Author: Duncan

Tickle

Duncan Leave a comment

Imagine that a bomb’s been planted somewhere in a major metropolis and the only person who knows the location is the one who put it there. If the bomb isn’t disarmed the explosion’s effects will be catastrophic. There isn’t enough time to search for the device, but the suspect was apprehended shortly after he armed it. Unfortunately, the interrogation of the suspect has proven fruitless, and our time is running out. As the person in charge of the situation, what do you do?

  1. Continue to interrogate the prisoner and hope for a change of heart.
  2. Torture the prisoner and almost certainly acquire the necessary information.

The second option is much more effective than the first, but everyone knows that torture is wrong because it undermines the presumption of innocence – the foundation for the western judicial system. But what is torture, exactly, and how can we be certain that we aren’t already torturing our prisoner through confinement and interrogation?

The definition of torture is the act of inflicting pain, either physical or mental, often for the purpose of punishment or retrieving information. Conventional torture methods include beating, lashing, shunning, rape, confinement, deprivation of sleep or nourishment and joint manipulation. Most of us would never condone these barbaric tactics, but there are many other techniques that are more subtle and ambiguous.

Aggressive interrogation, or enhanced interrogation, is a term used to describe methods that more closely tread the line of legality, such as waterboarding. Most consider aggressive interrogation to be disguised torture, but how do these techniques differ from those of conventional interrogation? Suspects are regularly isolated, accused, mocked and berated by their captors in order to encourage a confession, and by its very nature, incarceration is a violation of fundamental a human right. In another common example of sanctioned torture, parents will often confine their children or restrict their diet in order to encourage or discourage certain behavior.

It’s clear that our concept of torture may be disturbingly inclusive, but what if there was a way to avoid all these moral predicaments? There is a technique which causes no pain or discomfort, yet it’s powerful enough to cause family members to turn on each other. We’re speaking, of course, about tickling.

Tickling makes the passive flail and claw, the reserved scream profanities and the reasonable abandon their sensibilities. We don’t really consider tickling a serious thing, yet we’ll resort to extreme measures to escape it, often threatening, insulting or injuring those we care about. If tickling can make friends and family commit acts of violence against each other, it must certainly be strong enough to elicit a confession from our bomb-planting prisoner. Even if tickling wasn’t effective in this case, torture methods have been honed for thousands of years, while our understanding of tickling is still quite elementary. It’s likely that, with adequate research, new techniques and devices would be created that would take tickling to a degree we could never imagine.

Terrorists should be tickled.

Pillars

Duncan Leave a comment

Engaging in an argument with a colleague, friend or stranger can be a fruitful or frustrating endeavor. Because the subject of such discussions often centers around an issue about which we feel very strongly, our conviction can easily escalate a cordial debate into a futile shouting contest. In our earnest desire prove that our view is superior and shame our opponent, we can resort to poor debating techniques, mockery or outright deception.

Most arguments begin with two well-intentioned individuals politely discussing a subject of interest, but they can quickly deteriorate into a heated quarrel over the definition of a simple term, with neither party able to recall the original point of contention. This needn’t be the case, however. Our discussions would be more tranquil and productive if we were all experienced in formal debate, but since that isn’t likely to happen, let’s identify a few stumbling blocks that disrupt our deliberations:

  1. An unclear definition of ideas, terminology or the positions of either party.
  2. The refusal by one or both parties to admit the weaknesses in their position.
  3. The lack of a moderator or governing system to ensure the discussion remains respectful and relevant.

These obstacles can be avoided fairly easily by taking a few moments to draft an outline of our position. By documenting our argument, we are cementing our thoughts into the physical world. This forces us to condense our complicated, abstract ideas into definite statements, making it much easier both parties to understand one another. It also offers a reference point for the discussion, ensuring that both parties are in agreement over the subject of their debate.

