article here:

Pardon our noise, it's the sound of freedom: Jaded Thunder returns - Salina Post

‘It’s the freedom of it’: Bikers rally in Stateline ahead of Sturgis, unconcerned about virus – The Spokesman-Review

Posted on by

Justin Veo hasnt missed the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally in South Dakota in five years, and hes not planning to start now.

Veo, owner of Cruisers Bar and Grill in Stateline, Idaho, will head out for the 12-hour drive on Wednesday and camp at the event for a week to 10 days.

While he wont be deterred by the pandemic that has shut down large gatherings across the country, its not clear how many of his fellow motorcycle enthusiasts will join him.

Sturgis city planners had high hopes for this years music festival and motorcycle rally. For the festivals 80th anniversary , they aimed to draw more than the 490,000 people who attended in 2019. But those ambitions may be foiled as COVID-19 continues its spread .

On Saturday, Veo was hosting Cruisers annual Road to Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, complete with games.

It was a quiet affair during the afternoon, but it was set to go until 11 p.m., with live music, and more people were expected.

The biker bar is a main attraction in Stateline, which had a population of 49 in 2018 and sits across the road from Post Falls. Business has been good since the bar was able to reopen after a statewide shutdowns, Veo said, though more people watch music from outside now.

Maybe bikers shared sense of freedom has prevented a business bust.

Andi Jones has been coming to Cruisers for 15 years, and she said biker culture is all about freedom and family. She and her husband Jonah Jones are about as regular as it gets, and they come in two to four times a week.

All of us are regulars down here, Jones said. Were all family. If you need help, all you gotta do is pick up the phone.

Official sound guy Eric Klages said people lovingly refer to the bar as a barn. A large garage with both ends open, Keo said people dont worry about wearing masks because everything is outdoors and open.

During Saturdays rally, the games were mostly played while riding. In one, participants rode through a painted track sandwiched between the stage and bar, Veo said. In another, known as the egg roll, riders drove tried to drop an egg in a tube while driving past . The slow ride is a backwards race to see who can drive through the garage the slowest without putting their feet on the ground.

Misconceptions about bikers would tell you theyre all rough and tumble, Veo said, but the culture has changed.

Jones described the community as open to everyone. In fact, he said, people dont need a bike to be welcomed at the bar. Though shes garnered a collection of tattoos that mostly connect to her Native heritage as a registered Pomo tribal member her first tattoo is 45 years old she said people dont need tattoos to be accepted either.

What wont work is being superficial, Jones said. People who come in with all new leathers dont know what its all about, she said. Its about noticing beauty other people overlook. Shes been on a million roadtrips, and the difference on a bike is how it feels, she said.

Veo agreed.

That freedom, that adventure, youre in the wind, Veo said. You can smell things, you can hear things, you can feel temperature differences. Its a lot bigger experience.

So coronavirus wont slow the group down. One of the nights planned activities will involve a lime green, alien-looking pinata that has an expletive scrawled in front of COVID in Sharpie. Veo said he appreciates Idahos different approach from Washington in not mandating masks.

With six feet of distance and hand sanitizer around the bar, he said precautions are enough that he isnt worried.

The thing to remember, he said, is that Cruisers is more than a bar. Its a community, and some ideas people have about bikers are was off base.

Jones said she wont be hitting Sturgis this year because its gotten too commercial for her taste and Ill be damned if I wait an hour and half for an $8 beer.

But she came to Cruisers on Saturday for the reason she always comes out: because she appreciates the brotherhood.

Its the freedom of it, Jones said. You get to see beautiful things people dont take time to see in a car.

Continue reading here:

'It's the freedom of it': Bikers rally in Stateline ahead of Sturgis, unconcerned about virus - The Spokesman-Review

Introduction to the Freedom of Information Act | News, Sports, Jobs – Daily Mining Gazette

Posted on by

Spend a little time reading in-depth news articles and sooner or later youll come across some mention of the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, and requests made through it. FOIA is the name of the federal law, and is used as a shorthand term for similar laws in each state, too. Its the way that journalists, citizens, and sometimes even government employees themselves get documents, data and other information released to the public. The idea is relatively new in history, and many freedom of information laws were only passed in the 20th century. They first started in 18th-century Sweden, with the enactment of their Freedom of the Press Act. It stated that information, including documents created or accepted by a government or public authority, must be available to the public and provided upon request. The United States first passed a freedom of information law in 1966, but it wasnt really enforceable or useful until after the Watergate scandal, when more provisions were added. Like Swedens law, the U.S. and each of its states have important exemptions to what can be requested by the public. Private information about an individual, for instance, is not to be released except to that individual. Military and intelligence information, as well as information relating to foreign relations, is also usually exempt from FOIA requests. A complete list of the nine major federal exemptions, as well as other information, is available on the internet at foia.gov/faq.html. Freedom of information was and is seen as an imperative to a society capable of self-governance, or any government responsible to its people. Democracy requires an informed voter base. FOIA laws are a complement to laws concerning court and legislative records, and the Open Meetings Act. These laws together guarantee an individuals access to government records and information. After all, we fund it through our taxes. However, while FOIA requests are powerful tools, there are also many shortcomings and difficulties for members of the public seeking information. The first thing to remember is that FOIA doesnt require a government to create a document or file that doesnt already exist. If you ask for information about how many rubber ducks are sold in the U.P., dont expect an answer, because the government doesnt track that. If you request old documents that havent been digitized or statistics not in a digital spreadsheet, prepare to receive a massive copied file, or unorganized PDF, and have your credit card handy(governments and agencies can, and often do, charge for the labor and copying necessary to fulfill a FOIA request). Further complicating FOIA requests is the inconsistent application of the laws across federal, state and local levels. Requests can be delayed, ignored or slow-walked to frustrate requestors. Some agencies employ creative exemptions to deny otherwise valid requests. Excessive fees can be requested in return for the information. There are ways to appeal these decisions in Michigan, but some states have confusing or non-binding appeals processes for denied FOIA requests, and others have no appeal process at all. Luckily, for those not lucky enough to have learned how to file a FOIA request in college, there are helpful tools. Over the next few installments of Journo Field Training, well look at the why and how of filing a FOIA request, either independently or with the help of the website MuckRock.com.

MuckRock, founded in 2010, has helped individuals file more than 80,000 requests in all 50 states and with the federal government. They have the experience and tools to help even the most novice of public records requesters get started with their freedom of information project. With their help, well review what information might be request-able, writing a request, and following through on getting the information. Making a FOIA request without a computer or the internet is still possible, but it is more difficult. Well be sure to cover non-digital options for filing a request as well.

Joshua Vissers holds a B.A. in multimedia journalism and is associate editor at the Daily Mining Gazette. Send questions to jvissers@mininggazette.com.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Continue reading here:

Introduction to the Freedom of Information Act | News, Sports, Jobs - Daily Mining Gazette

Australia has a problem with freedom of speech – The Big Smoke Australia

Posted on by

Current attitudes are evidence of Australias historically sour relationship with the right to freedom of speech. It is high time this relationship was mended.

As seems to be the case on a daily basis, contrarian views in Australian public debate receive such considerable outrage in response that claims to freedom of speech generate a collective roll-of-the-eyes, if not outright contempt. Views considered to be offensive are somehow beyond the right of free expression and are thus promptly struck down in the court of public consensus.

Sometimes, they are even struck down in real courts. The somewhat overused but nonetheless salient example of this was the Andrew Bolt case, pursued under Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act for a series of articles in which Bolt made claims about widespread indigenous opportunism in the seeking of positions of privilege. As bizarre and ill-conceived as the articles were, their contents should have been no matter for the state.

I can picture readily the vexation of many readers at the mere mention of his name. Other causes of such public irritation include the reverberations of the Hanson camp and remarks on immigration from TV host Sonia Kruger. (and, inevitably, Israel Folau Ed). Their right to speak is challenged on the grounds that their views are divisive or unacceptable and, well, because like your parents always made you remember: if you dont have anything nice to say, dont say anything at all.

Even if one does not agree with the views of commentators and public figures, one is nonetheless obliged to offer a throat-clearing before speaking at all. This is precisely because of the incredibly trigger-happy nature of the opposition to freedom of expression in Australia.

Over twenty years ago, across the Pacific but in a remarkably similar context, Christopher Hitchens defined this controlling attitude as the politics of the permissible. Out of this attitude comes the curious assertion that freedom of speech somehow does not exist in Australia because the state has not enshrined such a right into law. Ironically enough, this is from the same people who look to the International Declaration of Human Rights when laying claim over other topics about which they are so passionate.

But such astounding opposition to the free exchange of ideas in Australia has not always prevailed.

At the close of the 1950s, and for some time after, a group of students gathered nightly at the Royal George Hotel in Sydney with the intent of having rows for, well, their own sake. Known as the Sydney Push, the topics for exchange were broad but invariably political. The late Robert Hughes described the Push as a sceptical, anarchist, free-thinking, free-loving bunch of students with whom he often shared a stiff drink and stimulating cigarette. Its members were, among others, Germaine Greer, Clive James, Les Murray, Eva Cox, and Hughes himself.

The values espoused by these rabble-rousing students all those years ago still matter as much today as they ever have. Why? In short: in the margins of its history, Australia has a small but valuable tradition (popularised by those students and their beloved University of Sydney philosopher, John Anderson) that recognises the necessity of free speech in the checking-and-balancing of power and in elevating the quality of public discourse. Unfortunately, this tradition is seldom acknowledged and respected even less.

It would be nice to be optimistic about the state of this tradition, but the facts must be faced. Despite its emergence as a leading liberal democracy, Australia has not had a warm relationship with the notion of rights, and freedom of speech is no exception. The attempt to pass a United States-inspired Bill of Rights at the 1898 Constitutional Convention, just three years before our Federation, remains but a footnote in history. Indeed, every attempt to pass such a bill has failed, always emerging from the political margins with little support. Closer to our time, former Prime Minister John Howard repudiated any attempt to bring forth a referendum on a Bill of Rights for the Constitution and added further restrictions to speech by expanding sedition laws in 2005 (Inside Australias Anti-Terrorism Laws and TrialsAndrew LynchwithNicola McGarrity and George Williams, Sydney: Newsouth Publishing, 2015, p3).

Howards peculiarly illiberal approach to freedom of speech is no doubt an irony that divides his cherished party. Some have tried to advance policy in the other direction. With Attorney-General George Brandis alongside him, former Prime Minister Tony Abbott attempted to water-down the Racial Discrimination Act for the purpose of protecting free speech rights. As expected, their amendment was defeated very quickly in part, due to an effective no-rights-for-bigotry campaign by Bill Shorten.

But as divisive as they may be, even the most extreme opinions have a right to be expressed. This means that yes, bigoted opinions can be voiced; it is the humble task of the rest of us to counter such views in open debate. As German revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg wrote in 1917, freedom of speech is meaningless unless it means freedom for the one who thinks differently.

It is high time for freedom of expression to be given its rightful place in Australian public discourse. The consequences can indeed be offensive, but that is a necessary part of the democratic process. There is much to take from the tradition that supports this principle, and we would do well to apply its lessons.

As Hitchens remarked, It is not enough to have free speech. People must learn to speak freely.

See the rest here:

Australia has a problem with freedom of speech - The Big Smoke Australia

Politics at work: Even if you can, its a bad idea – Federal News Network

Posted on by

The Federal District Court made the right decision in tossing a lawsuit by the American Federation of Government Employees. As our Nicole Ogrysko reported, the suit was against the Office of Special Counsel.

The AFGEs beef was over guidance OSC handed out two years ago, saying that in-the-office displays of #resist code for oppose President Trump categorically or in-the-office advocating for (or against) impeachment could be construed as a violation of the Hatch Act. AFGE and its suing partners contend this was a violation of their Constitutional free speech rights.

The court gave several reasons for dismissing the suit. In essence it said nothing had happened to merit a lawsuit OCSs advisory-only opinion didnt cause any federal employee to actually get muzzled at work. The court decided that the free-speech claim wasnt ripe for review.

In my interview earlier this week with Special Counsel Henry Kerner, he pointed out that the Hatch Act doesnt bar all political speech, but rather only applies to talking, button-wearing, sign-displaying and money-seeking activities aimed at the success or failure of a candidate for a political office.

Maybe AFGE thought Trump was not a candidate barely halfway through his term. Since Calvin Coolidge, what president hasnot sought a second term?

The OSC guidance stands but, as the court noted, its only guidance anyhow.

Theres a bigger issue, though. Even if ranting for or against impeachment does not violate the Hatch Act, why do people want to drag their politics into the office in the first place? What about good taste and a bit of reticence that keeps relations among colleagues cordial and businesslike?

Most businesses nowadays and many government agencies have rules about speech and behavior that can cause disharmony or insult others. Its easy enough for the most benignly intentioned person to run afoul of what constitutes offensive speech in a society where everyone, it seems, is looking for ways to be victimized by offense, real or imagined. Many organizations caution about even mundane things. Tell a woman she looks great in that dress, or a man in those trousers, and you could get hauled into HR.

