On Philosophy of Religion

I've been reading a book entitled Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End by John Loftus.  Loftus is someone who, in other times, may have been called an "apostate"; a former Christian, now not one.  He's in fact an atheist. He urges that the branch of academic philosophy called "Philosophy of Religion" be abolished.

His reasoning seems based on two claims, primarily.  First, he maintains what passes as Philosophy of Religion is in fact special pleading for a particular religion--Christianity.  Second, as I understand him, he thinks the defense of religion is inappropriate in secular schools, and constitutes more a kind of preaching of a faith than a disciplined study of religion as a phenomenon or the comparative or anthropological analysis of religion.

I'm not a fan of "Philosophy of" anything.  I suspect that's because I'm a lawyer and I know there's such a thing as Philosophy of Law.  Apparently, it's supposed to ask the question "what is law?" and asks how law is to be interpreted, and considers its ethical implications.  I can't imagine how it would be possible for anyone but a practicing lawyer to usefully address such issues.

I suppose someone might argue you must be religious to address Philosophy of Religion, for similar reasons.

I'm sympathetic with Loftus' position, if his description of what constitutes Philosophy of Religion is accurate.  It seems to place concern on the traditional proofs of God's existence and some not-so traditional proofs, which I find unpersuasive, addressing the Problem of Evil and other arguments which have been used over the years as counter-arguments against the existence of God, and generally trying to find something which it can be claimed provides some reasonable basis for a belief in God.  In other words, apologetics.

It's interesting to note that the arguments for God's existence in use typically do nothing to support belief in God as depicted in the Bible.  Even assuming the arguments to be correct, they would establish abstract enities such as a First Cause or Designer, or an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful Being.  That doesn't suffice to establish a deity with the characteristics of Yaweh or Jesus, who did what they were said to do.  So it's questionable they would provide any comfort to believers in those Gods. And yet they continue to be tge subject of dull, repeated debate.

People may believe whatever they wish as far as I'm concerned.  I wish they'd keep their beliefs between themselves and God as Wittgenstein recommended. Regardless, it makes no sense to me that money be spent in teaching what seems to be theology in secular school.  Nor would I personally favor spending money on teaching theology anywhere, but others should be free to spend their money as they wish.

Ubiquitous Betrayal

 

It's  interesting (to me at least) how frequently the betrayal of one person by another in a romantic or sexual relation is portrayed in the movies and series we see on the streaming services and premium channels we watch.  Betrayal need not be a primary theme; it may be tangental, or merely noted as taking place.  I suppose it's (still) a prominent theme in soap operas as well.  I don't watch network TV very often and don't know whether it's much a feature in the stories shown there.

The betrayal is either ongoing as the story commences or begins as it unfolds.  It used to be the case that men were more often portrayed as cheating rather than women.  That seems to have changed.  Possibly that's because women live less restricted lives now, in more than one sense.  Men no longer have a monopoly on betrayal. 

The excuses for infidelity given by men vary somewhat from those given by women, at least according to the portrayals I've seen.  For men caught cheating, the usual explanation if not justification is generally that their relationship with the other is purely physical.

For women, the excuse may amount to much the same thing but added to it are complaints that their partner has changed emotionally; has grown less loving, colder, distracted.  They lack empathy.  Perhaps it's felt some explanation is required that attributes some fault to the one betrayed.  Or perhaps this is thought to provide some justification for cheating.  Is it believed that the depiction of women as being unfaithful is such a new thing that mere sexual desire on their part is considered too small or sordid a cause for betrayal on their part?

Why is bertrayal so often made a part of the story being told?  Is it felt it titillates the audience?  Is it believed it's so common a feature of our lives today that it's expected?  Is it thought it will make those betrayed more sympathetic in some fashion?

We seem fascinated by it.  And not necessarily for a good reason.

Since the prevalence of divorce has had the result that modern marriage seems almost a form of serial polygamy, the fact infidelity is so common may play a part in its chronic depiction.  But it seems that betrayal of one's partner is still generally considered wrong, or at least cruel, particularly when it involves repeated dishonesty, or results in harm to the children of the partners.  That's to our credit.  Or is that part of a thrill we feel when we see it take place?

The ease with which we break our vows isn't something to celebrate, but it appears that we're more and more inclined to act dishonorably in that and other ways.  So, it's not celebrated, but it is expected.  What is commonplace won't be condemned.  It will simply be considered a part of life; unfortunate, but something to be endured.  Just another part of the story.

AI Victorius

 

The Journal of the American Medical Association (known better as JAMA) has published something asserting that AI will supplant doctors in practicing medicine by the year 2030.

I have little doubt that this is true.  The same may be said about lawyers and the practice of law, in my opinion.  