In addition to recording the crux of the argument, it’s also useful to include presuppositions, the unseen pillars on which our thesis rests, which offer both parties a clear avenue for dismantling their opponent’s position. By simply asking, “why?” we can unearth these subterranean pillars. Let’s look at an example:

The image above shows two arguments which support the claim that aliens exist. To defend this claim, we could elect to use either or both pillars, since both of them could independently prove the existence of aliens. If we wanted to assault this position, we must simply show that the reports of alien encounters are unreliable and that the Drake Equation doesn’t prove anything. There are, however, additional pillars beneath the supporting arguments in this example. Here’s an illustration which shows another tier of presupposition:

As we can see, the arguments which support the idea that the speed limits should be reduced are dependent on the belief that people being hurt or killed is bad. Without acknowledging that people being hurt or killed is undesirable, the argument for reduced speed limits collapses. Here’s an example of a more complex argument structure with many supporting pillars already identified. This is just one way that the argument structure could be illustrated, since there’s a multitude of pillars from which to choose.

In addition to dismantling the pillars supporting a position, arguments may be proven inadequate by showing additional ideas that a structure may support. For example, the argument for homosexual marriage is often oversimplified as a case for the right of a person to marry whoever they choose. Without considering what other pillars may be supported by an argument structure, we may end up constructing a framework that supports beliefs that we do not agree with.

If flow charts depict thoughts as a stream, then pillars portray them as a structure. Although each thought is related to its neighbors, there is no direction or flow between them. While flow charts may be used to guide from condition to conclusion, pillars are merely a framework that illustrates the relationship between different ideas and beliefs.

The number of pillars beneath an argument is not infinite, for if, like children, we were to continuously ask “why?” we would eventually reach the foundational pillar, which is the basis for our concept of reality. This often invokes an emotional, incoherent defense, since none of us are comfortable having our core beliefs called into question. It is most often unnecessary to probe such depths unless the subject of the debate is one which undermines an understanding of the universe.

Next time you sense a debate approaching, take a moment to sketch your pillars before continuing.

Human Value: Part I

Duncan Leave a comment

“Hey, what’s up?”

“I’m not feeling very good.”

“Oh, how come?”

“I just feel ugly.”

“You’re not ugly, you’re beautiful!

“But what if I was ugly?”

Nearly everyone has struggled with low self-esteem, for we cannot help but evaluate our own worth. There are times when each of us will contemplate the purpose and significance of our existence, weigh ourselves and be found wanting. Fortunately, when we sink into the mire of self-loathing, friends, family and television ads are always there to remind us that we are talented, successful and beautiful. But what if it isn’t true? What if we’re actually mundane, pitiful and hideous? And should we really derive value from such properties?

First of all, the idea of assigning value to life forms may seem cruel and unnecessary, but as we’ve already discussed, this is something we do to animals all the time. The difference between how we determine animal value and human value is that animals are judged collectively, as a species, while humans are judged as individuals. When we say that dogs have a high animal value, we are referring to the intrinsic value of all dogs everywhere, regardless of their individual qualities. However, when we console a friend by reminding them of their worth, we are referring to the acquired value of that particular person. It’s true that animals are sometimes valued as individuals, as was the case with Hachiko, the loyal Japanese Akita, but these exceptions are rare, scarce and extraordinary.

Since humans ascribe worth to themselves and others on an individual basis, the criteria for such appraisals pertains to our personal attributes. We derive value from our skills, accomplishments and appearance, but there are inherent dangers in this strategy.

First, the subjectivity of these qualities is obvious, since each culture prioritizes traits differently, defining success and beauty in a unique way. Accomplished chess players are rarely swarmed by fans or idolized by children these days. Wealthy individuals can enjoy admiration in some circles but also incite contempt in others. Beauty is an extremely difficult concept to define, as it is merely an interpretation of shape, proportion and color, having no foundation in reality.

Second, we tend to compare ourselves to those around us, which skews our perception. For example, after a notable achievement, such as completing a work of art or advancing in our profession, we may experience satisfaction, but this quickly evaporates when we encounter someone who is more accomplished. Similarly, we might be feeling quite content with our figure until we take a trip to the beach and see fit, toned figures frolicking in the sand. We are extremely susceptible to feelings of inferiority, which likely explains the reason we tend to associate with those who share a similar level of talent, success and beauty.