References to third parties, such as people of another race or gender, if offensive to one of the people actually in the conversation, can get the offender in trouble. Many years ago I had a boss a highly competent executive in charge of a profitable division advise me: Be careful about hiring young women, Tommy. They get pregnant and leave. Even in 1986 I thought, Did he really say that? Can you imagine that today?

Nastiness in todays politics has a sort of grandeur. Its infecting every part of life, if we let it. It wasnt always that way. In 1968 my mother worked in a small manufacturers rep office. The other six or so employees favored Richard Nixon. My mother preferred Hubert Humphrey. The day after the election, I recall her remarking about how gracious they all were that her candidate had lost. No one gloated. Or promised to burn down the other side.

Today leaders from clergy to business executives have had to caution against the corrosive effects of shouting about politics in their settings. For a federal office, such speech may not violate the Hatch Act, but that doesnt make it a good idea. Yes, President Trump certainly engenders strong feelings. All the more reason for maintaining of the great unwritten rules for office and bar settings: No religion, sex or politics.

The simple fact is that employers, including federal agencies, have the right to regulate speech within their walls when people are on the clock. Federal employees are otherwise free to attend rallies or protests, do this or that (except fundraising) on behalf of a candidate or cause (but not in their official capacity), or ruin any cookout they want with beer-induced political ranting.

Kerner put it this way. Just because the Hatch Act isnt violated agencies have policies on political expression and other things. Federal workers are expected to work for all taxpayers, and to keep politics largely out of the workplace. Wherever we work, were expected to do what were paid to do and not, as Kerner put it, bicker over our political views.

ByDavid Thornton

People who suffer from boanthropy believe themselves to be a cow or an ox.

Source: Wikipedia

View original post here:

Politics at work: Even if you can, its a bad idea - Federal News Network

Afraid to speak your mind? Maybe we’re not as ‘free’ as we think | TheHill – The Hill

Posted on by

It is accepted wisdom that we live in a free country. Every kid in grade school learns that. We have a free, if flawed, press. Even with the virus, were pretty much free to assemble; peaceful protest is legal. We can worship if we want, or we dont have to if we dont want. And, of course, we have the right to vote.

So, why would anyone even seriously question whether we live in a free country?

Because, in reality, were not nearly as free as wed like to think.

Just because we still have free-speech rights doesnt mean we feel free to exercise those rights, to say whats on our minds. What if were afraid to voice our opinions? Are we still free then?

Which brings us to a new study by the Cato Institute.

Lets start with this about how a majority of Americans are so afraid of what could happen to them if they express an unpopular opinion. Nearly two out of every three Americans (62 percent) say the political climate these days prevents them from saying things they believe because theyre worried that others might find their opinions offensive.

Right from the moment we won the revolution and sent the British packing, weve liked to think of ourselves as a courageous, tough people. Fear was not part of who we were. Yet now, two out of three of us are afraid to say whats on our minds, not because a dictator might lock us up but because someones feelings might be hurt. Welcome to America 2020.

Cato says this fear crosses party lines: 52 percent of Democrats have opinions theyre afraid to share, 59 percent of independents feel that way, and so do a staggering 77 percent of Republicans. And what might happen, they fear, is that if they say the wrong thing, they might get fired and lose their livelihoods; Cato found that one in three Americans (32 percent) who work say theyre worried about missing out on career opportunities, or losing their jobs, if their political opinions became known.

Given the political climate these days, Americans may have good reason to be afraid. But whatever this is, its not tough and its not courageous; its not who we like to think we are.

Here are some other numbers that should worry all of us:

Thirty-six percent of Americans who identify as strong conservatives think its okay to fire an executive for donating his or her own money to Joe BidenJoe BidenBiden says his faith is 'bedrock foundation of my life' after Trump claim Biden clarifies comments comparing African American and Latino communities Kanye West may have missed deadline to get on Wisconsin ballot by minutes: report MOREs presidential campaign. Self-described strong conservatives the very people railing against the cancel culture think its okay to fire an executive simply for donating personal money to Bidens campaign.

If you think thats bad and it is consider this: 50 percent of those who identify as strong liberals say its okay to fire executives who personally donate money to President TrumpDonald John TrumpBiden says his faith is 'bedrock foundation of my life' after Trump claim Coronavirus talks on life support as parties dig in, pass blame Ohio governor tests negative in second coronavirus test MOREs reelection campaign.

Taking these results together indicates that a significant majority of Americans with diverse political views and backgrounds self-censor their political opinions, according to Cato. This large number from across demographic groups suggests withheld opinions may not simply be radical or fringe perspectives in the process of being socially marginalized. Instead, many of these opinions may be shared by a large number of people. Opinions so widely shared are likely shaping how people think about salient policy issues and ultimately impacting how they vote. But if people feel they cannot discuss these important policy matters, such views will not have an opportunity to be scrutinized, understood, or reformed.

This is the America we live in.

As a correspondent for CBS News for many years, I traveled to many countries, including authoritarian countries such as China and the old Soviet Union. As a general rule, people in places like that arent likely to share their opinions. There are consequences for holding the wrong opinions; you can get into serious trouble if you have unacceptable ideas.

No, Im not suggesting that the United States is like China or the old Soviet Union, where having an unpopular opinion might get you a train ride to a re-education camp or a jail cell in the gulag. But I am suggesting the obvious: People in a free country shouldnt be afraid to say whats on their minds.

But it looks like a majority of us are.

The government hasnt taken steps to curtail free speech. Not yet, anyway. And there may not be a need to do so: A majority of Americans are censoring themselves.

Bernard Goldberg, an Emmy and an Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University award-winning writer and journalist, is a correspondent with HBOs Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel. He previously worked as a reporter for CBS News and as an analyst for Fox News. He is the author of five books and publishes exclusive weekly columns, audio commentaries and Q&As on his Patreon page. Follow him on Twitter @BernardGoldberg.

View post:

Afraid to speak your mind? Maybe we're not as 'free' as we think | TheHill - The Hill

The rise of nationalism has led to increased oppression of minorities around the world but the Uighur and Kashmir are reported very differently – The…

Posted on by

We live in an era of resurgent nationalism. From Scotland to Sri Lanka, from China to Brazil, governments rely on nationalism as a source of communal identity and a vehicle for common action.

In countries where religious identity appears to dominate, as with Islam in Turkey and Hinduism in India, religion has bonded with nationalism. In nominally Communist countries like China and Vietnam, it is likewise nationalism that adds to governments legitimacy and political muscle.

This nationalist upsurge the world over is bad news for ethnic and sectarian minorities. Everywhere they are facing greater oppression and less autonomy from national governments maximising their power. At best they face marginalisation and at worst elimination. This is true for the Uighur in Xinjiang province in China, the Muslims population of India-controlled Kashmir, the Shia majority in Sunni-ruled Bahrain and the long persecuted Kurdish minority in Turkey, to name but four.

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

All these communities are coming under crushing pressure to surrender to the political and cultural control of the national state. The same brutal methods are used everywhere: mass incarceration, disappearances, torture, the elimination of political parties and independent media representing the persecuted community. Any opposition, however peaceful, is conflated with "terrorism" and suppressed with draconian punishments.

The degree of mistreatment of these embattled communities varies with the balance of power between them and the central government. There is little the Bahrain Shia, though a majority of the population, can do to defend themselves, but the 182 million Muslims in India cannot be dealt with so summarily.

Even so, they are in danger of progressively losing their civil rights and residency through the Citizenship Amendment Act and the proposed National Register of Citizens. The Turkish Kurds are well organised but their political leaders are in jail and Turkey leads the world in the number of journalists, many of them Kurds, whom it has imprisoned.

What makes these countries different is partly the political strength of the persecuted community, but above all the degree of international support they can attract. This in turn depends less on the cruelties they endure than on their ability to plug into the self-interested rivalries of the great powers. Related to this is the ability to attract the sustained attention and sympathy of the (usually Western) international media.

The Uighur deserve all the sympathy and attention they can get, but it would be nave to imagine that the sudden interest of the West in their fate over the last year has much to do with the undoubted justice of their cause. President Xi Jinping has been chosen as the new demon king in the eyes of the US and its allies, his every action fresh evidence of the fiendish evil of the Chinese state.

There is no reason to suppose that any of the films of Uighur prisoners manacled hand and foot are untrue or that a million Uighurs are not the targets of brainwashing in giant concentration camps. But the manipulation of public opinion has always relied less on mendacity, the manufacturing of false facts and more on selectivity, on broadcasting the crimes of ones opponents and keeping very quiet about similar acts of oppression by oneself and ones allies.

What is striking over the last year is the disparity between the international attention given to the fate of the eleven million Uighurs in the Autonomous Uighur Region in Xingjian and the thirteen million people in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir.

The situations in Kashmir and Xinjiang are comparable in some ways. On 5 August last year, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modis government stripped Kashmir - Indias only Muslim-majority state - of its special rights and split it into two federally administered territories. He claimed that the aim was the economic regeneration of Kashmir, but the prolonged curfews enforced by a heavily reinforced Indian military presence has ruined local economic life.

These lockdowns and the almost complete close down of the internet, is far more severe than anything resulting from the coronavirus epidemic, and have reduced Kashmiris to colonial servitude. This has been compounded, says Amnesty International, by a censored media, continuing detention of political leaders, arbitrary restrictions due to the pandemic with little to no redress.

The anniversary of the end to Kashmirs autonomy was marked this month by even tighter restrictions. Local political leaders were jailed or were forbidden to leave their houses. One year later the authorities are still too afraid to allow us to meet, much less carry out any normal political activity, said the former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Omar Abdullah, on Twitter. But worse things than jail and house arrest happen at the hands of the Indian authorities. Since 1990 between 8,000 and 10,000 Kashmiris have disappeared according to the Association of the Parents of the Disappeared, a movement modelled on that of the Argentinian mothers whose children had vanished, mostly tortured to death or executed, by the military dictatorship.

Kashmir is only the apogee of the mounting persecution of almost 200 million Indian Muslims under Modis Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government. The willingness of the government to double-down on humiliating the Muslims was exemplified this week when Modi laid the foundation stone for a Hindu temple to replace the sixteenth century mosque that was destroyed by right-wing Hindu mobs in 1992. Some 2,000 people were killed in the rioting that followed the mosques destruction.

Powerful governments tend to underestimate the amount of trouble that small minorities can cause them, despite an immense disparity in the balance of power between the central state and the minority in question. Look at the trouble a small ethnicity like the Uighurs have caused Beijing. Foreign powers may be exploiting their grievances for their own purposes, but those grievances are real. Look at the trouble a century ago that the Irish and the Boers caused the British Empire at the height of its power. Then as now, the very puniness of the opposition of small communities tempted seemingly all-powerful regimes to reject conciliation in the belief that they have no need to compromise. They do not understand why their overwhelming political and military power does not make them the easy winner.

Kashmir is a classic example of this syndrome. By ending the states autonomy, Modi said he would bring an end to the "Kashmir problem." In fact, he predictably made it worse and it is not going away.

The West has been prepared to back Modi unconditionally because it hopes India will be a counterbalance to China. They are the only states in the world with populations over one billion. But the states backing the BJP Hindu nationalist government have not taken on board what an extraordinarily dangerous game they and Modi are playing: seeking total victory over Kashmir though it is backed by neighbouring nuclear-armed Pakistan.

Attempting to marginalise Indian Muslims so numerous that. if they formed a separate country, it would be the eighth largest in the world is not possible without extreme violence.

The riots in Delhi in February were a taste of this. Ignoring this potential for disaster is like officials in Beirut who were blind to the danger of storing thousands of tons of explosives in the heart of the city.

See the original post:

The rise of nationalism has led to increased oppression of minorities around the world but the Uighur and Kashmir are reported very differently - The...

Sudan Armys Plan Is to Return to ‘Dark Days,’ Journalists Say – Voice of America

Posted on by

Plans by Sudans army to file legal complaints against journalists for cyber libel and insulting the armed forces have echoes of the intimidation tactics used under the rule of ousted President Omar al-Bashir, local reporters say.

In a statement last month, the armed forces said a cybercrime military commissioner had been appointed. The commissioner, working under the military prosecutor, will monitor and document insults against the army, and any violations will result in criminal complaints brought against journalists in Sudan or outside its borders.

The army said the measure was needed because of systemic attacks and accusations against the Sudanese military.

The military is part of Sudans transitional government. A Sovereign Council, made up of six civilians and five military members, was set up to help the country return to civilian rule following the ouster of Bashir last year after mass protests.

It looks like the government is following the same path that the previous regime had followed, of stifling press freedom and silencing their critics, Ravi Prasad, advocacy director at the media network International Press Institute, told VOA. The army seems to be very, very sensitive to any kind of criticism, and the new law theyre trying to bring in would completely stifle press freedom in the country.

Aside from the army statement, the Ministry of Justice on July 10 announced several legal amendments including more severe penalties under the cybercrime law to protect privacy and prevent the spread of rumors and harmful information.

The Sudanese Embassy in Washington said it would provide comment but did not respond to VOAs follow-up calls.

