This is a paper I wrote for Ethics this semester, slightly edited.
Most of the time we morally judge people by their intentions because we recognize that the outcomes of our actions are hard to predict and often completely out of our control. But in some situations, we judge people according to circumstances outside their control and events they didn’t intend. This is what Thomas Nagel calls moral luck. Due to pure luck, we are either judged morally good or bad. In this paper, I will focus on one of the three kinds of moral luck that Nagel outlines: resultant moral luck. This concept is best demonstrated with an example. Imagine that a driver is driving along, and they become momentarily distracted and look away from the road. This causes them to run a red light. Now the situation diverges into two outcomes. The first possibility is that nothing happens. They realize what they have done and resolve to be more attentive in the future, but nothing bad happens so everyone goes on with life as usual. The second possibility is that the driver strikes and kills a pedestrian in the crosswalk. The pedestrian either being there or not being there is a circumstance entirely outside of the driver’s control, but it determines how we judge the driver — both legally and morally. A small bout of carelessness becomes a moral offense. In my opinion, moral luck should not be factored into our moral judgments of people. However, in real life this is a lot messier than thought experiments, so I understand the need to put more emphasis on outcomes in legal proceedings.
To better understand the parameters of moral luck it helps to tweak the careless driver thought experiment and compare it to slightly different situations. For example, it matters whether or not the original action or intention was something we would consider good or not. Not paying attention while driving is bad, but not necessarily morally bad. We all do it on occasion, and it’s not an immoral act in and of itself, but most people would agree that if consequences arise from your inattentiveness you should take responsibility. If we change the situation so that the pedestrian death wasn’t caused by the driver looking away, but the brake in the car failing, then the moral judgment shifts. The driver isn’t seen as a bad person. Add another small change — the driver knew the brakes needed to be fixed for weeks and didn’t get them fixed — and the driver is once again condemnable. This shows that we do care about intentions and a concept of “fault.” We can accept complete accidents, but only if there’s no opportunity to blame someone. A small wrongdoing can become a moral failing. Not getting your brakes fixed isn’t an immoral act in itself; but when this causes someone to die, most people would hold you responsible.
Empathy plays a big role in all of this as well. If you put yourself in the role of the careless driver, you probably think you deserve to be excused. It was an honest mistake and you didn’t mean to hurt anyone. But we can’t know the intentions of others fully and our empathy isn’t all-inclusive. If we have never accidentally hit someone with our car, it may be hard to understand how this is possible. We might think that we are more cautious and competent than those who have. We can’t see inside other people’s heads so we can make them out to be blameworthy. We don’t like a world where random incidences result in death, so we will latch onto any small human mistake as the cause. In reality, it comes down to moral luck so much of the time. Ideally, we would extend the benefit of the doubt to others and understand that people make mistakes and shouldn’t be condemned for them. We should treat others how we would want to be treated. This is a lot easier said than done.
To illustrate just how messy moral luck can get, now we’ll consider a real life example. Last month, Tulsa police officer Robert Bates fatally shot someone when he grabbed his gun instead of his taser. This is one of many incidents of police brutality and part of a very contentious current issue. In interviews, Bates stated that his intention was to pull his taser instead of his gun. Many consider this a legitimate use of force by a police officer, therefore making his intention good (or at least, not bad). Others think that using a taser might have been too much force for the situation, so they would see his intention as being bad. This differing judgment alone separates people into two camps; that Bates should be excused for his moral unluckiness, or that he should face consequences.
Another factor that blurs things is that many don’t believe his story. They think that he meant to kill the man and is lying about his intention to use the taser instead. This would change a mistake into murder, making him morally and legally condemnable. But it is impossible for anyone but Bates himself to know what he really intended and to know whether or not he is lying. People have dug into his past and questioned whether or not he is racist to try to prove his true intentions, but it’s more or less an impossible task.
Even if we assume that using the taser was a legitimate use of force and that Bates is being honest about his intentions, there’s another layer people are questioning: competency. This is not about morality directly, but often plays a part in situations of moral luck. To err is human, but sometimes mistakes have disastrous consequences. We hold some people to a higher standard because their mistakes would have worse consequences. We expect people to be good at their jobs and minimize mistakes; especially people like police officers, the military, politicians… those who could inflict a lot of harm by making a mistake. In regards to Bates, a lot of people have questioned how a trained officer could mistake his gun for his taser since the two are kept at different parts of the body. Bates has addressed this concern in interviews. He has said that before it happened to him he too thought that it was questionable when he heard of other officers doing the same thing. Now he claims that he understands how the mistake can be made in a high pressure situation. Some people won’t go as far to say that Bates is morally accountable but they will say that he wasn’t trained well enough and should not have been given access to lethal force.
