However accurate the above description actually portrays reality, it certainly sounds like a great system. The astounding number of individuals with their breadth of individuality ensures that everything will be cared about by someone. To clarify, this thing is not all or nothing, rather it is the personal line which connects you to the world around you in a meaningful way. Could it change with time? Perhaps, humans are apt to do so from time to time. For some people it is religion, for others it is technology, still others find their crusade in animals; the list continues, but for me I am planted firmly in food (excuse the pun). Why? Well, I’m glad you asked:

The most fundamentally selfless and communitarian thing we do is to share food; it is the very basis of society. Sex we do not share; we are possessive, jealous and secretive, prone to murdering our sexual rivals and guarding our partners if given the chance. But food is something to share.
From The Origins of Virtue by Matt Ridley
Taken from the chapter entitled “Duty and Feast; In which human generosity with food is explained.”

So I obsess about food (and I include drink in this as well). It is not simply a matter of loving to eat it, though that bit is certainly nice. No, it is every aspect of food: the growing, the preparation, the eating - all of which involves community and sharing. One of the reasons why I continue to develop a love of food is because it is not so easy to take for granted today. Not in its plentifulness, as I am very fortunate in that regard; rather in the quality of every stage. To illustrate this I will recount a discussion I had with a friend of late:

In discussing food, my profound love and his mild indifference therefor, we somehow got to the topic of importation. While he was absolutely for free trade and the opportunity for a Peruvian man to export his potatoes to my home, I was vehemently against it. I explained my position thus:

First and foremost I think it is abundantly clear that, unfortunate though it may be, people will almost always buy the cheaper of two goods, no matter the other, perhaps less empirical costs to them and their community. But these costs are far from negligible. Lynn Truss of Eats, Shoots and Leaves fame recently published a book called The Utter Bloody Rudeness of the World Today or Six Good Reasons to Stay Home and Bolt the Door. In it she talks about, though rants might be a better term, the individual bubble phenomenon. Ridley’s book develops on the “theories” in Truss’ book by blaming the lack of niceness on the lack of opportunity for reciprocal behavior. In other words, we are nice to people because we want them to be nice to us, thus developing a society of cooperating and generally pleasant people. This theory however depends on people in a community seeing each other more than once; repeated interaction as could be logically expected in a community. We are slowly destroying the systems we so painstakingly (and evolutionarily) put in place to ensure that people not only interact, but through these interactions feel responsibility for others. While not altruism in its purest sense, it is the human version of the ideal. This repeated interaction ensures that, for the most part, everyone treats everyone else well so that they and their relatives (read: genes) may be treated well in return and thus prosper. But, if we see someone, whom we are sure never to see again, while passing in an automobile at 80Km/h, we have no difficulty offering them obscene gestures and a loud F$%@ %^f.

One of the above mentioned systems which is being destroyed is our food system. When I buy my potatoes from a guy (or corporation) in Peru, neither he nor I am benefiting from any sort of interaction because we’re both dealing with giant, faceless corporations from thousands of miles away. And if you’re thinking about discussions with people who sell the potatoes to you, consider that for a moment; how much do you actually know about the cashier at the SuperStore? Every Saturday morning however I meet and have a conversation with Johann, a German baker at the market, then later talk about veggies and life with Anne at my usual veggie stand. How often do people say that “networking is the key” in business? Why doesn’t that apply to life anymore? As we lose the systems we built to ensure a functioning society based on cooperation, what takes its place? I hate to blame things on the machines of capitalism and government, for what are they but the systems we support; I think it is abundantly clear that we are losing our social systems and the drive to get them back is just beginning.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————-

I know you’ve all heard the evils of the green revolution and “conventional” agriculture, so I won’t bombard you. Just remember, while you can (and should!) visit the farmers (who by this time are also friends!) nearby, you have no idea what those veggies in the Superstore went through just to get here.

P.S - I have nothing against Peru, indeed I have never been there.

I am sitting here in my office listening to Trio Sonatas from Handel and Corelli and looking out from the top of the hill in Fredericton at, well the entire city of Fredericton. There is something about this style and era of music which allows me to transcend the moment. It brings a smile and certain lightness which I can find in few other places. It brings a certain significance to the silence of the trees swaying outside and the bug-like cars and people moving four stories below. It is transcendence, but one that allows a closeness to the mundane that we usually shield ourselves from. It offers a perspective different from that within my mind. No doubt it is thoughtfully contemplative and reflective, like almost everything else I do as a philosophy student, but it is also profoundly peaceful. It delves to the heart of what really matters, and interestingly though unsurprisingly it brings me to the wind, the trees, the cars and the people; it brings me to peace.