Finally, when the potency and blatancy of our shortcomings is so overwhelming that we cannot extract worth from our qualities, the hollow nature of such appraisals becomes undeniable. It’s true that everyone has feelings of inadequacy from time to time, but what about those who have no basis to deny that inadequacy? What about the destitute man sleeping under the overpass? What about the woman whose face is gruesomely disfigured? We cannot tell these people that they are successful or beautiful because the truth is nothing of the sort.

Regardless of its subjective nature, this system of individual valuation fails to offer relief to the the poor and unsightly, and in doing so, exposes the cruelty behind encouraging one another with the fleeting physical. When we console someone by describing properties that others do not have, we covertly devalue those who do not have them, for this implies that our value comes from a source that is not universally possessed. In order to avoid these difficulties, we must change the way that we value ourselves and others.

Earlier we made the distinction between collective (or intrinsic) value and individual (or acquired) value, and it was an important one. Although we are primarily concerned with our acquired value, it is actually our intrinsic value that secures our most basic and important rights and freedoms. In the eyes of the law, we are all given equal weight based solely on our membership in the human race. To endow or retract privileges because of physical criteria such as wealth and beauty would seem unjust, yet we continue to value ourselves in this way. It may be difficult to abandon a focus on our individual qualities, but it’s the only way to ensure that everyone is able to build self-esteem from an equal footing.

There is a problem with this approach as well, a question that has gone unanswered since the dawn of civilization: how do we determine the intrinsic value of humans?

As humans, we assign value to animals based on attributes that we determine to be significant. We do this because we are attempting to determine the value of the animal to humanity. It is from our perspective as the superior creature that we bestow fish, birds and insects with worth. Without the ability to communicate or process complex thought, animals are unable to protest our authority, but humans are a different story. If we are indeed valuable, then by whose authority and to what degree are we endowed with intrinsic value? How can a creature determine its own worth?

The World’s Hardest Multiple Choice Question: Part I

Duncan Leave a comment

Which of the following questions has the same answer as this question?

A. What is the answer to this question?

  • B.
  • C.
  • C.
  • There is no correct answer.

B.  Which of the following choices represents all of the incorrect answers to this question?

  • A.
  • A, B, C, D.
  • A, B.
  • All of the above.

C. What letter precedes the letter that represents the answer to this question?

  • A.
  • A.
  • D.
  • None of the above.

D. Which of the following choices represents, in order, the correct answers for questions A, B and C?

  • B, B, C.
  • B, D, D.
  • D, C, A.
  • C, D, B.
If this question was not challenging enough, please see part II.

Elvis Presley’s Motorcycle

Duncan Leave a comment

On his way home from work, a man stops to investigate a local garage sale. While wandering through rows of wreckage, one item catches his eye – an old motorcycle that has clearly been neglected. He haggles with the owner for a few moments before settling on a price befitting of an elderly motorcycle, then loads it into his truck and heads home.

Once in his garage, the new owner takes a closer look at his latest acquisition. He removes the seat and finds an engraving that reads, “To Elvis, love Priscilla.”

The new owner races into his home and calls the local antiquarian for an appraisal. The bike is confirmed to have once belonged to Elvis Presley and is valued upward of $1,000,000. The owner brings the bike to auction, sells it and returns home to live out the rest of his days in luxury.

This story isn’t true, of course, but it’s certainly enticing. The appeal of this tale is the hope that one day fortune may find us as well, but what about the man who sold the motorcycle at the garage sale? Isn’t this fable as much a myth of chance and riches as it is one of adversity and loss?

From the perspective of the previous owner, this story would provoke frustration and even anger toward the new owner. Indeed, if we were in the shoes of the man who held the garage sale, we would likely feel that we had been cheated. So here’s the question: does the new owner owe the previous owner a share of the fortune?