This issue is complicated by people’s personal views on race and police brutality; someone’s deeply-held beliefs are likely to influence whether or not they believe Bates. Empathy is held unevenly. We are generally more likely to feel empathetic for those we relate to. Therefore, a police officer or family of police officers may have more empathy for Bates and understand how a mistake like this can be made. Despite varying opinions and beliefs, this current issue is still fundamentally a matter of moral luck. There are people who think that the only thing that matters is that someone has died. There are other people who think that the only thing that matters is that Bates didn’t intend to kill anyone. A lot of people are in the middle and think that both his intentions and the outcome should be taken into account. Bates has been charged with manslaughter. The entire concept of manslaughter shows that we care less about intentions and more about outcomes than we may believe. However, penalties for manslaughter are less severe than for intended murder. Our legal system reflects a lot of the tensions between outcome and intention.
It is easy to consider thought experiments and say that moral luck shouldn’t be considered in our judgments — that only people’s intentions should matter. I think that this is still true in theory. It would be great if we could see others’ (and our own) intentions transparently and then judge them according to only that. But the real world is so much more complicated. Since intentions are often opaque to us, we have to rely on outcomes for our legal proceedings. When someone has died and there is any doubt about fault, there should be a trial. People should be held accountable for mistakes, but much less harshly than for purposeful wrongdoing. Moral luck doesn’t easily lend itself to a solution, but considering it shows how complicated moral judgments really are. The concept can be applied to real life situations to shed some light on how people come around to different conclusions about the same event.
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
The Solar Decathlon
In 2009 I went on a trip to Washington, D.C., with my family. By pure coincidence, we were there the same week that the Solar Decathlon was being held on the National Mall. We spent a rainy afternoon milling around, looking at the houses, learning about the competition -- and the experience has stayed with me since then. Not only am I writing this blog post about it years later, but I also used the concept in my research paper for Environmental Studies this semester.
So, what is the Solar Decathlon?
It's a competition held every two years by the U.S. Department of Energy where universities from around the world compete to build a small (800 square feet or less) house that is run entirely off solar energy. This includes electricity, heating, air conditioning, water heating, and an electric car. The house has to be small and green, but it also has to be aesthetically pleasing, marketable and somewhat affordable. The best house all-around is the winner.
I'm going to focus on 2009's Decathlon because that is the one I attended.
The overall winner in 2009 was Team Germany.
This house's boxy design is the most energy efficient. The black panels all around the exterior are PV solar panel, that produce twice as much energy as the house needs. Inside, the house utilizes an open design and a loft to make it feel larger than it is. This was also one of the most pricey houses in the competition (around $800,000) but it's gorgeous.
Second place went to University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
This house is a cute farm style with its south-facing roof covered in solar panels. Even though this is a lot less surface area than some of the other contestants, it produces an impressive four times as much energy as needed by the house. Made of reclaimed wood, its construction cost is less than half a million.
Third place was Team California.
The beautiful design of this house maximizes outdoor spaces and windows to make the house seem larger. The flat roof is covered with PV panels. The interior features furniture that is built into the design of the house to save space.
Some of my personal favorite houses were:
Minnesota
Of course I'm biased. This house has a really nice design that is aesthetically pleasing and maximizes passive solar heat to save energy.
Alberta
Cornell
This was definitely one of the more creative houses at the competition. It is comprised of four large cylinders, which seems strange, but it worked really well.
Louisiana
This house was actually voted People's Choice at the Decathlon. I loved this house. The interior and exterior are both quite nice. The house uses sliding doors to make the space feel larger while still having the option of privacy.
The Solar Decathlon is a really great thing and I would love to go again. It shows people, myself included, that living in a well-made house can be great, no matter its size. As I discovered in a research project, small houses are better for the environment in every way than large houses. They use less building materials and way less energy. Even an energy-efficient large house can't compete with an inefficient small house. Although these Decathlon houses are quite pricey, many designers are building small houses that are also affordable.