Government should 'mend their ways'

Prasad said the army statement and cybercrime law were vaguely worded and open to interpretation, including on what constitutes insult or false news.

It is the right of journalists to report, and journalists speak truth to power. If the government of Sudan is sensitive to criticism, they should try to mend their ways rather than try to arrest journalists and stifle their voices, he said. Appointing a military commissioner to deal with media freedom is something that is unheard of.

Khartoum-based freelancer Dawood Abdulziz said the moves harkened to Bashirs rule, when authorities routinely cracked down on media freedom. Newspapers were confiscated before or after publication, publishing houses were shut down, and journalists and activists were arrested and harassed on criminal charges or for alleged offenses under the news-and-publication law.

Now we are going back to the Omar al-Bashir era, that dictatorship time, that crazy time, Abdulziz said. The former regime used the same language to target us, and now the same thing is happening. The army is now talking about spreading false news. This is just a trick to use the Newspaper Act and Crimes Against the State.

Publishing false news or knowingly causing public panic or disrespecting the state carries up to a six-month prison term or fine. Violating the Crimes Against the State measure which can refer to undermining the constitutional order or instigating war carries more severe penalties. In extreme cases it can lead to a life sentence or death penalty.

Sudans press freedom ranking improved after Bashirs removal, moving 16 places to 159 out of 180 countries, where 1 is the most free, in Reporters Without Borders 2020 Press Freedom Index. Bashirs ouster in a popular uprising in 2019 ended three decades of dictatorship during which Sudan was one of the worlds most hostile terrains for journalists, the media watchdog said.

'Bad signals'

The countrys journalists say these gains could be lost at a vital time for freedom of expression.

This new amendment is going to put press freedom back in the dark days and will not allow journalists to even criticize the military institution or the army, Mohamed Ali Fazari, chief editor at the English-language news website Khartoum Today, told VOA.

This is one of the bad signals of the Sudanese civilian government, which people think [under it] a new era of democracy and press freedom will take place.

Salma Sleiman, a Khartoum-based activist originally from Darfur, added that the army should not be telling activists what they can and cannot say.

The country is in a phase of revolution, so you cannot tell me not to insult the army," Sleiman said. "Besides that, there is the issue of freedom of speech which is no excuse for insults but at the same time the military institution is not benefiting the people and is implicated in violations of our human rights.

Reporters Without Borders, in its annual report, noted Sudan was at a critical time, with the promise of greater press freedom and access to the internet, despite repressive laws still on the books.

"A free and independent press culture needs support, protection and training if it is to take hold after 30 years of oppression that entrenched self-censorship in most newsrooms, RSF said.

This article originated in VOAs English to Africa Division.

Continued here:

Sudan Armys Plan Is to Return to 'Dark Days,' Journalists Say - Voice of America

Protest songs capture the times, from Black Lives Matter to civil rights and anti-war movements – The San Diego Union-Tribune

Posted on by

Get up, stand up, sing out!

A great protest song may not help change the world in the same way the civil rights and anti-war movements did a half century ago, or the way the Black Lives Matters movement has this year. But a great protest song can unify and provide inspiration for people seeking a better world by serving as a vital soundtrack for actions large and small, personal and universal designed to promote positive change.

Such songs can be rousing or soothing, provocative or contemplative, strident or understated. They can question the status quo or rail against it, offer a moment for reflection and renewal, or do both simultaneously.

They can be rallying cries against social and racial injustice, or a source of comfort during times of stress, uncertainty and upheaval. And they can endure for decades, whether as inextricable signposts of the causes they mirrored and amplified, or simply as stirring music that stands on its own.

This holds true whether the song comes from Bob Dylan (1964s"The Times They Are A-Changin ) or Bob Marley (1973s Get Up, Stand Up), Creedence Clearwater Revival (1969s Fortunate Son) or Public Enemy (1989s Fight the Power), Billie Holiday (1939s Strange Fruit) or Janelle Mone (2015s Hell You Talmbout).

Mones galvanizing song features the chanted names of Black Americans who died at the hands of the police and vigilantes, or while in custody.

The victims include Michael Brown, Sandra Bland, Trayvon Martin, Freddie Gray, Eric Garner and more. The recitation of each is punctuated the phrase say his name or say her name, both of which are frequently heard today at Black Lives Matter marches. Sadly, that list of names has grown even larger with this years tragic deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery and others whose names have become synonymous with police violence and vigilantism.

Rapper Trey Songz, left, country-music singer Mickey Guyton, center, and neo-soul singer Leon Bridges, right, are among the growing number of artists who have made songs in response to the killings of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor.

(Associated Press)

The visceral power of Hell You Talmbout inspired Rock & Roll Hall of Famer David Byrne, the co-founder of the band Talking Heads, to perform Mones song as the encore at each concert on his 2018 American Utopia concert tour, which last year was transformed into a hit Broadway production, David Byrnes American Utopia.

Its an incredible song, said Byrne, speaking in late July from his New York home. When I first heard Hell You Talmbout, I really liked that (it) is a protest song that is not lecturing the listener in a very straightforward way. The song is not telling them exactly what to think. Its just saying: These are lives that have been taken from us. Dont forget them.

Of course, there is a political message people have been taken from us that is very moving and really works. I like protest songs that are not obvious and not preachy. Theres a new song by (Grammy Award-winning former San Diego singer-songwriter) Gregory Porter called Mr. Holland, that I think is beautiful and subtle. I really like people who do songs that engage with social issues and take them to a different place.

Porter agrees.

Sometimes, you can do more with subtlety, said the SDSU alum, whose at least partly autobiographical Mr. Holland examines racism from the perspective of interracial dating by high school students.

Woody Guthrie, whose original 1940 version of This Land is Your Land decried the social and economic inequities of American life, contended every song could be political, in varying degrees. But songs that are unabashedly political often make the greatest impact.

This holds true whether the song comes from artists protesting oppressive governments in South Africa (1965s Beware, Verwoerd by Miriam Makeba) or Brazil (1973s Calice by Chico Buarque and Gilberto Gil), Haiti (1992s Nanm Nan Boutey by Boukman Eksperyans) or Egypt (2011s Leave by now-exiled singer Ramy Essam).

And it holds equally true for songs that come from artists in San Diego (2007s When Did Jesus Become a Republican by Cindy Lee Berryhill and 2020s America by Rebecca Jade, Erik Canzona and Alfred Howard), or from Los Angeles (2015s Alright by Kendrick Lamar).

Alright, a song by Pulitzer Prize-winning Los Angeles rapper Kendrick Lamar, center, has provided a hopeful chant at many Black Lives Matter marches.

(Robyn Beck / AFP / Getty Images)

Intriguingly, Lamars Grammy Award-winning Alright was not written as a modern-day protest song, per se, but as a reflection on suffering and a promise of better times to come. It was inspired by the legacy of slavery and by Lamars trip to South Africa, where he visited what had been Nelson Mandelas prison cell on Robben Island.

Accordingly, Alright is alternately ruminative and raw, using the N-word and referring to the police as po-po. Its lyrics include such couplets as: Wouldnt you know, we been hurt, been down before / N----, when our pride was low / Looking at the world like: Where do we go?; and N----, and we hate po-po / Wanna kill us dead in the street fo sho / N----, Im at the preachers door / My knees gettin weak, and my gun might blow.

Alrights recurring refrain We gon be alright has been embraced in recent years by Black Lives Matter marchers nationwide as a chant of hope in troubled times. It extols resiliency in times of adversity by promising things are going to get better, regardless of how bleak they may be right now.

For demonstrators who are grieving and protesting the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery and too many others who have died this year alone, and in previous years, despair and anger should be tempered by a sense of optimism.

Four hundred years ago, as slaves, we prayed and sang joyful songs to keep our heads level-headed with what was going on, Lamar noted in a 2015 NPR interview. Four hundred years later, we still need that music to heal. And I think that Alright is definitely one of those records that makes you feel good, no matter what the times are.

Lamars comments underscore the fact that music can help invigorate, uplift and calm politically and socially inspired gatherings of like-minded people. A protest march can be a celebration, as well as a demonstration, a coming together of people with shared concerns, emotions and goals. Singing and dancing are as foundational to protests as speeches and declarations.

In any era, the timing of a protest song is as important as its lyrics, its melody and its beat. Whether offering a call to action or somberly reflecting on a moment of crisis or loss, the best protest songs perfectly capture a moment in time.

In some instances, they capture and transcend that moment be it Rev. Charles Albert Tindleys inspirational 1900 hymn, We Shall Overcome, the rousing gospel staple Aint Gonna Let Nobody Turn Me Round or the 1965 Curtis Mayfield & The Impressions classic, People Get Ready.

And great protest music can be heard in an array of different genres be it a Beethoven symphony, jazz great Max Roach epic 1961 album, We Insist! Freedom Now Suite, or American composer Frederi Rzewskis 1975 solo piano opus, The People United Will Never Be Defeated, which is based on the Chilean folk song, "El pueblo unido jams ser vencido!

Alas, the impact of protest songs and the artists who make them can sometimes have dire consequences for those artists, even for those championing the cause of peace.

In 1968, Brazilian Tropicalia music stars Gilberto Gil and Caetano Veloso were arrested for on trumped-up charges, after having used their songs to express criticism of their countrys government. Their heads were shaved and they spent two months in prison, followed by four months of house arrest. They were then deported, spending three years in exile in England before they could return to Brazil.

In 1971, Chilean playwright and singer-songwriter Victor Jara wrote the song El Derecho de Vivir en Paz (The Right to Live in Peace), which is sung to this day at protests in Chile. The power of Jaras work, and his outspoken opposition to his homelands brutal dictatorship, led to his being tortured and murdered by Chilean soldiers in 1973.

In Nigeria, Afrobeat pioneer Fela Kuti was shot at least once and repeatedly jailed. His crime? Being a tireless human-rights activist who used his music and stardom to convey his fierce opposition to his countrys military leaders.

Starting in 1984, he was kept in government detention for almost two years. At one point in the 1990s, Kuti was shown in chains on state television. He died in 1997. In 2009, his life was celebrated in the Tony Award-winning Broadway musical Fela!

Zack de la Rocha (left) and Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine. Their music is striking a new chord with protesters, despite the band not having been active since 2011.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

In other instances, songs can resonate even more strongly years after they were made. A key case in point is the fiery music of Rage Against The Machine, which has disbanded and reunited several times since its first album was released 28 years ago.

In early June, the long inactive Los Angeles rap-metal band saw the online streaming of its music surge 62 percent, with more than 11 million online streams of its music in a single week, as a new generation of politically engaged young listeners embraced Rages music.

Two of the Rages songs in particular the anti-police brutality Killing in the Name and the anti-government oppression Bulls on Parade, both from 1992 have struck a new chord, specifically because they speak to this tumultuous moment so well. So, to varying degrees, do such recent songs as rapper YGs unabashedly brazen FTP, 12-year-old gospel singer Keedron Bryants I Just Wanna Live and Minneapolis-based Sudanese-American singer Dua Salehs Body Cast.

In 1970, 22 years before the release of Rage Against The Machines self-titled debut album, Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young recorded the anti-war anthem, Ohio, which Neil Young wrote barely a week after four student protesters at Ohios Kent State University were shot to death by National Guard troops. It was released a week later and remains one of the best-known songs of that tumultuous period.

Ohios opening verse captured the grief and outrage over the fatal shootings with admirable concision: Tin soldiers and Nixon coming / Were finally on our own / This summer I hear the drumming / Four dead in Ohio / Gotta get down to it / Soldiers are cutting us down ...

But Young fell flat with his 2006 song Lets Impeach the President, which targeted President George W. Bush with such scathing lines as: Lets impeach the president / For lying and leading our country into war / Abusing all the power that we gave him / And shipping our money out the door.

And Young has yet to gain traction with his recently updated version of another one of his 2006 songs, now re-titled Lookin for a Leader 2020. The new version targets President Trump and endorses his Democratic opponent, Joe Biden, with such lines as: America has a leader building walls around our house / Dont all black lives matter? / Weve got to vote him out ... Just like his big new fence, this presidents going down.

Youngs heavy-handedness is readily apparent, but some of the most effective protest songs hit their mark precisely because of their lack of subtlety. Either way, the best protest songs inspire reflection, if not action, by opening the hearts and minds of their listeners.

They can also help animate the goals articulated in their titles be it Sam Cookes A Change Is Gonna Come in 1964 and the John Lennon-led Plastic Ono Bands Give Peace a Chance in 1969, or Patti Smiths People Have the Power in 1988 and Lin-Manuel Miranda & Artists for Puerto Ricos Almost Like Praying in 2017.

The Vietnam War era inspired an array of memorable songs. They include Edwin Starrs War, Nina Simones Backlash Blues, Jimmy Cliffs Vietnam, Country Joe & The Fishs I Feel Like Im Fixin to Die Rag, The Byrds Draft Morning, The Fugs Kill for Peace, the Edgar Broughton Bands American Boy Soldier, Pete Seegers Bring Em Home and Waist Deep in the Big Muddy, Barry McGuires Eve of Destruction, and a good number more.

