Banning Trans Fats in California

Last Friday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill to make California the first state to ban trans fats from all restaurants and bakeries.  This would affect about 88,000 food outlets.  Last October, he also signed a bill banning trans fats from the public schools.  It will be phased in California by 2010.

Trans fats are the partially hydrogenated oils that extend the shelf life of products, its what gives fast food that crisp and flavorful taste. Experts say just a 2 percent increase of trans fat intake can result in a 25 percent increase in the likelihood of developing coronary artery disease—a condition that can lead to sudden cardiac arrest and death.  It’s the worst kind of fat.

I, myself, won’t buy anything that has trans fat in it.  Even if it has a small ounce of it, I won’t buy it.  So what’s the philosophy behind this?  Well, I have mixed feelings about this ban.  The purpose of government is to (a) protect other people from doing harm to other people–basically making sure that people don’t infringe on other people’s rights (if you want to use rights terminology), and (b) making sure that society progresses, or at the very least, doesn’t regress.  Unfortunately, these two purposes can come into conflict.  So what about the trans fat ban?  It seems that it violates principle (a).  As long as the individual is doing it to him/herself, the government cannot intervene.  After all, if we have to look out for people’s health, why not ban smoking?  This is where it gets sticky.  Part of a corollary in part (b) is that people aren’t educated in some areas, thus the government has to look out for these people.  An example is that people need an education.  Thus, it’s law that you must go to school and become educated because it benefits society regardless if you want it or not.

It’s an interesting issue, but I found some pros and cons with this ban:

PROS:

1. Society will be healthier: Ok, so with people not consuming trans fat, perhaps our obesity problem will shrink and can become a healthier society.  Sounds like a good deal.  However, we have to admit that trans fit isn’t the only problem to obesity, overeating is definitely a major contribution.
2. It’s cheaper in the end: How so?  A recent study in Health Affairs finds that annual medical spending in the late 1990s was about $732 higher for obese adults than for those in the healthy range, estimating that obesity’s medical costs reach about $35 to $62 billion per year in year 2007 dollars.  Also, by law, insurers providing group health plans have almost no leeway to individualize insurance rates based on differences in risk factors like obesity; thus, if an obese person (spending an extra $732 annually) joins an insurance pool covering 732 people, each member will see their insurance rate rise by $1.00 unless the employer makes another adjustment.  Obesity reduces some workers’ productivity, as it is associated with higher rates of absenteeism and disability leave.  And many studies have found that heavier women are especially likely to have less economic success and to have husbands who earn less.
3. It seems to work in other places: Advertising regulations seem to have real potential. Shin-Yi Chou, Inas Rashad, and Michael Grossman (they are professional economists) find that a ban on fast-food restaurant ads reduces the number of overweight children and adolescents by 10% to 12%.

Cons:

1. Why not ban smoking if we’re going to be consistent? The reason for this ban is so that the citizens will become healthier.  But if we’re going to be consistent with our reasoning, then why not ban smoking as well?
2. Couldn’t education be a better substitute? We’ve all learned as children that smoking is bad and unhealthy, but we’ve never really learned about eating healthy or these different kinds of fats in school.  I didn’t learn about them until I was in college and that was because another student told me about them.  After that, I started researching on my own.  Have a class in public education that deals with food and eating healthy.  Increase our physical education classes.  Make people more aware of what they’re eating and drinking.
3. Doesn’t this seem to violate individual autonomy? Can’t people have a choice on what to eat?  So they learn about trans fats and proper diet, but they still eat it out of their own choice.  Why should the government have a say on what we should or shouldn’t eat?

These are the ideas I’ve thought up.  Anything else we want to add to the list?  What are the overall assessments?  Do you agree with the ban?

“Herd” Believers

When it comes to faith and religion, I agree mainly with Kierkegaard (as was stated in my previous post) but I also agree with Nietzsche as well.  The way I see it, there are three different types of people when it comes to faith and religion:

1. Practicing believers: these people genuinely believe and they consider serving God as the basis of their lives.  Indeed, God is the meaning in their life.
2. Non-practicing, non-believers: these people hold on to a religion but for cultural or traditional purposes.  A good example of this are the Jews.  I myself have relatives that were part of the pioneers with the Mormons, and so I find myself within that heritage, but I myself don’t believe in the Mormon Doctrine but I don’t condemn them either.  Also, these people may do religious things not because they believe, but because it’s part of their culture.  For example, my relatives come from Vietnam and they’ll do “Buddhist” rituals, but no one understands Buddhism.  They just do it because it’s part of their tradition.
3. Non-practicing believers: People who genuinely believe but do not practice.  This is just a guess, but I would imagine this is the majority of religious people (at least in the US).  So they believe in the doctrines of the religion (which includes sins and religious duties), yet they fail to perform this duty.  However, they don’t consider themselves to be sinners, they don’t repent, nor do they find anything that they did wrong even though their religion says it is wrong.