And of course, solar energy is a no-brainer. Many of the decathlon houses have found ways to make it an extremely efficient and practical energy source. The price is still high, but with further innovation and investment it will decrease.
The housing trend is beginning to reverse toward smaller residences and many people are concerned about energy use, so hopefully houses like these will begin to spring up in conventional neighborhoods.
So, what is the Solar Decathlon?
It's a competition held every two years by the U.S. Department of Energy where universities from around the world compete to build a small (800 square feet or less) house that is run entirely off solar energy. This includes electricity, heating, air conditioning, water heating, and an electric car. The house has to be small and green, but it also has to be aesthetically pleasing, marketable and somewhat affordable. The best house all-around is the winner.
I'm going to focus on 2009's Decathlon because that is the one I attended.
The overall winner in 2009 was Team Germany.
This house's boxy design is the most energy efficient. The black panels all around the exterior are PV solar panel, that produce twice as much energy as the house needs. Inside, the house utilizes an open design and a loft to make it feel larger than it is. This was also one of the most pricey houses in the competition (around $800,000) but it's gorgeous.
Second place went to University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
This house is a cute farm style with its south-facing roof covered in solar panels. Even though this is a lot less surface area than some of the other contestants, it produces an impressive four times as much energy as needed by the house. Made of reclaimed wood, its construction cost is less than half a million.
Third place was Team California.
The beautiful design of this house maximizes outdoor spaces and windows to make the house seem larger. The flat roof is covered with PV panels. The interior features furniture that is built into the design of the house to save space.
Some of my personal favorite houses were:
Minnesota
Of course I'm biased. This house has a really nice design that is aesthetically pleasing and maximizes passive solar heat to save energy.
Alberta
I really love the design of this house. It has a very Canadian aesthetic, and is beautiful inside and out.
Cornell
This was definitely one of the more creative houses at the competition. It is comprised of four large cylinders, which seems strange, but it worked really well.
Louisiana
This house was actually voted People's Choice at the Decathlon. I loved this house. The interior and exterior are both quite nice. The house uses sliding doors to make the space feel larger while still having the option of privacy.
The Solar Decathlon is a really great thing and I would love to go again. It shows people, myself included, that living in a well-made house can be great, no matter its size. As I discovered in a research project, small houses are better for the environment in every way than large houses. They use less building materials and way less energy. Even an energy-efficient large house can't compete with an inefficient small house. Although these Decathlon houses are quite pricey, many designers are building small houses that are also affordable.
And of course, solar energy is a no-brainer. Many of the decathlon houses have found ways to make it an extremely efficient and practical energy source. The price is still high, but with further innovation and investment it will decrease.
The housing trend is beginning to reverse toward smaller residences and many people are concerned about energy use, so hopefully houses like these will begin to spring up in conventional neighborhoods.
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Human nature
In Anthropology this past week we've talked about human nature. Our discussion led mainly to the conclusion that there is no definitive human nature, and that people are overwhelmingly shaped by their culture. I think that this is very true, despite the many similarities that all humans share or seem to share.
Our globalized world makes us more alike than we used to be, but even before this process all human groups used language of some kind. All human groups adorned their bodies in some way; there are no people who go around totally naked, without any jewelry or paint other distinguishing articles. I would argue that all humans create and enjoy art, and that all humans tell and enjoy stories. Then of course there are the biological facts of human nature: reproduction, emotions of some kind, walking on two feet, and so on.
So there are some elements that might together constitute human nature. But on the whole, people are very different and there is a lot of variety.
All of this got me thinking about something else I learned in Environmental Studies. Sometimes a species is broken up into distinct populations that are geographically separated. They are still the same species genetically. They can interbreed, though they may not due to behavioral differences.
The point is that these different groups are considered different subspecies or even distinct species in some cases. Even though they are genetically the same, there are enough behavioral and sometimes physical differences that there are considered distinct in an important way.
This is only applied to animal species. I'm reluctant to consider humans in this way -- some people used to and that only led to scientific racism. But I think that it's interesting that, in the 21st century at least, we are so into unification. We want to talk about human nature, as a whole. We wouldn't talk about mountain lion nature, not in the same way. We'd talk about the similarities and differences in the subspecies, but we wouldn't yearn after some essential way of life or mindset that all mountain lions share.