For every protest song that endures, many more fail to make an impact. Artists who wrote and recorded songs protesting the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq range from Pink, Pearl Jam and Eminem to Lenny Kravitz, R.E.M. and Merle Haggard. Hands up if you can name more than one or two of those songs.

Of course, it remains to be seen which songs inspired by the Black Lives Matter will still be sung 10 or 20 years from now. It also remains to be seen how many more belatedly woke White groups will change their names, as Lady Antebellum (now Lady A) and The Dixie Chicks (now The Chicks) both did in June. (See below for more on name changes.)

But there are new protest songs every month. Some of this years standouts include Mickey Guytons Black Like Me, H.E.R.'s I Cant Breathe, Beyoncs Black Parade, Trey Songzs 2020 Riots: How Many Times. Lil Babys The Bigger Picture, and Leon Bridges and Terrace Martins Sweeter.

How many times, indeed?

In the meanwhile, expect more protest songs to ring out. And in an age of instant streaming, smart phones and TikTok, expect those songs to be heard by an increasingly engaged population eager to sing out, stand up and get involved.

Lady Antebellum members Charles Kelley, left, Hillary Scott and Dave Haywood perform at the Stagecoach festival.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

The still-growing impact of the Black Lives Matter movement has had a profound impact on many facets of American society, as the groups formerly known as Lady Antebellum and The Dixie Chicks can both attest.

The impact of that movement extends from the federal government, NASCAR and professional sports teams in big cities to small community organizations in rural neighborhoods. And it extends from Madison Avenue to the music industry, an industry that has made the members of the recently renamed Lady A and The Chicks wealthy and famous.

Actually, there isnt much of a distance between music and Madison Avenue, whose national and international corporate marketing strategies extend across America and around the world.

Many bands and solo artists are brands. Their names and images adorn countless products, from recordings, posters and clothing lines to in the case of Jimmy Buffett bars, restaurants, food products, furniture, pool floats, surf boards, yoga mats, cornhole games, and more.

But its no longer business as usual, thanks to Black Lives Matter, at least not for the groups formerly known as Lady Antebellum and The Dixie Chicks.

In June, the three members of Lady Antebellum announced they were changing their name to Lady A, the better to distance themselves from the pre-Civil War South in general and the slave owners mansions specifically that Lady Antebellum referenced.

In a statement on Instagram, the groups Hillary Scott, Dave Haywood and Charles Kelly wrote: Weve watched and listened more than ever these last few weeks, and our hearts have been stirred with conviction, our eyes opened wide to the injustices, inequality and biases black women and men have always faced and continue to face every day. Now, blind spots we didnt even know existed have been revealed.

After much personal reflection, band discussion, prayer and many honest conversations with some of our closest black friends and colleagues, we have decided to drop the word antebellum from our name and move forward as Lady A, the nickname our fans gave us almost from the start.

Its unclear why those conversations with their closest Black friends didnt take place back in 2006, when the country-pop trio was formed, or if not then soon after the deaths of Trayvon Martin in 2012 and Eric Garner and Michael Brown in 2014.

But better late than never, even though the group Lady A subsequently sued Lady A, a 61-year-old Black Seattle blues and gospel singer (real name: Anita White). She has been performing as Lady A for more than 20 years. The trios litigation was spurred by Whites request that the group give her $10 million, $5 million of which she said she planned to give to Black Lives Matter organizations.

In a Rolling Stone interview, White decried the trios move to file multiple trademark registrations that would co-opt her stage name, saying: Theyre using the name because of a Black Lives Matter incident that, for them, is just a moment in time. If it mattered, it would have mattered to them before. It shouldnt have taken George Floyd to die for them to realize that their name had a slave reference to it.

No, it shouldnt have.

As for The Chicks, who on June 25 dropped Dixie from their stage moniker, the groups three members initially explained their move in just six words: We want to meet this moment.

In subsequent interviews, The Chicks Natalie Maines, Emily Strayer and Martie Maguire maintained they had wanted to drop Dixie as far back as 2003, without really explaining why they didnt.

Ironically, their decision to do so now has led to cancel culture denunciations from some of the same people who vehemently attacked The Dixie Chicks in 2003. Those attacks came after Maines spoke critically on stage of President George W. Bush, telling a London concert audience: Were ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas.

Embarrassment, if not shame, also spurred the recent decision by the London record company One Little Indian whose roster includes Icelandic singer-songwriter Bjrk to change its name to One Little Independent. And, in late June, the Sacramento post-hardcore rock band Slaves announced its own name change.

The new name, the band now formerly known as Slaves promised, will be announced later this year.

Read this article:

Protest songs capture the times, from Black Lives Matter to civil rights and anti-war movements - The San Diego Union-Tribune

Ethical egoism – Wikipedia

Posted on by

Ethical position that moral agents should act in their own self-interest

Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to act in their own self-interest. It differs from psychological egoism, which claims that people can only act in their self-interest. Ethical egoism also differs from rational egoism, which holds that it is rational to act in one's self-interest.[1]Ethical egoism holds, therefore, that actions whose consequences will benefit the doer are ethical.[2]

Ethical egoism contrasts with ethical altruism, which holds that moral agents have an obligation to help others. Egoism and altruism both contrast with ethical utilitarianism,[3] which holds that a moral agent should treat one's self (also known as the subject) with no higher regard than one has for others (as egoism does, by elevating self-interests and "the self" to a status not granted to others). But it also holds that one is not obligated to sacrifice one's own interests (as altruism does) to help others' interests, so long as one's own interests (i.e. one's own desires or well-being) are substantially equivalent to the others' interests and well-being, but he has the choice to do so. Egoism, utilitarianism, and altruism are all forms of consequentialism, but egoism and altruism contrast with utilitarianism, in that egoism and altruism are both agent-focused forms of consequentialism (i.e. subject-focused or subjective). However, utilitarianism is held to be agent-neutral (i.e. objective and impartial): it does not treat the subject's (i.e. the self's, i.e. the moral "agent's") own interests as being more or less important than the interests, desires, or well-being of others.

Ethical egoism does not, however, require moral agents to harm the interests and well-being of others when making moral deliberation; e.g. what is in an agent's self-interest may be incidentally detrimental, beneficial, or neutral in its effect on others. Individualism allows for others' interest and well-being to be disregarded or not, as long as what is chosen is efficacious in satisfying the self-interest of the agent. Nor does ethical egoism necessarily entail that, in pursuing self-interest, one ought always to do what one wants to do; e.g. in the long term, the fulfillment of short-term desires may prove detrimental to the self. Fleeting pleasure, then, takes a back seat to protracted eudaimonia. In the words of James Rachels, "Ethical egoism ... endorses selfishness, but it doesn't endorse foolishness."[4]

Ethical egoism is often used as the philosophical basis for support of right-libertarianism and individualist anarchism.[5] These are political positions based partly on a belief that individuals should not coercively prevent others from exercising freedom of action.

Ethical egoism can be broadly divided into three categories: individual, personal, and universal. An individual ethical egoist would hold that all people should do whatever benefits "my" (the individual's) self-interest; a personal ethical egoist would hold that they should act in their self-interest, but would make no claims about what anyone else ought to do; a universal ethical egoist would argue that everyone should act in ways that are in their self-interest.[6][7]

Ethical egoism was introduced by the philosopher Henry Sidgwick in his book The Methods of Ethics, written in 1874. Sidgwick compared egoism to the philosophy of utilitarianism, writing that whereas utilitarianism sought to maximize overall pleasure, egoism focused only on maximizing individual pleasure.[8]

Philosophers before Sidgwick have also retroactively been identified as ethical egoists. One ancient example is the philosophy of Yang Zhu (4th century BC), Yangism, who views wei wo, or "everything for myself", as the only virtue necessary for self-cultivation.[9] Ancient Greek philosophers like Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics were exponents of virtue ethics, and "did not accept the formal principle that whatever the good is, we should seek only our own good, or prefer it to the good of others."[8] However, the beliefs of the Cyrenaics have been referred to as a "form of egoistic hedonism",[10] and while some refer to Epicurus' hedonism as a form of virtue ethics, others argue his ethics are more properly described as ethical egoism.[11]

Philosopher James Rachels, in an essay that takes as its title the theory's name, outlines the three arguments most commonly touted in its favor:[12]

It has been argued that extreme ethical egoism is self-defeating. Faced with a situation of limited resources, egoists would consume as much of the resource as they could, making the overall situation worse for everybody. Egoists may respond that if the situation becomes worse for everybody, that would include the egoist, so it is not, in fact, in their rational self-interest to take things to such extremes.[18] However, the (unregulated) tragedy of the commons and the (one off) prisoner's dilemma are cases in which, on the one hand, it is rational for an individual to seek to take as much as possible even though that makes things worse for everybody, and on the other hand, those cases are not self-refuting since that behaviour remains rational even though it is ultimately self-defeating, i.e. self-defeating does not imply self-refuting. Egoists might respond that a tragedy of the commons, however, assumes some degree of public land. That is, a commons forbidding homesteading requires regulation. Thus, an argument against the tragedy of the commons, in this belief system, is fundamentally an argument for private property rights and the system that recognizes both property rights and rational self-interestcapitalism.[19] More generally, egoists might say that an increasing respect for individual rights uniquely allows for increasing wealth creation and increasing usable resources despite a fixed amount of raw materials (e.g. the West pre-1776 versus post-1776, East versus West Germany, Hong Kong versus mainland China, North versus South Korea, etc.).[20]

It is not clear how to apply a private ownership model to many examples of "Commons", however. Examples include large fisheries, the atmosphere and the ocean.[21][22]

Some perhaps decisive problems with ethical egoism have been pointed out.

One is that an ethical egoist would not want ethical egoism to be universalized: as it would be in the egoist's best self-interest if others acted altruistically towards him, he wouldn't want them to act egoistically; however, that is what he considers to be morally binding. His moral principles would demand of others not to follow them, which can be considered self-defeating and leads to the question: "How can ethical egoism be considered morally binding if its advocates do not want it to be universally applied?"[23]

Another objection (e.g. by James Rachels) states that the distinction ethical egoism makes between "yourself" and "the rest" demanding to view the interests of "yourself" as more important is arbitrary, as no justification for it can be offered; considering that the merits and desires of "the rest" are comparable to those of "yourself" while lacking a justifiable distinction, Rachels concludes that "the rest" should be given the same moral consideration as "yourself".[23][24]

The term ethical egoism has been applied retroactively to philosophers such as Bernard de Mandeville and to many other materialists of his generation, although none of them declared themselves to be egoists. Note that materialism does not necessarily imply egoism, as indicated by Karl Marx, and the many other materialists who espoused forms of collectivism. It has been argued that ethical egoism can lend itself to individualist anarchism such as that of Benjamin Tucker, or the combined anarcho-communism and egoism of Emma Goldman, both of whom were proponents of many egoist ideas put forward by Max Stirner. In this context, egoism is another way of describing the sense that the common good should be enjoyed by all. However, most notable anarchists in history have been less radical, retaining altruism and a sense of the importance of the individual that is appreciable but does not go as far as egoism. Recent trends to greater appreciation of egoism within anarchism tend to come from less classical directions such as post-left anarchy or Situationism (e.g. Raoul Vaneigem). Egoism has also been referenced by anarcho-capitalists, such as Murray Rothbard.

Philosopher Max Stirner, in his book The Ego and Its Own, was the first philosopher to call himself an egoist, though his writing makes clear that he desired not a new idea of morality (ethical egoism), but rather a rejection of morality (amoralism), as a nonexistent and limiting "spook"; for this, Stirner has been described as the first individualist anarchist. Other philosophers, such as Thomas Hobbes and David Gauthier, have argued that the conflicts which arise when people each pursue their own ends can be resolved for the best of each individual only if they all voluntarily forgo some of their aimsthat is, one's self-interest is often best pursued by allowing others to pursue their self-interest as well so that liberty is equal among individuals. Sacrificing one's short-term self-interest to maximize one's long-term self-interest is one form of "rational self-interest" which is the idea behind most philosophers' advocacy of ethical egoism. Egoists have also argued that one's actual interests are not immediately obvious, and that the pursuit of self-interest involves more than merely the acquisition of some good, but the maximizing of one's chances of survival and/or happiness.

Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche suggested that egoistic or "life-affirming" behavior stimulates jealousy or "ressentiment" in others, and that this is the psychological motive for the altruism in Christianity. Sociologist Helmut Schoeck similarly considered envy the motive of collective efforts by society to reduce the disproportionate gains of successful individuals through moral or legal constraints, with altruism being primary among these.[25] In addition, Nietzsche (in Beyond Good and Evil) and Alasdair MacIntyre (in After Virtue) have pointed out that the ancient Greeks did not associate morality with altruism in the way that post-Christian Western civilization has done.Aristotle's view is that we have duties to ourselves as well as to other people (e.g. friends) and to the polis as a whole. The same is true for Thomas Aquinas, Christian Wolff and Immanuel Kant, who claim that there are duties to ourselves as Aristotle did, although it has been argued that, for Aristotle, the duty to one's self is primary.[26]

Ayn Rand argued that there is a positive harmony of interests among free, rational humans, such that no moral agent can rationally coerce another person consistently with his own long-term self-interest. Rand argued that other people are an enormous value to an individual's well-being (through education, trade and affection), but also that this value could be fully realized only under conditions of political and economic freedom. According to Rand, voluntary trade alone can assure that human interaction is mutually beneficial.[27] Rand's student, Leonard Peikoff has argued that the identification of one's interests itself is impossible absent the use of principles, and that self-interest cannot be consistently pursued absent a consistent adherence to certain ethical principles.[28] Recently, Rand's position has also been defended by such writers as Tara Smith, Tibor Machan, Allan Gotthelf, David Kelley, Douglas Rasmussen, Nathaniel Branden, Harry Binswanger, Andrew Bernstein, and Craig Biddle.

Philosopher David L. Norton identified himself an "ethical individualist", and, like Rand, saw a harmony between an individual's fidelity to his own self-actualization, or "personal destiny", and the achievement of society's well being.[29]

Go here to see the original:

Ethical egoism - Wikipedia

What Is Ethical Egoism? – ThoughtCo

Posted on by

Ethical egoism is the view that people ought to pursue their own self-interest, and no one has any obligation to promote anyone elses interests. It is thus a normative or prescriptive theory: it is concerned with how people ought to behave. In this respect, ethical egoism is quite different from psychological egoism, the theory that all our actions are ultimately self-interested. Psychological egoism is a purely descriptive theory that purports to describe a basic fact about human nature.

Everyone pursuing his own self-interest is the best way to promote the general good. This argument was made famous by Bernard Mandeville (1670-1733) in his poem "The Fable of the Bees" and by Adam Smith (1723-1790) in his pioneering work on economics, "The Wealth of Nations."

In a famous passage, Smith wrote that when individuals single-mindedly pursue the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires they unintentionally, as if led by an invisible hand, benefit society as a whole. This happy result comes about because people generally are the best judges of what is in their own interest, and they are much more motivated to work hard to benefit themselves than to achieve any other goal.

An obvious objection to this argument, though, is that it doesnt really support ethical egoism. It assumes that what really matters is the well-being of society as a whole, the general good. It then claims that the best way to achieve this end is for everyone to look out for themselves. But if it could be proved that this attitude did not, in fact, promote the general good, then those who advance this argument would presumably stop advocating egoism.

Another objection is that what the argument states is not always true. Consider the prisoners dilemma, for instance. This is a hypothetical situation described in game theory.You and a comrade, (call him X) are being held in prison. You are both asked to confess. The terms of the deal you are offered are as follows:

Regardless of what X does, the best thing for you to do is confess. Because if he doesnt confess, youll get a light sentence; and if he does confess, youll at least avoid getting extra prison time. But the same reasoning holds for X as well. According to ethical egoism, you should both pursue your rational self-interest. But then the outcome is not the best one possible. You both get five years, whereas if both of you had put your self-interest on hold, youd each only get two years.

The point of this is simple. It isnt always in your best interest to pursue your own self-interest without concern for others. Sacrificing your own interests for the good of others denies the fundamental value of your own life to yourself.

This seems to be the sort of argument put forward by Ayn Rand, the leading exponent of objectivism and the author of "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged."Her complaint is that the Judeo-Christian moral tradition, which includesor has fed intomodern liberalism and socialism, pushes an ethic of altruism.Altruism means putting the interests of others before your own.

This is something people are routinely praised for doing, encouraged to do, and in some circumstances even required to do, such as when you pay taxes to support the needy.According to Rand, no one has any right to expect or demand that I make any sacrifices for the sake of anyone other than myself.

A problem with this argument is that it seems to assume that there is generally a conflict between pursuing your own interests and helping others.In fact, though, most people would say that these two goals are not necessarily opposed at all.Much of the time they complement one another.

For instance, one student may help a housemate with her homework, which is altruistic.But that student also has an interest in enjoying good relations with her housemates. She may not help everyone in all circumstances, but she will help if the sacrifice involved is not too great.Most people behave like this, seeking a balance between egoism and altruism.

Ethical egoism is not a very popular moral philosophy. This is because it goes against certain basic assumptions that most people have regarding what ethics involves. Two objections seem especially powerful.

Ethical egoism has no solutions to offer when a problem arises involving conflicts of interest. Many ethical issues are of this sort. For example, a company wants to empty waste into a river; the people living downstream object. Ethical egoism advises that both parties actively pursue what they want. It doesnt suggest any sort of resolution or commonsense compromise.

Ethical egoism goes against the principle of impartiality. A basic assumption made by many moral philosophersand many other people, for that matteris that we should not discriminate against people on arbitrary grounds such as race, religion, sex, sexual orientation or ethnic origin. But ethical egoism holds that we should not even try to be impartial. Rather, we should distinguish between ourselves and everyone else, and give ourselves preferential treatment.

To many, this seems to contradict the very essence of morality. The golden ruleversions of which appear in Confucianism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islamsays we should treat others as we would like to be treated. One of the greatest moral philosophers of modern times, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), argued that the fundamental principle of morality (the categorical imperative, in his jargon) is that we should not make exceptions of ourselves. According to Kant, we shouldntperform an action if we cannot honestly wish that everyone would behave in a similar way in the same circumstances.

See the rest here:

What Is Ethical Egoism? - ThoughtCo

15 Important Pros and Cons of Ethical Egoism ConnectUS

Posted on by

Ethical egoism is the acceptance of society for people to pursue their own self-interests. No one has an obligation to promote what anyone else tries to do because their personal views are the only thing that matters. That makes this theory prescriptive and normative in its application because it becomes concerned about how people behave.

It is essential to remember that the ethical version of egoism is different than the psychological form of it. The latter theory suggests that every action we take is ultimately with our self-interest in mind. That makes it more of a descriptive approach because that is a basic fact of human nature.

The argument for ethical egoism because famous in the poem The Fable of the Bees by Bernard Mandeville and The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. Both works describe an environment where people who single-mindedly pursue personal gratification benefit society as a whole. The reason for this outcome is that individuals are more motivated to work hard when personal benefits come from the outcome.

1. Ethical egoism encourages self-awareness.If you can know yourself and what you need, then it is easier to stay productive in modern society. The benefits of having this trait in ones life include a higher level of emotional intelligence, greater listening and empathy skills, along with improved critical thinking. This combination of factors allows for better decisions to be made, which leads to stronger communication and better relationships.

Self-awareness enhances leadership capabilities so that your capacity for accomplishments becomes higher. You can have internal and external versions of this benefit, which involves how we see ourselves and how others see us.

2. There are more opportunities for personal improvement.If you focus on a path involving ethical egoism, then your self-interests become the top priority. Instead of striving to push others forward, youre working toward making yourself better in some way. There are six approaches that you can try with this advantage that can take your work to the next level, ranging from simple breathing exercises to delegating the work you hate to do to other people.

Everyone experiences this positive attribute of ethical egoism from a young age. You might be tempted to steal a candy bar from the store, but the external factor of getting into trouble with your parents or the police makes you decide to pursue greater needs instead. It is an approach that makes you think about your overall wellbeing first.

3. Everyone would have an opportunity to provide for themselves.Ethical egoism is an approach that says what you think or feel are the best motivators to keep you productive. Youre effectively the salesperson of your own life, earning what you believe is your full potential every day. It eliminates the idea of a safety net because the only person you can depend upon is yourself, but then society restructures itself so that every individual has opportunities to pursue their definition of success.

That doesnt mean we would eliminate poverty and hunger immediately by taking an approach that includes ethical egoism. Some people would choose to live a vagabond lifestyle where they would have few responsibilities placed on them. It does give each person a chance to take control of their lives so that they can do what they feel is right for themselves.

4. Ethical egoism allows people to implement self-care routines.When you start putting yourself first, then the first word in your vocabulary becomes no. That makes it a lot easier for you to begin working toward the goals you have in life because others are not directing your footsteps. When you eliminate the control of others, then it becomes easier to prioritize your to-do list each take. Knowing what tasks are the most essential to complete helps you to achieve a goal faster.

Ethical egoism promotes consistency in the facets of this advantage by encouraging people to build new habits. When you make a decision, then you stick to it. Youre conditioning others to accept you for who you are without judging them for being who they are.

5. No one can manipulate you when practicing ethical egoism.You become entirely immune to the idea of having someone take advantage of you when society practices ethical egoism. The people who use others to advance their personal agendas will no longer have the option to make others do favors for them that push their journey forward. Everyone will be taking that approach, so you stay in control of your circumstances at all times.

This advantage also means that others will no longer have the option to guilt you into taking actions that you dont want to do. Youre spending more time on the things in life that you enjoy doing.

6. It eliminates the autopilot approach that people take in life.Many people go through life without a cognitive awareness of their choices or themselves. This approach to life puts you on autopilot because youre allowing the routine to take control instead of your desires. If you have ever zoned out during your commute to or from work, then youve experienced this effect. Those routines can encompass years of your life without a specific direction beyond paying your bills or making enough money.

Ethical egoism pushes you toward a higher level of success. The people who find themselves stuck on autopilot tend to feel miserable and disengaged. Self-awareness is the cure that can clear your mind of the fog, making you feel like youve woken up from a long nightmare. Since society trains us on what our routines should be, a shift to ethical egoism could cause everyone to stop living in their routines.

7. Productivity would rise in society when ethical egoism is in control.When Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations in the 18th century, he suggested that when individuals pursue gratification of their insatiable desires single-mindedly, then they unintentionally benefit society as a whole. It is as if they are led by an invisible hand, as he put it in his work. The idea is that people are usually the best judges of what is in their own best interest. Individuals have more motivation to work hard to benefit themselves than to achieve any other goal.

That means productivity levels rise because everyone has a focus on what their daily needs will be. When everyone is looking out for themselves, then the general good becomes achievable because most people are not going to let themselves be run over by others.

1. It is an approach that would create a self-centered society.One of the principal tenets of ethical egoism is that no one else looks after your personal needs except you. That means everyone, including people in families, is pursuing a reflection of their self-interest. Marriages wouldnt be warm or compassionate places they would become a means to an end. Relationships with children would become the same way.

The idea that communication would improve to create stronger relationships is plausible, but ethical egoism always focuses on self-interest. If those bonds that people form no longer help to push someone forward, then society would say in this structure that you can abandon those people without a second thought.

2. There would be a loss of empathy in society with ethical egoism.Implementing a society focused on ethical egoism would cause us to lose sight of our current culture of empathy. The benefits of understanding how others think or feel are numerous, and its absence is one of the hallmarks of psychopathy. We need this trait to establish friendships, have satisfaction in our intimate relationships, and see reductions of aggression in society. Increases in empathy reduce incidents of domestic violence.

If people pursue their self-interests more than they support each other, then society would become violent. Our loss of empathy would lead to more errors, worse health outcomes, and people would feel less satisfied because each effort would become more difficult to complete.

3. It would lead to a breakdown in workplace relationships.Ethical egoism suggests that employee relationships would become problematic in a society with this structure because the business would only serve its purpose as a means to an end. The relationships formed throughout a career are focusing on what others can do for you instead of being a mutually beneficial place where a rising tide lifts all boats. Everyone would forgo what others could accomplish because their benefits are always the top priority in this structure.

4. Ethical egoism eliminates the concept of objectivity from society.If each person in society were to follow the theory of ethical egoism, then there would no longer be objectivity. No one would care about what anyone else thought with regards to their actions or pursuits. The only drive toward thoughts, feelings, and decisions would be self-interest.

That doesnt mean altruism would disappear entirely. People would still help others if there was a beneficial reason to do so, such as helping a charity because it promotes a higher level of fame. The issue here is that caring for others would often become the action of last resort instead of being a top priority.

5. It would only work if everyone was practicing this theory.Ethical egoism is a theory that only works when everyone practices it. Since people will not associate with someone for long if your words or actions are a reflection of only caring for yourself, the need to be loved by others would eventually cause this approach to malfunction. If the first priority of everyone is to profit from someone else without regard to their status in life, then those effects will eventually fail. There is nothing wrong with the approach of wanting to live life on your own terms, but the idea is to treat others in the same way that you want to be treated.

6. There are no solutions offered when conflicts of interest arise.Ethical egoism doesnt provide a solution when issues arise that involve a conflict of interest. Since most ethical issues involve this sort of problem, the approach at a societal level could cause productivity to grind to a halt. Imagine that a sewage treatment facility wants to dump raw waste into the local river. The people who live downstream from the facility would naturally object to that behavior. This approach would cause both parties to actively pursue what they want.

Ethical egoism doesnt suggest any sort of compromise to the situation. It does not encourage you to arrive at a place of common-sense resolution. You are going to win or lose because there is nothing in between those options

7. Ethical egoism goes against the principle of impartiality.The basic assumption made by most moral philosophers is that we shouldnt discriminate against people for arbitrary reasons. That means a persons gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or race shouldnt become part of the discussion because our diversity is what makes us stronger. Ethical egoism suggests that we shouldnt even try to be tolerant because it is more important to distinguish between ourselves and everyone else. Then we focus on offering preferential treatment internally or to our external factors.