So here’s what I don’t get: I honestly don’t understand how people in number three can do this. How is it possible to believe in something, like God, yet continue to act and think as if there is no God, for example?

The Dark Knight and the State of Nature

I saw The Dark Knight in theaters last night and it was pretty good.  What really struck me was that each of the main characters took on a different position of each different philosopher.

To start, the Joker was all about Chaos.  He structures mankind so that they will inevitably destroy themselves.  I won’t give away the details of the movie, but the Joker sets up a situation where two sets of people have a choice to destroy the other group of people.  And so you would think, “I’d rather kill them because if they don’t, then they can kill me.”  Indeed, the ending really surprised me because I expected one set of people to do something.  Batman tells the Joker that it’s because of the goodness of people.  The Joker replies, “you really are incorrigible Batman.  The reason they are good is because they havn’t been pushed hard enough.  All they need is one push.”  This push will change any person from good to evil.  But I think the Joker’s main point is that it’s not a simple push to become evil.  I think being evil, selfish, and desire for power is easy.  Trying to be good and helpful actually requires work.  In the state of nature theory, this resembles Hobbes.  Hobbes asks, “what would happen if there was no government?”  Or more precisely, “what was the situation like before there was a government?”  I ask my students this and the answer is always the same: chaos, anarchy, everyone is looking for themselves.  Then I ask them this: “and what does that tell you about human nature?”  The Joker is Hobbesian, but a more sadistic version because he is always pointing out that we are naturally selfish, cruel, and perhaps evil.

Batman is the hero; he is considered the good person.  Indeed, his reply to the Joker is that people are naturally good.  The reason why people become bad is because of perhaps environmental reasons.  This resembles Rousseau.  Rousseau says that before there was a government, we were actually good people; we were the “noble savages.”  We didn’t naturally go out and pick a fight.  Nature was full of abundance and so we just happily go our merry way and don’t get in each other’s way.  According to Rousseau, society has messed us up.  For example, in nature, we naturally just seek shelter.  In society though, we are taught that the bigger the house, the better.  In nature, we just naturally just want clothes to keep ourselves warm.  In society, we are taught to get the best clothes and the more expensive or fashionable it is, the better.  Society has kept us aloof and has made us out of touch with our real selves.  This could possibly be the reason why Batman doesn’t really hang out in society; he’s always hiding and only gets involved in society when there’s trouble.

Everyone was raving how great Heath Ledger’s performance was.  It was actually a good performance, but I was actually more impressed with Aaron Eckheart’s performance.  To me, the most interesting character in the movie was Harvey Dent/Two-Face.  As Harvey Dent, he was the hero of Gotham by fighting crime, locking up criminals, and ridding the streets of mobsters.  He lived by rules and the law.  Rules and laws were there to establish justice.  As Two-Face however, he only thinks of himself and it doesn’t matter who gets in the way.  If getting rid of that person helps him achieve his goal, so be it.  Rule and laws don’t apply to Two-Face.  Instead, it’s chance.  This is why he uses the coin toss: his philosophy is randomness and chance.  That’s his view of justice.  To me, this resembles John Locke.  According to Locke, we aren’t naturally evil or naturally good, we are naturally. . . well, neutral.  However, we are rational creatures.  Living in the state of nature, we all end up like Two-Face because people can still break the laws of nature because there’s no incentive to keep the rules.  Indeed, we are aloud to have retributive justice in the state of nature for Locke.  When we enter society however, we live by rules and laws: we become Harvey Dent.  And with that, we give up our right to retribution when we enter society and give up this right to a judge.

So in a sense, there are three alternate ways of looking at the world.  The Joker/Hobbes pushes the civilized Harvey Dent/Locke into a state of nature Two-Face/pre-Locke.  Batman still believes that everyone is naturally good, he just needs to get to Two-Face and “convert” him back to Harvey Dent.

What makes it change in the end is that I think the Joker got to Batman.  At the very end, the community needs a hero and so Batman must let everyone believe that a certain person (I won’t tell so that I won’t give away the movie) is the hero.  If the community doesn’t believe it, then society will turn into chaos.  But wait a minute, Batman can’t believe that because he originally thought that people were all good.  But the Joker got to him: people can easily change to evil just by a simple push.  The Joker is lurking within us all and sometimes it’s screaming to get out–a simple push, if you will–or perhaps it’s buried so deep that people don’t have it.