I think that finding similarities between people can only have positive outcomes, but I think that what's more important is simply accepting our differences. Culture constructs us, plain and simple, and I think we just have to be okay with that. We probably shouldn't start trying to map out any subspecies of homo sapiens, but we should understand that these variations are natural.
Culture is one thing that all humans share. And culture shapes us in ways that are often invisible to us. Culture arises from our surroundings and environment, so separated people will develop different behaviors, even different appearances.
The same thing happens to animal species, but we don't go around saying that one species is more primitive than another, or better than another. They simply adapted to their environment. And that's what culture is; an adaptation that allows people to survive and thrive.
Our globalized world makes us more alike than we used to be, but even before this process all human groups used language of some kind. All human groups adorned their bodies in some way; there are no people who go around totally naked, without any jewelry or paint other distinguishing articles. I would argue that all humans create and enjoy art, and that all humans tell and enjoy stories. Then of course there are the biological facts of human nature: reproduction, emotions of some kind, walking on two feet, and so on.
So there are some elements that might together constitute human nature. But on the whole, people are very different and there is a lot of variety.
All of this got me thinking about something else I learned in Environmental Studies. Sometimes a species is broken up into distinct populations that are geographically separated. They are still the same species genetically. They can interbreed, though they may not due to behavioral differences.
The point is that these different groups are considered different subspecies or even distinct species in some cases. Even though they are genetically the same, there are enough behavioral and sometimes physical differences that there are considered distinct in an important way.
This is only applied to animal species. I'm reluctant to consider humans in this way -- some people used to and that only led to scientific racism. But I think that it's interesting that, in the 21st century at least, we are so into unification. We want to talk about human nature, as a whole. We wouldn't talk about mountain lion nature, not in the same way. We'd talk about the similarities and differences in the subspecies, but we wouldn't yearn after some essential way of life or mindset that all mountain lions share.
I think that finding similarities between people can only have positive outcomes, but I think that what's more important is simply accepting our differences. Culture constructs us, plain and simple, and I think we just have to be okay with that. We probably shouldn't start trying to map out any subspecies of homo sapiens, but we should understand that these variations are natural.
Culture is one thing that all humans share. And culture shapes us in ways that are often invisible to us. Culture arises from our surroundings and environment, so separated people will develop different behaviors, even different appearances.
The same thing happens to animal species, but we don't go around saying that one species is more primitive than another, or better than another. They simply adapted to their environment. And that's what culture is; an adaptation that allows people to survive and thrive.
Friday, May 1, 2015
Things somebody should've told me about my college
Freshmen are kept in the dark about a lot of things. Instead of simply yelling at tour groups as they pass by, I've decided to publish this blog post with some insider information about Hamline University.
1. "Writing intensive" doesn't mean what you think it means
It sounds like a writing intensive class would involve a lot of writing, yes? Not necessarily. All the "writing intensive" label means is that there is a low minimum number of papers that will be assigned to you and that you will have the chance to revise these papers for a better grade. That's all it means. I wrote more papers in my regular FYSem than my friends in some writing intensive FYSems did. (And I was taking the required "writing intensive" English 1110 class concurrently so it was a paper-heavy first semester.)
At the same time, writing intensive doesn't mean you won't be doing a lot of writing. Just don't expect it to correlate necessarily to work load.
2. Nine meals a week is a lot; fourteen meals a week is insurmountable
Whatever you do, however much you think you eat -- get the meal plan with fewer meals and more declining balance. Your meals will be wasted -- they don't roll over -- but you can spend all your DB within the last week of the semester if you need to. In addition, the meal hall in Anderson is not open all day. If you are hungry at 10 a.m. or 3 p.m. or 9 p.m. on weekdays... You have to use your DB. The meal hall is not open.
3. The truth about small class sizes
Small class sizes are really nice -- as long as you can actually get into the class. Registration is a brutal every-man-for-himself competition. If you don't come in with an advantage credit-wise, you will get screwed over. I was lucky. Many others were not.
People should get priority for the classes they need for their major, but registration is based entirely on credits. Seniors often take intro classes as electives, and then freshman can't get into the first class of their major track until later, setting them back a semester or even a year.
4. ACTC is actually really inconvenient
On tours they really like to dangle the shiny ACTC carrot in front of your nose, but it's not as simple as they make it sound. Not only does it screw up registration, it screws up your schedule. Hamline has different breaks than the other ACTC schools, so you'll have to start earlier and give up your spring break if you take an ACTC class. Plus, they're discontinuing the shuttle bus.