First, let’s examine the relationship between buyer and seller. It’s not unusual for products to be sold with the knowledge, and even expectation, that they will be sold again at a higher price. What makes this circumstance exceptional is the massive profit made by the new owner. Had the new owner made only a few thousand dollars on the motorcycle, the previous owner probably wouldn’t feel wronged.

Another vital fact is that the previous owner did not know the true value of the bike. It is true that he agreed to the price, but he did so with the understanding that it was an ordinary motorcycle. Now we could simply place the responsibility on the previous owner to know what he was selling, but that would mean that every transaction should be final, regardless of error, which isn’t the case. If we are mistakenly billed too much for an item we expect to be compensated. However, when we are billed to little for an item we consider it a gift and demand that the vendor honor their agreement. Because the story is told from the perspective of the new owner, making him the beneficiary of a transaction error, we feel as though he was blessed by the mistake of a vendor.

The third element at play in this predicament is the fact that the new owner did not know the value of the motorcycle at the time of purchase. Had he known, then we would likely feel that the previous owner had indeed been cheated, since the new owner withheld vital information about the bike. Is concealing information the equivalent of a lie? Perhaps not, but it’s definitely not praiseworthy behavior.

In order to fully understand the situation, we must also ponder the concept of theft. The classic definition of theft as taking something from someone without their permission has proven inadequate in many situations, including this one. After all, the previous owner did give his permission, and he was compensated, so it’s hard to accuse the new owner of outright thievery, but he also isn’t not a thief. When the new owner learned that the bike belonged to Elvis, it became apparent that he gotten more than he payed for at that garage sale. The previous owner thought he was selling a motorcycle, but he wasn’t; he was selling Elvis Presley’s motorcycle. It would be like selling a pair of pants with a diamond ring in the pocket. We may have had no idea that the ring was there, or that we even owned the ring, but that doesn’t mean that we are no longer entitled to it.

Let’s imagine that the new owner doesn’t immediately sell the bike. Instead, he ponders his moral obligation to the previous owner. He concludes that he is the rightful owner of the motorcycle and sells it, but also feels that he should share the fortune with the previous owner. How much of the money does the previous owner deserve? As we’ve learned before, there are only three reasonable options: nothing, one half or all of it. Anything else would be an arbitrary amount aimed at appeasement, not justice. But the new owner can only ask this question because he’s in control of the money. If the previous owner somehow controlled the money, how much would he think the new owner deserved? Also, what if the new new owner who bought the motorcycle at the auction sold it for $2,000,000?

None of this matters anyway, because the guy selling the bike at the garage sale got it from someone else. If there is a true owner, then it’s either the first owner or the current owner. There are no happy endings, because nothing ends.

Crying Sale

Duncan Leave a comment

In the sea of the economy, consumers are the hungry fish found prowling shoals in search of prey. They feed on minute invertebrates who labor to survive, but the fish themselves are also hunted.

High above in their vessels, businesses lower hooks in hopes of snagging their quarry. They craft exquisite ads that flash and dance to entice a strike. One lure that has proven to attract time and again, the wriggling worm of advertisement, is the sale.

A sale is a temporary availability of product at a reduced price – at least that’s what it used to be – but now it’s so much less. Traditionally, a sale is held when a business wants to clear out excess inventory or promote a new product, but sales have become as meaningless as the products they endorse.

Much like special interest groups have harnessed the holiday, businesses now exploit the power of the sale by constantly advertising reduced prices. Whether hunting for a new vehicle, household appliance or simply shopping for groceries, we are assaulted with a barrage of special offers. In these times, it would seem downright foolish to pay full price when making any significant purchase. Special pricing is no longer special, it’s expected.

Customers now demand the exceptional, handicapping businesses who fail to advertise reduced pricing. This puts pressure on every business to participate, regardless of whether they have a legitimate sale. There are fields, now, endless fields of flags and banners that never come down. This saturation of exceptional discounts has devalued the concept of the sale, as with every cry its credibility is eroded. Signs proclaiming “BLOWOUT!” or “CLEARANCE!” are now as weightless as the balloons that adorn them.