You can see this with people you see on the street: a slightest thing can piss them off, or perhaps it doesn’t phase them at all.

US is falling on Development Index + Economics and Religion

We are living shorter lives, spend the most on health care than on any other nation, and a 25% of 15 year olds are at or below math skills internationally.  The article is here.

The shorter life span has to do with the obesity rates which doesn’t surprise me.  Interestingly enough, the shortest life spans are in the south: Mississippi is rated the lowest in the United States whereas Connecticut is rated the highest.

I won’t even pretend to offer any solutions because it’s too complex.  But it is something to ponder about.

Another thing: I’ve been listening to lectures on tape and these lectures deal with economics.  There was an interesting statistic: the higher the gdp (Gross Domestic Product) in the country, the less likely the country will be religious.  France, Germany, Japan, and England have high gdp’s, yet they are usually rated low on religiousity.  Brazil, Afghanistan, other Middle Eastern Countries and a few South American countries have a low gdp, yet they have a high religiousity.  This correlates with every country–with the exception of one: the USA.  We have a high gdp and a high religiousity rate.  Interesting stuff.

Professionals vs. Kitch

I met someone new recently.  As with any new people, you ask him/her questions to get to know the person.  So I asked him, “what are you planning to do for a career?”  He said that he was aspiring to be a great writer and that writing is an outlet that lets him express himself that other ways can’t.  Well, I was captivated by this and I wanted to know who his influences were.  Well, I was expecting something that has had a big influence: people like Shakespeare, Hawthorne, Melville, Tostoy, Dostoevsky, Camus, or any other of the great authors that we read in high school or college.  His answer shocked me: “Stephen King” he said.  I was taken aback!  Now, I’ve never read any Stephen King so I honestly don’t know how great his writing is.  Maybe it is great, who knows?  But I felt like I was cheated out of a great reply.

Was this in my head?  I tried to figure out why I felt this way.  I came up with some analogies:

Suppose that you meet someone and this person says that s/he wants to change the world, let’s say a philosopher.  S/he says that these ideas and movements have really changed the way people have seen the world.  Now, you might be moved by this or perhaps intrigued, so you might ask this person, who’s your favorite philosopher?  What would you do if the reply was “Jon Stewart from the Daily Show.”  I would feel that s/he gave the wrong answer.  It’s not that I have anything against Jon Stewart.  I have deep admiration for him and he is actually a bright guy, but I wouldn’t consider him a philosopher.

Let’s try another example: suppose the same situation happens again and this person says that s/he wants to come up with a theory that explains social behavior and that s/he wants to devote his/her life to sociology and move it towards progress.  “Wow,” you think.  This might be someone who’s going places.  “Who’s your favorite sociologist?” you ask.  You’re probably expecting Durkheim, Maslow, Comte, or even Marx.  At least they made an influence.  What would you do if the reply was “Bill O’Reilly?”  Wow.  I would honestly say that that was not a good answer.  Now Bill O’Reilly does have a view sociology and he does recommend how society and culture ought to do things, but I would not consider him a sociologist by any means.  So what gives?  Why are these answers considered “wrong answers?”

I thought about this and I could only come up with two thoughts:

1.  John Stuart Mill was a utilitarian but he really emphasized on the higher pleasures.  In other words, intellectual pleasure was more important than basic pleasure.  “It’s better to a dissatisfied Socrates than a pig satisfied” is one of his famous remarks.  And by working on an intelletucal character, that will actually make you happier in the end.  So Plato his higher pleasure philosophy, whereas Jon Stewart is lower pleasure philosophy.  Durkheim is higher pleasure sociology whereas Bill O’Reilly is lower pleasure quality.  Aim for the intellectual pleasure is the key.  Now it sounds nice, but one problem I have with Mill’s view of utilitarianism is that it sounds so snobbish.  I mean, something like Shakespeare is better than bowling, a symphony is better than a rock concert, an art gallery is better than a strip club.  Schindler’s List is better than Dumb and Dumber.  It sounds so snobbish and somewhat annoying.  But there is the second option:

2.  What do Durkheim, Comte, Marx, and Maslow have in common?  They all have degrees.  Well, Bill O’Reilly has a degree, but not in sociology.  Jon Stewart has a degree, but not in philosophy.  So is it the fact that they must have degrees in the professed subject?  Well, that doesn’t work either.  Plato, Socrates, Aristotle never got degrees yet they achieved a lot more than current philosophers ever could.  I know some people nowadays that don’t have degrees yet they’re extremely smart in what they do.  I also know people who do have degrees yet they don’t know shit one some of the stuff they’re talking about.  So then why degrees?  Maybe it has to do with the idea that it’s their profession.  They are considered experts in that field.  But then, how do we tell if someone’s an expert?  Well, typically it’s because that person has a degree.  Uh oh.  We’re back to the problem again.