Immanuel Kant argued over 200 years ago that the fundamental principle of morality is that we shouldnt make exceptions of ourselves. Thats what ethical egoism wants us to do. We shouldnt perform actions if we can honestly wish that everyone would behave in the same way under similar circumstances.

8. It isnt always in a persons best interest to pursue their own self-interest.Game theory uses the prisoners dilemma as an example of why ethical egoism is problematic. If you are in a hypothetical situation where a crime was committed and the police ask you to confess, the terms of the deal say that you get 6 months and your friend gets 10 years in prison. If your friend confesses and you do not, then the opposite result occurs. When both people confess, then you get five years, but if no one confesses, then you both get two years.

Regardless of what your friend does, the best thing to do is to confess because youll get a lighter sentence. Ethical egoism says both should pursue rational self-interest, but then the outcome is not the best possible one. It is an idea that shows how sacrificing your own interests for the good of others somethings denies the fundamental value of your own life.

Conclusion

The pros and cons of ethical egoism lead us to a place where morality becomes an individualized definition instead of a societal constraint. If killing someone was the action to take to improve ones status in society, then a refusal to commit violence would become the definition of an immoral act.

Thats why this approach, although theoretically a way to increase production and satisfaction, would ultimately create a place where no one would feel safe. It would be a chaotic environment where everyone focused on what their needs were first at the expense of everyone else.

Read the original post:

15 Important Pros and Cons of Ethical Egoism ConnectUS

Ethical Egoism Theory Explained – HRF

Posted on by

Ethical egoism theory provides a normative position that encourages people from a moral standpoint to do what is in their own best self-interest. This process differs from only acting upon items of self-interest or creating a rational explanation behind the need to pursue ones own self-interest.

In ethical egoism, actions which have consequences that will benefit the individual can be considered ethical, even if others hold a different definition of ethics.

The concepts of ethical egoism were first introduced by Henry Sidgwick in a book published in 1874 entitled The Methods of Ethics. Sidgwick introduced the idea of ethical egoism to counter the idea of utilitarianism, or the desire to maximize personal pleasure at all times. Egoism, Sidgwick argues, focuses on maximizing the pleasure of the individual.

Ethical egoism can be divided into three general categories.

Although it might seem to imply otherwise, ethical egoism theory does not require individuals to harm the interests of others when making a moral decision. That harm may occur as a consequence of pursuing ones own interest, but it does not promote foolishness. It does not promote always doing what one wants to do either.

That is because short-term decisions that might seem good at the time may be detrimental to a persons long-term outlook. Eating potato chips, drinking 5 sodas each day, and having cake for dinner every night might provide short-term pleasure, but ethical egoism would say such actions are not in the persons self-interest because of the threat those short-term decisions would have on long-term health.

The primary justification for ethical egoism is that each person has a natural desire to fulfill their own wants and needs. Each person is also placed into a position where they can pursue those wants and needs with whatever energy they desire. Some may choose wants over needs and suffer, while others may not be able to meet even basic needs, but that does not change the ethics in pursuing what is desired.

A popular expression in society comes from Christianity, specifically from the book of Genesis. God asks Cain where his brother happens to be. Cains response is defiant. I dont know. Am I my brothers keeper? In ethical egoism, the idea is that each person knows what is best for their short-term and long-term wants and needs. Others must make assumptions about what they are, which makes the acquiring process inefficient.

It may be a reasonable belief to assume that individuals can support one another, but it would also be a reasonable belief to assume that we would cause more harm than good when trying to meet those wants and needs for someone else.

Ethical Egoism also eliminates the concept of altruism. This is usually exampled by hunger. If you eat a sandwich in front of someone who is hungry, it would be considered an immoral indulgence because you are meeting your needs, but ignoring the needs of someone else. Yet it would be a moral indulgence to solve hunger in someone else, but creating hunger in oneself. Ethical egoism solves that problem by directing each individual to solve their own hunger problem instead of relying on someone else to do it for them.

It could be argued that every moral duty that has been accepted by various human societies over the centuries has been based on principles of ethical egoism. Whether that means love one another or always tell the truth, the goal is to improve ones own wants and needs in some way.

Ethical egoism is only as beneficial as the moral code of the person implementing this theory. A murderer could say that it is morally right to kill others because it provides them with satisfaction, especially if there is no fear of imprisonment, being caught, or having a death warrant issued after a conviction. Thieves could steal in good conscience. Husbands or wives could cheat on their spouses because concerns are for the self only.

Ethical egoism theory has its proponents and its critics. By understanding its concepts, it becomes possible to see how each person implements them in their daily lives.

See the article here:

Ethical Egoism Theory Explained - HRF

Egoism | philosophy | Britannica

Posted on by

Egoism, (from Latin ego, I), in philosophy, an ethical theory holding that the good is based on the pursuit of self-interest. The word is sometimes misused for egotism, the overstressing of ones own worth.

Read More on This Topic

ethics: Ethical egoism

Ethical egoism departs from this consensus, because it asserts that moral decision making should be guided entirely by self-interest. One...

Egoist doctrines are less concerned with the philosophic problem of what is the self than with the common notions of a person and his concerns. They see perfection sought through the furthering of a mans own welfare and profitallowing, however, that sometimes he may not know where these lie and must be brought to recognize them.

Many ethical theories have an egoist bias. The hedonism of the ancient Greeks bids each man to seek his own greatest happiness; in the 17th century, Thomas Hobbes, a Materialist, and Benedict de Spinoza, a Rationalist, held in different ways that self-preservation is the good; and those who stress the tending of ones own conscience and moral growth are likewise egoists in this sense. In contrast with such views is an ethics that is governed more by mans social aspects, which stresses the importance of the community rather than that of the individual. Under this head come such theories as Stoic cosmopolitanism, tribal solidarity, and utilitarianism, which are all forms of what the positivist Auguste Comte called altruism. The distinction, however, cannot always be neatly drawn.

Read the rest here:

Egoism | philosophy | Britannica

Egoism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Posted on by

In philosophy, egoism is the theory that ones self is, or should be, the motivation and the goal of ones own action. Egoism has two variants, descriptive or normative. The descriptive (or positive) variant conceives egoism as a factual description of human affairs. That is, people are motivated by their own interests and desires, and they cannot be described otherwise. The normative variant proposes that people should be so motivated, regardless of what presently motivates their behavior. Altruism is the opposite of egoism. The term egoism derives from ego, the Latin term for I in English. Egoism should be distinguished from egotism, which means a psychological overvaluation of ones own importance, or of ones own activities.

People act for many reasons; but for whom, or what, do or should they actfor themselves, for God, or for the good of the planet? Can an individual ever act only according to her own interests without regard for others interests. Conversely, can an individual ever truly act for others in complete disregard for her own interests? The answers will depend on an account of free will. Some philosophers argue that an individual has no choice in these matters, claiming that a persons acts are determined by prior events which make illusory any belief in choice. Nevertheless, if an element of choice is permitted against the great causal impetus from nature, or God, it follows that a person possesses some control over her next action, and, that, therefore, one may inquire as to whether the individual does, or, should choose a self-or-other-oriented action. Morally speaking, one can ask whether the individual should pursue her own interests, or, whether she should reject self-interest and pursue others interest instead: to what extent are other-regarding acts morally praiseworthy compared to self-regarding acts?

The descriptive egoists theory is called psychological egoism. Psychological egoism describes human nature as being wholly self-centered and self-motivated. Examples of this explanation of human nature predate the formation of the theory, and, are found in writings such as that of British Victorian historian, Macaulay, and, in that of British Reformation political philosopher, Thomas Hobbes. To the question, What proposition is there respecting human nature which is absolutely and universally true?, Macaulay, replies, We know of only one . . . that men always act from self-interest. (Quoted in Garvin.) In Leviathan, Hobbes maintains that, No man giveth but with intention of good to himself; because gift is voluntary; and of all voluntary acts the object to every man is his own pleasure. In its strong form, psychological egoism asserts that people always act in their own interests, and, cannot but act in their own interests, even though they may disguise their motivation with references to helping others or doing their duty.

Opponents claim that psychological egoism renders ethics useless. However, this accusation assumes that ethical behavior is necessarily other-regarding, which opponents would first have to establish. Opponents may also exploit counterfactual evidence to criticize psychological egoism surely, they claim, there is a host of evidence supporting altruistic or duty bound actions that cannot be said to engage the self-interest of the agent. However, what qualifies to be counted as apparent counterfactual evidence by opponents becomes an intricate and debatable issue. This is because, in response to their opponents, psychological egoists may attempt to shift the question away from outward appearances to ultimate motives of acting benevolently towards others; for example, they may claim that seemingly altruistic behavior (giving a stranger some money) necessarily does have a self-interested component. For example, if the individual were not to offer aid to a stranger, he or she may feel guilty or may look bad in front of a peer group.

On this point, psychological egoisms validity turns on examining and analyzing moral motivation. But since motivation is inherently private and inaccessible to others (an agent could be lying to herself or to others about the original motive), the theory shifts from a theoretical description of human natureone that can be put to observational testingto an assumption about the inner workings of human nature: psychological egoism moves beyond the possibility of empirical verification and the possibility of empirical negation (since motives are private), and therefore it becomes what is termed a closed theory.

A closed theory is a theory that rejects competing theories on its own terms and is non-verifiable and non-falsifiable. If psychological egoism is reduced to an assumption concerning human nature and its hidden motives, then it follows that it is just as valid to hold a competing theory of human motivation such as psychological altruism.

Psychological altruism holds that all human action is necessarily other-centered, and other-motivated. Ones becoming a hermit (an apparently selfish act) can be reinterpreted through psychological altruism as an act of pure noble selflessness: a hermit is not selfishly hiding herself away, rather, what she is doing is not inflicting her potentially ungraceful actions or displeasing looks upon others. A parallel analysis of psychological altruism thus results in opposing conclusions to psychological egoism. However, psychological altruism is arguably just as closed as psychological egoism: with it one assumes that an agents inherently private and consequently unverifiable motives are altruistic. If both theories can be validly maintained, and if the choice between them becomes the flip of a coin, then their soundness must be questioned.

A weak version of psychological egoism accepts the possibility of altruistic or benevolent behavior, but maintains that, whenever a choice is made by an agent to act, the action is by definition one that the agent wants to do at that point. The action is self-serving, and is therefore sufficiently explained by the theory of psychological egoism. Let one assume that person A wants to help the poor; therefore, A is acting egoistically by actually wanting to help; again, if A ran into a burning building to save a kitten, it must be the case that A wanted or desired to save the kitten. However, defining all motivations as what an agent desires to do remains problematic: logically, the theory becomes tautologous and therefore unable to provide a useful, descriptive meaning of motivation because one is essentially making an arguably philosophically uninteresting claim that an agent is motivated to do what she is motivated to do. Besides which, if helping others is what A desires to do, then to what extent can A be continued to be called an egoist? A acts because that is what A does, and consideration of the ethical ought becomes immediately redundant. Consequently, opponents argue that psychological egoism is philosophically inadequate because it sidesteps the great nuances of motive. For example, one can argue that the psychological egoists notion of motive sidesteps the clashes that her theory has with the notion of duty, and, related social virtues such as honor, respect, and reputation, which fill the tomes of history and literature.

David Hume, in his Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (Appendix IIOf Self Love), offers six rebuttals of what he calls the selfish hypothesis, an arguably archaic relative of psychological egoism. First, Hume argues that self-interest opposes moral sentiments that may engage one in concern for others, and, may motivate ones actions for others. These moral sentiments include love, friendship, compassion, and gratitude. Second, psychological egoism attempts to reduce human motivation to a single cause, which is a fruitless taskthe love of simplicityhas been the source of much false reasoning in philosophy. Third, it is evident that animals act benevolently towards one another, and, if it is admitted that animals can act altruistically, then how can it be denied in humans? Fourth, the concepts we use to describe benevolent behavior cannot be meaningless; sometimes an agent obviously does not have a personal interest in the fortune of another, yet will wish her well. Any attempt to create an imaginary vested interest, as the psychological egoist will attempt, proves futile. Fifth, Hume asserts that we have prior motivations to self-interest; we may have, for example, a predisposition towards vanity, fame, or vengeance that transcends any benefit to the agent. Finally, Hume claims that even if the selfish hypothesis were true, there are a sufficient number of dispositions to generate a wide possibility of moral actions, allowing one person to be called vicious and another humane; and he claims that the latter is to be preferred over the former.

The second variant of egoism is normative in that it stipulates the agent ought to promote the self above other values. Herbert Spencer said, Ethics has to recognize the truth, recognized in unethical thought, that egoism comes before altruism. The acts required for continued self-preservation, including the enjoyments of benefits achieved by such arts, are the first requisites to universal welfare. Unless each duly cares for himself, his care for all others is ended in death, and if each thus dies there remain no others to be cared for. He was echoing a long history of the importance of self-regarding behavior that can be traced back to Aristotles theory of friendship in the Nichomachaean Ethics. In his theory, Aristotle argues that a man must befriend himself before he can befriend others. The general theory of normative egoism does not attempt to describe human nature directly, but asserts how people ought to behave. It comes in two general forms: rational egoism and ethical egoism.