It is so convenient to be immature. If I have a book to have understanding in place of me, a spiritual advisor to have a conscience for me, a doctor to judge my diet for me, and so on, I need not make any efforts at all. I need not think, so long as I can pay; others will soon enough take the tiresome job over for me.

Does this not sound familiar? “I need not think, so long as I can pay”, could easily be a capitalist motto. Our entire modern society is built on the idea of convenience – ultimately tying us down to become slaves, not even to other people, but to computers, the internet and other machines we build. We are regressing so seriously from Kant’s definition of social enlightenment that we have to ask: What do we know? It is especially frightening when it comes to morality and ethics. Since we “outsource” almost everything else, even original thought in many cases, it follows that we rely on others to tell us what moral or ethical behavior is. Yet, if we are incapable of challenging these pronouncements, how can we be sure that what our “advisors” say is moral, really is moral? Thankfully there are still many, many people who continue in free thought, though perhaps not in totally free speech. For this reason I offer the following analogy as a question/challenge.

Bob is applying for jobs having completed his first bachelor’s degree. He is passionate about the environment and knows, without a doubt, that he wants to do something to help ensure a green future for following generations. Bob is a smart guy and has a bright future with a shining resume. He applies to a few environmental consulting firms, enjoying the idea of helping businesses and homes alike become more environmentally active.
He soon hears back from one company, EnviroClean, and they offer him a position as an environmental consultant. However, while he was waiting for the companies to get back to him he was able to do some research about each of them. He found out that EnviroClean had a history of Greenwashing, or aiding in Greenwashing, a practice which hits rock bottom on Bob’s ethical thermostat. This is the only offer he got, and he really wants to work in the field. He has no practical experience, and no credit to start his own consulting firm. He is unsure what to do. He knows that if he accepts the job he could get the experience, contacts and funds he needs to start his own group in future. He is also painfully aware that by joining such a group he is directly supporting unethical, immoral practices and promoting a corrupt system. His chances of making any changes within the system are minute, since EnviroClean is a large firm. The documents he has to sign as an employee ensure that his responsibilities lie toward the betterment of the firm, and that his freedom to express any opinions which might harm the firm lie within the judgment of those running the business.

Bob is clearly intelligent and morally sensitive. In the end his question comes down to a question of responsibility. Does Bob have responsibility only to himself and the economy, as capitalism and modern society generally insist? If so, the question is easily answered. Or, does Bob have a responsibility to all life; past, present, future: human and otherwise? If so, the question becomes much more complex and difficult to answer. In other words it becomes inconvenient. We ask for convenience, but at what cost?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

An Afterthought - In What is Enlightenment Kant says:
“The public use of man’s reason must always be free; the private use of reason may quite often be very narrowly restricted, however, without undue hindrance to the progress of enlightenment.”
This is exactly the case in the example I used last post, where the priest could not voice full his convictions in his role as leader of a congregation. Once out of his ministerial role and proclaimed simply as a rational member of society, he can express himself as he wishes. Idealistic? Perhaps. The same could be true for Bob; however, if he were to publicly voice opposition to certain of the company’s actions (e.g. greenwashing) he would most likely be fired, but in addition might face legal action due to the contracts he signed at the beginning. Companies, I assume, take contractual measures to avoid legal action should they react with a dismissal to an employees unfavorable public expression. Unfortunately Canada lags a bit behind in “whistleblower” legislation; even so, companies have enough lawyers to build contractual obligations which avoid major legal ramifications should an employee exercise their freedom of expression ” in the wrong way”. Where is the free in free expression?

Maybe when Kant said: “Have courage to use your own understanding”, the courage was meant for the consequences.
——————————————-
1. Interesting to note that Kant says left in freedom, rather than given freedom or some such. Kant clearly thinks that freedom is the default – the validity of this is a whole new discussion.