So that’s the dilemma.  Maybe I’m missing something but I wouldn’t consider Stephen King one of the “greatest authors” or at least on the same caliber as Shakespeare, Mill, Durkheim, and Plato.  But why not?  What is considered an expert anyways?  Is expertise something just random?  Or am I just being a snob?

Kant, Mormons, and Pragmatism

I’ve only taught for about four years so this may not be a general thing.  I’ve noticed that when I teach Kant’s ethics, the people who are LDS don’t particularly like it.  Actually, the people who are very religious and very LDS, but have critical and analytical thinking skills seem to like it.  But those are the rarity.  I mean the people who come from an LDS background, are who claim to be that religion, but they aren’t really religious.  I would’ve thought that they would have liked deontological ethics because it would somewhat reflect their view of God and God’s laws and somehow it’s congruent with the moral law.  But as I thought about it, it probably makes sense for Mormons not to like it.

Just a recap: Kant’s ethics basically starts off by saying there’s an absolute right or wrong.  There are no contexts or situations; it is absolutely right or wrong.  So for example, if slavery is wrong today, then it’s wrong for all time.  It just happens that the people back then got it wrong (as opposed to the saying “it was right for them.”  Kant would disagree with that view.)

Mormons have a different view of the afterlife.  There are three “levels” of heaven: the terrestrial kingdom, the telestrial kingdom, and the celestial kingdom.  Now here’s the kicker: what you do in this life determines which heaven you’re going to go into.  In other words, there are situations and contexts.  Thus, it isn’t written in stone, it’s not a strong of a view as Kant’s ethics claims to be.  Now given this, it makes sense that non-religious LDS people don’t like Kant’s ethics: it’s too rigid, too non-contextual and part of their belief system isn’t congruent with that.

Then it hit me, this is a lot with what the pragmatists were saying.  The experiences in life is what bears out your truth, your beliefs in life.  Pragmatists like William James says that you have a will to believe if it coheres with the rest of your beliefs.  This works out well with what the Mormons were reacting against with Kant’s ethics.  Since his ethics are too structured, it doesn’t cohere with the Mormon belief.  No wonder Mormons don’t like Kant’s ethics.

On the otherhand, I’ve mentioned before that the really critical thinkers do like Kant.  But I’ve also noticed that those who claim to be Mormons by name but know absolutely nothing about the Mormon religion somewhat like Kant.  After investigating, it’s because they view the afterlife as a one-shot deal, there’s only one heaven and hell.  But they obviously don’t know what their beliefs are supposed to be.  So I think it’s structured like this.

Mormons by name—–”Standard”, somewhat religious Mormons—–Critical Thinking Mormons

It’s the “standard”, somewhat religious Mormons that don’t like Kant.  Maybe they like Pragmatism?  I’ve never thought of teaching it that route, but perhaps I’ll give it a try sometime.

Castle Doctrine: Shifting Burden of Proof from Shooter to the State

In November 2007, Joe Horn, citizen of Texas shot two intruders.  According to the Castle Doctrine, he had the right to do this.  If someone is breaking in your house or your neighbor’s house, you have the right to defend yourself and your house.  Your house is your castle (thus the Castle Doctrine) and you can do anything to defend it.  Horn wasn’t indicted by the Grand Jury.  Is Horn a hero?  Is he a vigilante?

When I was teaching captial punishment in class last fall, everyone–including the pro-death penalty people–said that Horn should not of done it.  The reasoning was because everyone has rights until it’s decided by juries.  At that point, rights can be taken away.  John Locke came with the same conclusion about how society gets along.  We all have basic rights: life, liberty, property, and retributive justice.  It’s just that we give up our right to retributive justice when we enter society and we give that right to a judge.  So I would imagine that Locke would be against the Castle Doctrine.

What I find interesting is what’s taken from the article:

The flavor of the law basically shifts the burden of proving self-defense from the shooter to the state.

So instead of the shooter proving that it was in self-defense, the state has to prove that it wasn’t.  What do you think?  Is the Castle Doctrine a good idea?