Rational egoism claims that the promotion of ones own interests is always in accordance with reason. The greatest and most provocative proponent of rational egoism is Ayn Rand, whose The Virtue of Selfishness outlines the logic and appeal of the theory. Rand argues that: first, properly defined, selfishness rejects the sacrificial ethics of the Wests Judaic-Christian heritage on the grounds that it is right for man to live his own life; and, Rand argues that, second, selfishness is a proper virtue to pursue. That being said, she rejects the selfless selfishness of irrationally acting individuals: the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own rational self-interest. To be ethically selfish thus entails a commitment to reason rather than to emotionally driven whims and instincts.

In the strong version of rational egoism defended by Rand, not only is it rational to pursue ones own interests, it is irrational not to pursue them. In a weaker version, one may note that while it is rational to pursue ones own interests, there may be occasions when not pursuing them is not necessarily irrational.

Critics of rational egoism may claim that reason may dictate that ones interests should not govern ones actions. The possibility of conflicting reasons in a society need not be evoked in this matter; one need only claim that reason may invoke an impartiality clause, in other words, a clause that demands that in a certain situation ones interests should not be furthered. For example, consider a free-rider situation. In marking students papers, a teacher may argue that to offer inflated grades is to make her life easier, and, therefore, is in her self-interest: marking otherwise would incur negative feedback from students and having to spend time counseling on writing skills, and so on. It is even arguably foreseeable that inflating grades may never have negative consequences for anyone. The teacher could conceivably free-ride on the tougher marking of the rest of the department or university and not worry about the negative consequences of a diminished reputation to either. However, impartiality considerations demand an alternative courseit is not right to change grades to make life easier. Here self-interest conflicts with reason. Nonetheless, a Randian would reject the teachers free-riding being rational: since the teacher is employed to mark objectively and impartially in the first place, to do otherwise is to commit a fraud both against the employing institution and the student. (This is indeed an analogous situation explored in Rands The Fountainhead, in which the hero architect regrets having propped up a friends inabilities).

A simpler scenario may also be considered. Suppose that two men seek the hand of one woman, and they deduce that they should fight for her love. A critic may reason that the two men rationally claim that if one of them were vanquished, the other may enjoy the beloved. However, the solution ignores the womans right to choose between her suitors, and thus the mens reasoning is flawed.

In a different scenario, game theory (emanating from John von Neumanns and Oskar Morgensterns Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour, 1944) points to another possible logical error in rational egoism by offering an example in which the pursuit of self-interest results in both agents being made worse off.

This is famously described in the Prisoners Dilemma.

Prisoner A

From the table, two criminals, A and B, face different sentences depending on whether they confess their guilt or not. Each prisoner does not know what his partner will choose and communication between the two prisoners is not permitted. There are no lawyers and presumably no humane interaction between the prisoners and their captors.

Rationally (i.e., from the point of view of the numbers involved), we can assume that both will want to minimize their sentences. Herein lies the rub if both avoid confessing, they will serve 2 years each a total of 4 years between them. If they both happen to confess, they each serve 5 years each, or 10 years between them.

However they both face a tantalizing option: if A confesses while his partner doesnt confess, A can get away in 6 months leaving B to languish for 10 years (and the same is true for B): this would result in a collective total of 10.5 years served.

For the game, the optimal solution is assumed to be the lowest total years served, which would be both refusing to confess and each therefore serving 2 years each.The probable outcome of the dilemma though is that both will confess in the desire to get off in 6 months, but therefore they will end up serving 10 years in total.This is seen to be non-rational or sub-optimal for both prisoners as the total years served is not the best collective solution.

The Prisoners Dilemma offers a mathematical model as to why self-interested action could lead to a socially non-optimal equilibrium (in which the participants all end up in a worse scenario). To game theorists, many situations can be modeled in a similar way to the classic Prisoners Dilemma including issues of nuclear deterrence, environmental pollution, corporate advertising campaigns and even romantic dates.

Supporters identify a game as any interaction between agents that is governed by a set of rules specifying the possible moves for each participant and a set of outcomes for each possible combination of moves. They add: One is hard put to find an example of social phenomenon that cannot be so described. (Hargreaves-Heap and Varoufakis, p.1).

Nonetheless, it can be countered that the nature of the game artificially pre-empts other possibilities: the sentences are fixed not by the participants but by external force (the game masters), so the choices facing the agents are outside of their control. Although this may certainly be applied to the restricted choices facing the two prisoners or contestants in a game, it is not obvious that every-day life generates such limited and limiting choices. The prisoners dilemma is not to be repeated: so there are no further negotiations based on what the other side chose.

More importantly, games with such restricting options and results are entered into voluntarily and can be avoided (we can argue that the prisoners chose to engage in the game in that they chose to commit a crime and hence ran the possibility of being caught!). Outside of games, agents affect each other and the outcomes in many different ways and can hence vary the outcomes as they interact in real life, communication involves altering the perception of how the world works, the values attached to different decisions, and hence what ought to be done and what potential consequences may arise.

In summary, even within the confines of the Prisoners Dilemma the assumptions that differing options be offered to each such that their self-interest works against the other can be challenged logically, ethically and judicially. Firstly, the collective outcomes of the game can be changed by the game master to produce a socially and individually optimal solution the numbers can be altered. Secondly, presenting such a dilemma to the prisoners can be considered ethically and judicially questionable as the final sentence that each gets is dependent on what another party says, rather than on the guilt and deserved punished of the individual.

Interestingly, repeated games tested by psychologists and economists tend to present a range of solutions depending on the stakes and other rules, with Axelrods findings (The Evolution of Cooperation, 1984) indicating that egotistic action can work for mutual harmony under the principle of tit for tat i.e., an understanding that giving something each creates a better outcome for both.

At a deeper level, some egoists may reject the possibility of fixed or absolute values that individuals acting selfishly and caught up in their own pursuits cannot see. Nietzsche, for instance, would counter that values are created by the individual and thereby do not stand independently of his or her self to be explained by another authority; similarly, St. Augustine would say love, and do as you will; neither of which may be helpful to the prisoners above but which may be of greater guidance for individuals in normal life.

Rand exhorts the application of reason to ethical situations, but a critic may reply that what is rational is not always the same as what is reasonable. The critic may emphasize the historicity of choice, that is, she may emphasize that ones apparent choice is demarcated by, and dependent on, the particular language, culture of right and consequence and environmental circumstance in which an individual finds herself living: a Victorian English gentleman perceived a different moral sphere and consequently horizon of goals than an American frontiersman. This criticism may, however, turn on semantic or contextual nuances. The Randian may counter that what is rational is reasonable: for one can argue that rationality is governed as much by understanding the context (Sartres facticity is a highly useful term) as adhering to the laws of logic and of non-contradiction.

Ethical egoism is the normative theory that the promotion of ones own good is in accordance with morality. In the strong version, it is held that it is always moral to promote ones own good, and it is never moral not to promote it. In the weak version, it is said that although it is always moral to promote ones own good, it is not necessarily never moral to not. That is, there may be conditions in which the avoidance of personal interest may be a moral action.

In an imaginary construction of a world inhabited by a single being, it is possible that the pursuit of morality is the same as the pursuit of self-interest in that what is good for the agent is the same as what is in the agents interests. Arguably, there could never arise an occasion when the agent ought not to pursue self-interest in favor of another morality, unless he produces an alternative ethical system in which he ought to renounce his values in favor of an imaginary self, or, other entity such as the universe, or the agents God. Opponents of ethical egoism may claim, however, that although it is possible for this Robinson Crusoe type creature to lament previous choices as not conducive to self-interest (enjoying the pleasures of swimming all day, and not spending necessary time producing food), the mistake is not a moral mistake but a mistake of identifying self-interest. Presumably this lonely creature will begin to comprehend the distinctions between short, and long-term interests, and, that short-term pains can be countered by long-term gains.

In addition, opponents argue that even in a world inhabited by a single being, duties would still apply; (Kantian) duties are those actions that reason dictates ought to be pursued regardless of any gain, or loss to self or others. Further, the deontologist asserts the application of yet another moral sphere which ought to be pursued, namely, that of impartial duties. The problem with complicating the creatures world with impartial duties, however, is in defining an impartial task in a purely subjective world. Impartiality, the ethical egoist may retort, could only exist where there are competing selves: otherwise, the attempt to be impartial in judging ones actions is a redundant exercise. (However, the Cartesian rationalist could retort that need not be so, that a sentient being should act rationally, and reason will disclose what are the proper actions he should follow.)

If we move away from the imaginary construct of a single beings world, ethical egoism comes under fire from more pertinent arguments. In complying with ethical egoism, the individual aims at her own greatest good. Ignoring a definition of the good for the present, it may justly be argued that pursuing ones own greatest good can conflict with anothers pursuit, thus creating a situation of conflict. In a typical example, a young person may see his greatest good in murdering his rich uncle to inherit his millions. It is the rich uncles greatest good to continue enjoying his money, as he sees fit. According to detractors, conflict is an inherent problem of ethical egoism, and the model seemingly does not possess a conflict resolution system. With the additional premise of living in society, ethical egoism has much to respond to: obviously there are situations when two peoples greatest goods the subjectively perceived working of their own self-interest will conflict, and, a solution to such dilemmas is a necessary element of any theory attempting to provide an ethical system.

The ethical egoist contends that her theory, in fact, has resolutions to the conflict. The first resolution proceeds from a state of nature examination. If, in the wilderness, two people simultaneously come across the only source of drinkable water a potential dilemma arises if both make a simultaneous claim to it. With no recourse to arbitration they must either accept an equal share of the water, which would comply with rational egoism. (In other words, it is in the interest of both to share, for both may enjoy the water and each others company, and, if the water is inexhaustible, neither can gain from monopolizing the source.) But a critic may maintain that this solution is not necessarily in compliance with ethical egoism. Arguably, the critic continues, the two have no possible resolution, and must, therefore, fight for the water. This is often the line taken against egoism generally: that it results in insoluble conflict that implies, or necessitates a resort to force by one or both of the parties concerned. For the critic, the proffered resolution is, therefore, an acceptance of the ethical theory that might is right; that is, the critic maintains that the resolution accepts that the stronger will take possession and thereby gain proprietary rights.

However, ethical egoism does not have to logically result in a Darwinian struggle between the strong and the weak in which strength determines moral rectitude to resources or values. Indeed, the realist position may strike one as philosophically inadequate as that of psychological egoism, although popularly attractive. For example, instead of succumbing to insoluble conflict, the two people could cooperate (as rational egoism would require). Through cooperation, both agents would, thereby, mutually benefit from securing and sharing the resource. Against the critics pessimistic presumption that conflict is insoluble without recourse to victory, the ethical egoist can retort that reasoning people can recognize that their greatest interests are served more through cooperation than conflict. War is inherently costly, and, even the fighting beasts of the wild instinctively recognize its potential costs, and, have evolved conflict-avoiding strategies.

On the other hand, the ethical egoist can argue less benevolently, that in case one man reaches the desired resource first, he would then be able to take rightful control and possession of it the second person cannot possess any right to it, except insofar as he may trade with its present owner. Of course, charitable considerations may motivate the owner to secure a share for the second comer, and economic considerations may prompt both to trade in those products that each can better produce or acquire: the one may guard the water supply from animals while the other hunts. Such would be a classical liberal reading of this situation, which considers the advance of property rights to be the obvious solution to apparently intractable conflicts over resources.

A second conflict-resolution stems from critics fears that ethical egoists could logically pursue their interests at the cost of others. Specifically, a critic may contend that personal gain logically cannot be in ones best interest if it entails doing harm to another: doing harm to another would be to accept the principle that doing harm to another is ethical (that is, one would be equating doing harm with ones own best interests), whereas, reflection shows that principle to be illogical on universalistic criteria. However, an ethical egoist may respond that in the case of the rich uncle and greedy nephew, for example, it is not the case that the nephew would be acting ethically by killing his uncle, and that for a critic to contend otherwise is to criticize personal gain from the separate ethical standpoint that condemns murder. In addition, the ethical egoist may respond by saying that these particular fears are based on a confusion resulting from conflating ethics (that is, self-interest) with personal gain; The ethical egoist may contend that if the nephew were to attempt to do harm for personal gain, that he would find that his uncle or others would or may be permitted to do harm in return. The argument that I have a right to harm those who get in my way is foiled by the argument that others have a right to harm me should I get in the way. That is, in the end, the nephew variously could see how harming another for personal gain would not be in his self-interest at all.

The critics fear is based on a misreading of ethical egoism, and is an attempt to subtly reinsert the might is right premise. Consequently, the ethical egoist is unfairly chastised on the basis of a straw-man argument. Ultimately, however, one comes to the conclusion reached in the discussion of the first resolution; that is, one must either accept the principle that might is right (which in most cases would be evidentially contrary to ones best interest), or accept that cooperation with others is a more successful approach to improving ones interests. Though interaction can either be violent or peaceful, an ethical egoist rejects violence as undermining the pursuit of self-interest.