5. "Conveniently located between Minneapolis and St. Paul" really means...
...you have to travel to get anywhere worth being. Which is Minneapolis, by the way. It's not the best of both worlds by a long stretch.
There are, however, some really nice things about Hamline that I don't want to leave out.
1. The light rail is a brisk 10-15 minute walk away. I am immeasurably grateful for this. The whole midway situation is questionable, but it's easy to get into the real city if you so desire.
2. The small campus size is really nice when it's the dead of winter. Every day I am glad that my walk to class is only 3 minutes.
3. The Hamline Plan is a great liberal arts system. "Generals" aren't even really a thing -- you just have to take classes that fulfill different types of learning. It is easily tailored to your interests and is something you will most likely naturally complete in your time here.
4. J-Term is kind of nice. I for one was okay with a shortened winter break, and I like the opportunity to squeeze in an extra class. I'm also planning on taking advantage of the J-Term Abroad trips they offer at Hamline.
5. The small student population is a fit for some people and not for others. For me, it works. It means that you can get good seats at events, and it makes it really easy for you to fall in with a steady group of friends.
Over all, I think I made the right choice and I'm going to stay here for the next three years. But there are some things I wish I had been told before starting my first year.
1. "Writing intensive" doesn't mean what you think it means
It sounds like a writing intensive class would involve a lot of writing, yes? Not necessarily. All the "writing intensive" label means is that there is a low minimum number of papers that will be assigned to you and that you will have the chance to revise these papers for a better grade. That's all it means. I wrote more papers in my regular FYSem than my friends in some writing intensive FYSems did. (And I was taking the required "writing intensive" English 1110 class concurrently so it was a paper-heavy first semester.)
At the same time, writing intensive doesn't mean you won't be doing a lot of writing. Just don't expect it to correlate necessarily to work load.
2. Nine meals a week is a lot; fourteen meals a week is insurmountable
Whatever you do, however much you think you eat -- get the meal plan with fewer meals and more declining balance. Your meals will be wasted -- they don't roll over -- but you can spend all your DB within the last week of the semester if you need to. In addition, the meal hall in Anderson is not open all day. If you are hungry at 10 a.m. or 3 p.m. or 9 p.m. on weekdays... You have to use your DB. The meal hall is not open.
3. The truth about small class sizes
Small class sizes are really nice -- as long as you can actually get into the class. Registration is a brutal every-man-for-himself competition. If you don't come in with an advantage credit-wise, you will get screwed over. I was lucky. Many others were not.
People should get priority for the classes they need for their major, but registration is based entirely on credits. Seniors often take intro classes as electives, and then freshman can't get into the first class of their major track until later, setting them back a semester or even a year.
4. ACTC is actually really inconvenient
On tours they really like to dangle the shiny ACTC carrot in front of your nose, but it's not as simple as they make it sound. Not only does it screw up registration, it screws up your schedule. Hamline has different breaks than the other ACTC schools, so you'll have to start earlier and give up your spring break if you take an ACTC class. Plus, they're discontinuing the shuttle bus.
5. "Conveniently located between Minneapolis and St. Paul" really means...
...you have to travel to get anywhere worth being. Which is Minneapolis, by the way. It's not the best of both worlds by a long stretch.
There are, however, some really nice things about Hamline that I don't want to leave out.
1. The light rail is a brisk 10-15 minute walk away. I am immeasurably grateful for this. The whole midway situation is questionable, but it's easy to get into the real city if you so desire.
2. The small campus size is really nice when it's the dead of winter. Every day I am glad that my walk to class is only 3 minutes.
3. The Hamline Plan is a great liberal arts system. "Generals" aren't even really a thing -- you just have to take classes that fulfill different types of learning. It is easily tailored to your interests and is something you will most likely naturally complete in your time here.
4. J-Term is kind of nice. I for one was okay with a shortened winter break, and I like the opportunity to squeeze in an extra class. I'm also planning on taking advantage of the J-Term Abroad trips they offer at Hamline.
5. The small student population is a fit for some people and not for others. For me, it works. It means that you can get good seats at events, and it makes it really easy for you to fall in with a steady group of friends.
Over all, I think I made the right choice and I'm going to stay here for the next three years. But there are some things I wish I had been told before starting my first year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)