The readings I have been doing this week as part of a summer program have all centered around the ideal of an enlightened society. Somewhat interestingly they all speak of free speech and action while defining morality as socially affecting decisions. Also recently I became aware of the debate between Ezra Levant and Syed Soharwardy. Levant, as publisher of the now defunct Western Star (Calgary newspaper), re-published the heated danish made muslim cartoons. I hate to reincarnate an already flogged horse, but this debate is indicative of today’s globalization-driven free speech debates. This particular argument between Levant and Soharwardy was used mostly for media fodder. The arguments used are extreme, ridiculous and sweepingly general. At its core though the argument is a good one. Levant argues for free speech and the right to exercise his reason in any public forum to which he has access. Soharwardy, though not rebuking free speech, attempts to draw limitations on the ideal; in essence invoking the dreadful concept of political correctness. A note: Soharwardy recalled his complaint to the Alberta Human Rights Commission this past February. In doing so he cited his original unawareness of ongoing debates about the role and jurisdiction of the HRC, and his current questioning of the legitimacy of the organization’s current status.

Both sides throughout the debate, and always in the media, draw many erroneous analogies and build many straw-men. With references to Orwell’s 1984 and Stalin-esque regimes, as well as to white supremacy and racism, both sides managed to make a genuinely rational and necessary debate into a farce worthy of E! entertainment. This is the biggest problem that I see in discussing such things in public forums; there is such a lack of respect and trust that neither party in any such debate can maintain any sort of decorum. It is not racism or Stalinism which ruins these debates, it is both parties’ inability to focus on the issue; instead they are drawn to a list of fallacious arguments a mile long. I am convinced that each statement each party makes is a crap shoot of fallacies. I won’t pretend to know what social factors contribute to this intellectual machismo, or whether it is simply a measuring of….egos. In any case, some trust in each party’s ability to be reasonable and stay on issue is essential. In order for this to happen some respect for each party - and their stance - is mandatory. This is not a trivial matter, it comes down to the construction of an enlightened society.

It was Frederick II the Great who succinctly asked of Immanuel Kant, “What is Enlightenment?” The king of Prussia received, in response to his question, perhaps one of the greatest arguments against realism, materialism and authoritarianism ever provided:

A greater degree of civil freedom seems advantageous to a people’s spiritual freedom; yet the former established impassable boundaries for the latter; conversely, a lesser degree of civil freedom provides enough room for all fully to expand their abilities. Thus, once nature has removed the hard shell from this kernel for which she has most fondly cared, namely, the inclination to and vocation for free thinking, the kernel gradually reacts on a people’s mentality (whereby they become increasingly able to act freely), and it finally even influences the principles of government, which finds that it can profit by treating men, who are now more than machines, in accord with their dignity.

Kant discusses the paradox of the ability for humans to exercise free speech while working in a society which functions based on set norms. He uses throughout the example of a priest. While the priest must preach to his congregation the values and ideals of the church, he may not wholly subscribe to them but must only assume that some truth may possibly therein be found. As a person commissioned to teach certain values, he may not be entirely free in this role. However, as a free agent in the public he may be completely free in addressing any issue he pleases in his writings and speech. It is this paradox in which we must work daily, until such time as the system changes to “treat men, who are more than machines, in accord with their dignity”.

So why do we need the HRC to judge our debates? Because we are still unenlightened in our “self-incurred immaturity”. To escape from this we must take Kant’s advice, “Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding”.

This is all well, but it is also true that words can hurt. Undoubtedly when Kant was writing he was unaware of the extent of interdependency which would result from the 300+ years of globalization (read: colonization) after his death. However, society has enabled us with the capacity to intellectualize without causing undue harm. Much like manners for interaction with strangers, respect for and trust in the “opposing” party allows a certain objectivity in free speech and discussion. Most important however is the realization that, ultimately, nothing can be free of debate. It is only when exclusions occur that resentment, disrespect and distrust follow. There is no reason for even man’s most deeply held belief to be free of questioning. Of course, every person is entitled to their own beliefs, but nothing on this earth makes these beliefs sacred and sovereign.

“This instinct of freedom forced into being latent - it is already clear - this instinct of freedom forces back, trodden back, imprisoned within itself, and finally only able to find vent and relief in itself; this, only this, is the beginning of the “bad conscience”.
- Nietzsche from The Genealogy of Morals, discussing the origin of “bad conscience” in society. Like Kant he sees the quelling of free expression as a great evil and the origin of all “bad conscience” or resentment.