A third conflict-resolution entails the insertion of rights as a standard. This resolution incorporates the conclusions of the first two resolutions by stating that there is an ethical framework that can logically be extrapolated from ethical egoism. However, the logical extrapolation is philosophically difficult (and, hence, intriguing) because ethical egoism is the theory that the promotion of ones own self-interest is in accordance with morality whereas rights incorporate boundaries to behavior that reason or experience has shown to be contrary to the pursuit of self-interest. Although it is facile to argue that the greedy nephew does not have a right to claim his uncles money because it is not his but his uncles, and to claim that it is wrong to act aggressively against the person of another because that person has a legitimate right to live in peace (thus providing the substance of conflict-resolution for ethical egoism), the problem of expounding this theory for the ethical egoist lies in the intellectual arguments required to substantiate the claims for the existence of rights and then, once substantiated, connecting them to the pursuit of an individuals greatest good.

A final type of ethical egoism is conditional egoism. This is the theory that egoism is morally acceptable or right if it leads to morally acceptable ends. For example, self-interested behavior can be accepted and applauded if it leads to the betterment of society as a whole; the ultimate test rests not on acting self-interestedly but on whether society is improved as a result. A famous example of this kind of thinking is from Adam Smiths The Wealth of Nations, in which Smith outlines the public benefits resulting from self-interested behavior (borrowing a theory from the earlier writer Bernard Mandeville and his Fable of the Bees). Smith writes: It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages (Wealth of Nations, I.ii.2).

As Smith himself admits, if egoistic behavior lends itself to societys detriment, then it ought to be stopped. The theory of conditional egoism is thus dependent on a superior moral goal such as an action being in the common interest, that is, the public good. The grave problem facing conditional egoists is according to what standard ought the limits on egoism be placed? In other words, who or what is to define the nature of the public good? If it is a person who is set up as the great arbitrator of the public, then it is uncertain if there can be a guarantee that he or she is embodying or arguing for an impartial standard of the good and not for his or her own particular interest. If it is an impartial standard that sets the limit, one that can be indicated by any reasonable person, then it behooves the philosopher to explain the nature of that standard.

In most public good theories, the assumption is made that there exists a collective entity over and above the individuals that comprise it: race, nation, religion, and state being common examples. Collectivists then attempt to explain what in particular should be held as the interest of the group. Inevitably, however, conflict arises, and resolutions have to be produced. Some seek refuge in claiming the need for perpetual dialogue (rather than exchange), but others return to the need for force to settle apparently insoluble conflicts; nonetheless, the various shades of egoism pose a valid and appealing criticism of collectivism: that individuals act; groups dont. Karl Poppers works on methodological individualism are a useful source in criticizing collectivist thinking (for example, Poppers The Poverty of Historicism).

Psychological egoism is fraught with the logical problem of collapsing into a closed theory, and hence being a mere assumption that could validly be accepted as describing human motivation and morality, or be rejected in favor of a psychological altruism (or even a psychological ecologism in which all actions necessarily benefit the agents environment).

Normative egoism, however, engages in a philosophically more intriguing dialogue with protractors. Normative egoists argue from various positions that an individual ought to pursue his or her own interest. These may be summarized as follows: the individual is best placed to know what defines that interest, or it is thoroughly the individuals right to pursue that interest. The latter is divided into two sub-arguments: either because it is the reasonable/rational course of action, or because it is the best guarantee of maximizing social welfare.

Egoists also stress that the implication of critics condemnation of self-serving or self-motivating action is the call to renounce freedom in favor of control by others, who then are empowered to choose on their behalf. This entails an acceptance of Aristotles political maxim that some are born to rule and others are born to be ruled, also read as individuals are generally too stupid to act either in their own best interests or in the interests of those who would wish to command them. Rejecting both descriptions (the first as being arrogant and empirically questionable and the second as unmasking the truly immoral ambition lurking behind attacks on selfishness), egoists ironically can be read as moral and political egalitarians glorifying the dignity of each and every person to pursue life as they see fit. Mistakes in securing the proper means and appropriate ends will be made by individuals, but if they are morally responsible for their actions they not only will bear the consequences but also the opportunity for adapting and learning. When that responsibility is removed and individuals are exhorted to live for an alternative cause, their incentive and joy in improving their own welfare is concomitantly diminished, which will, for many egoists, ultimately foster an uncritical, unthinking mass of obedient bodies vulnerable to political manipulation: when the ego is trammeled, so too is freedom ensnared, and without freedom ethics is removed from individual to collective or government responsibility.

Egoists also reject the insight into personal motivation that others whether they are psychological or sociological experts declare they possess, and which they may accordingly fine-tune or encourage to better ends. Why an individual acts remains an intrinsically personal and private act that is the stuff of memoirs and literature, but how they should act releases our investigations into ethics of what shall define the good for the self-regarding agent.

Alexander MoseleyEmail: alexandermoseley@icloud.comUnited Kingdom

Go here to see the original:

Egoism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Worldwide Government Cloud Computing Industry to 2025 – Identify Drivers and Challenges – PRNewswire

Posted on by

DUBLIN, Aug. 6, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- The "Global Government Cloud Computing Market By Type (Solutions and Services), By Service Model (Software as a Service, Platform as a Service and Infrastructure as a Service), By Deployment Model, By Organization Size, By Region, Competition, Forecast & Opportunities, 2025" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

The Global Government Cloud Computing Market is expected to register robust CAGR during the forecast period. The key factor responsible for the market growth is increasing role of digital content around various governing bodies. Additionally, the organisations are rapidly deploying cloud computing services, as it is helping them to save certain percentage of annual operating costs, which is anticipated to boost the growth of the government cloud computing market worldwide. Moreover, continuous improvement in public-sector technology solutions is further anticipated to bolster the market growth through 2025.

The Global Government Cloud Computing Market is segmented based on type, service model, deployment model, organization size, region and company. Based on service model, the market can be segmented into software as a service, platform as a service and infrastructure as a service. Out of which, the infrastructure as a service (IaaS) segment dominated the market in terms of largest market share until 2019 and is further anticipated to be the fastest-growing segment of the government cloud computing market during the forecast years as well.

This growth can be accredited to the ability of IaaS service model to transfer work to the cloud at the time of the peak demand for on-premises systems. Along with that, it further assists the users in saving their capital resource which can later be used for the cost of additional servers, which is further boosting the growth of the segment across the globe. In addition to this, IaaS supports the government agencies and help them realize their cost savings and efficiencies while modernizing and expanding their IT capabilities with limited capital resources.

Major players operating in the Global Government Cloud Computing Market include AWS, Microsoft, IBM, Google, HPE, Oracle, Salesforce, Cisco Systems, Dell Technologies, VMware, Verizon, CGI Group, AT&T, SAP, NetApp, Informatica, Huddle, Capgemini, CenturyLink, Fujitsu, etc. The companies operating in government cloud computing market across the globe are focussing more towards the expanding their share in the market. For instance, these key players are making organic strategies such as expansions, mergers and acquisitions, among others in order to make the industry highly competitive.

Objective of the Study:

Key Topics Covered:

1. Product Overview

2. Research Methodology

3. Impact of COVID-19 on Global Government Cloud Computing Market

4. Executive Summary

5. Voice of Customer

6. Global Government Cloud Computing Market Outlook6.1. Market Size & Forecast6.1.1. By Value6.2. Market Share & Forecast6.2.1. By Type (Solutions and Services)6.2.1.1. By Solution (Cloud Storage, Disaster Recovery, Identity and Access Management, Risk and Compliance Management and Others)6.2.1.2. By Service (Training, Consulting, and Education, Support and Maintenance and Integration and Migration)6.2.2. By Service Model (Software as a Service, Platform as a Service and Infrastructure as a Service)6.2.3. By Deployment Model (Public Cloud, Private Cloud and Hybrid Cloud)6.2.4. By Organization Size (Small & Medium Business Enterprises and Large Enterprises)6.2.5. By Region6.2.6. By Company

7. North America Government Cloud Computing Market Outlook7.1. Market Size & Forecast 7.1.1. By Value & Volume7.2. Market Share & Forecast7.2.1. By Type7.2.2. By Service Model7.2.3. By Deployment Model7.2.4. By Organization Size7.2.5. By Country (United States; Canada; Mexico and Rest of North America)7.3. North America: Country Analysis7.3.1. United States Government Cloud Computing Market Outlook7.3.1.1. Market Size & Forecast7.3.1.1.1. By Value & Volume7.3.1.2. Market Share & Forecast7.3.1.2.1. By Type7.3.1.2.2. By Service Model7.3.1.2.3. By Deployment Model7.3.2. Canada Government Cloud Computing Market Outlook7.3.2.1. Market Size & Forecast7.3.2.1.1. By Value & Volume7.3.2.2. Market Share & Forecast7.3.2.2.1. By Type7.3.2.2.2. By Service Model7.3.2.2.3. By Deployment Model7.3.3. Mexico Government Cloud Computing Market Outlook7.3.3.1. Market Size & Forecast7.3.3.1.1. By Value & Volume7.3.3.2. Market Share & Forecast7.3.3.2.1. By Type7.3.3.2.2. By Service Model7.3.3.2.3. By Deployment Model

8. Europe Government Cloud Computing Market Outlook

9. Asia-Pacific Government Cloud Computing Market Outlook

10. Middle East and Africa Printing Ink Market Outlook

11. South America Government Cloud Computing Market Outlook

12. Market Dynamics12.1. Drivers12.2. Challenges

13. Market Trends & Developments

14. Prising Analysis

15. Competitive Landscape15.1. Competition Outlook15.2. Company Profiles15.2.1. AWS15.2.2. Microsoft15.2.3. IBM15.2.4. Google15.2.5. HPE15.2.6. Oracle15.2.7. Salesforce15.2.8. Cisco Systems15.2.9. Dell Technologies15.2.10. VMware15.2.11. Verizon15.2.12. CGI Group15.2.13. AT&T15.2.14. SAP15.2.15. NetApp15.2.16. Informatica15.2.17. Huddle15.2.18. Capgemini15.2.19. CenturyLink15.2.20. Fujitsu

16. Strategic Recommendations

17. About Us and Disclaimer

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/czzs71

Research and Markets also offers Custom Research services providing focused, comprehensive and tailored research.

Media Contact:

Research and Markets Laura Wood, Senior Manager [emailprotected]

For E.S.T Office Hours Call +1-917-300-0470 For U.S./CAN Toll Free Call +1-800-526-8630 For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900

U.S. Fax: 646-607-1907 Fax (outside U.S.): +353-1-481-1716

SOURCE Research and Markets

http://www.researchandmarkets.com

See more here:

Worldwide Government Cloud Computing Industry to 2025 - Identify Drivers and Challenges - PRNewswire

Google and AWS revenues soar due to cloud computing success – TechRadar

Posted on by

The world's top cloud computing companies have enjoyed another bumper quarter as they reap benefit from the global shift towards remote working.

Google Cloud has revealed its Q2 revenues grew over 43% year on year in what was otherwise a challenging period for parent company Alphabet, which saw overall revenues struggle.

Meanwhile its big rival Amazon Web Services (AWS) also saw a 29% growth in revenues for its Q2, marking another few months of success for the cloud giant.

AWS revealed that the global coronavirus pandemic had affected partnerships with some of its largest customers, although revenues still totaled $10.81bn for the quarter - equivalent to around 12% of Amazon's total revenue as a whole.

This marked the first time AWS growth slipped under the 30% margin, down from the 33% seen in Q1 2020, but the company enjoyed a number of expanding partnerships with companies such as Zoom and Slack, as well as organisations such as Formula 1.

Google Cloud revenues brought in $3.007bn for Q2 2020, up 43% from $2.1bn year-on-year and $2.77bn in the previous quarter - although this did represent a slightly lower rate of growth from Q1 2019, where the year-on-year revenue increase hit 52%.

"GCP maintained the strong level of revenue growth it delivered in the first quarter, and its revenue growth was again meaningfully above cloud overall," Google CFO Ruth Porat stated.

"Overall, the lower Google Cloud revenue growth in the second quarter relative to the first quarter reflects the fact that G Suite lapped a price increase that was introduced in April last year. G suite maintained healthy growth in average revenue per seat as well as in seat growth which does not include customers who took advantage of our free trials as they shifted their employees to work-from-home."

Google Cloud proved a bright point for the company as a whole, with the report seeing Google record its first quarterly revenue decline since going public. Overall, parent company Alphabet reported total revenue of $31.6bn, down from $31.7bn over the same period last year.

The successes for Google Cloud and AWS were mirrored by their other great rival Microsoft Azure, which has been a huge success story for the company as demand for cloud computing capacity has soared over the last decade. The recent move towards remote working has also led to increased Azure usage, with revenues in the division rising 27 percent year over year in Microsoft's recent Q2 2020 results.

See the article here:

Google and AWS revenues soar due to cloud computing success - TechRadar