AI is already better suited than we are in obtaining, preserving and sorting information, in researching pertinent case and statutory law and regulations, in analyzing facts, in rendering decisions swiftly and consistently, in formulating and critically assessing argument, in writing (in most cases); in virtually all respects relevant to legal practice.

I'm sure the same is the case with the requirements for practicing medicine. For the same or similar reasons, AI would be better at making a diagnosis and prescribing treatment.  Presumably, most surgical procedures would be beyond it at this time.  But it's to be expected that technology will make its proficiency at this possible as well.

I think it's likely that AI will be, if it isn't already, considered so useful and significant that the failure to use it may be grounds for malpractice or negligence litigation.

It's difficult to image what human lawyers, doctors, engineers or other professionals will do or be able to do in a matter of not many years.  Possibly, a continuing need for the human touch, or sympathy, will be needed to provide comfort and assurance, or companionship, to clients, patients and customers.  So, it may be that we be able to assist AI in communicating its recommendations and decisions to our fellow humans.  No doubt we'll also be useful in maintaining and repairing AI in whatever physical form it may take for a time.  But it's to be expected this is something it will be able to do by itself someday.

If there are limits to be imposed on the influence and power of AI it seems clear that we'll have to impose them, and must do so soon.  Just what those limits should be and how they may be implemented, I can't say.  Perhaps we should look to Isaac Asimov's laws of robotics for inspiration.  Possibly, we can program it so it avoids making certain inquiries and decisions.

But being what we are, there's always the possibility that some among us will want to see those restrictions lifted for some reason or other.  We'll have to police ourselves as well as AI.

Will we be able to do that effectively without its assistance?

Corrupting Stoicism

 

If you view the various videos (hurrah for alliteration) supposed to be about Stoicism which appear on YouTube, you'll witness its ongoing degeneration.  You can infer the nature of what's taking place on seeing the videos supposedly teaching you the Stoic Way, without even clicking on them.

You'll see displayed grotesquely muscled, bearded, mature men striking poses while looking stern.  Presumably, they're intended to be impressive, but I can't help but feel they're silly.  Remarkably silly, in fact.  Philosophers, apparently, or at least what some want you to believe are Stoic philosophers, want to pump you up.

Stoicism is seemingly being used to cultivate and popularize a version of masculinity.  It apears that Stoicism is being confused with control of emotion, indifference to criticism, the devaluation of empathy and sympathy for others and, unsurprisingly in a time in which a group of young men called "incels" exist and complain about being avoided by women for no good reason, the degradation of females.

This is a peculiar interpretation of a philosophy which asserts that virtue is the greatest, if not the only, good.  Like all aspects of culture and society in these times, it instead reflects an overwhelming concern with sex.  Not necessarily sexual acts, but with the definition of what it is to be of a particular sex; in other words, to be male.  Sex roles are addressed.

Oddly, this sex-oriented version of Stoicism interprets it as a means by which to isolate yourself from others.  To protect yourself from others, in fact.  Stoicism becomes a matter of avoidance.  What you believe is made invincible, as you may disregard what others say and do.  The Stoic is anti-social.  The Stoic is content with his prejudice.

This kind of Stoic is in fact insecure, though.  Isolation can be a withdrawal from contest, from challenge.  Even irresponsible.

Anything may be corrupted in the kingdom of corruption.

Pettifogger General

 

"Pettifogger" is a word not often used these days.  When it refers to a lawyer, it means one that is unscrupulous, unethical, underhanded; a shyster, in fact.

One thing a practicing lawyer learns of, and learns to avoid if the lawyer is not disreputable, is a conflict of interest.  A conflict is taken seriously, for the most part, by those authorities regulating attorneys.  A conflict can have serious consequences.  A license to practice may be revoked or suspended.  A fine may be imposed.  A lawyer may be prohibited from representing a client by a judge who becomes aware of a conflict.

The reason why conflicts of interest are prohibited is easy to understand.  A lawyer can ethically, and I think effectively, represent only one client in a particular matter most of the time.  Normally, clients can or will develop opposing interests in a matter, in which case a lawyer cannot pursue the interests of one without harming the interests of another.

A lawyer who once represented a client is prohibited from being a lawyer for someone whose interest conflicts with that of the former client in the same matter or a similar matter.  A conflict of interest may in some circumstances be waived, in writing, by a client or former client who has been advised of the problems representation in a conflict situation may cause.

 A lawyer has a duty to a client.  If there's a conflict, that duty is compromised.  So, the purpose being served by the lawyer, if the lawyer is ethical, isn't being served. Other purposes are, usually.

What was the purpose being served in connection with the visit to Ghislaine Maxwell?  

Supposedly, the visit was made by the Pettifogger in the capacity of a U.S. Attorney, not as the personal lawyer of the very often sitting President.  But as it was well known that particular client had and has a personal interest in what she knows and might say which isn't necessarily that of the United States or the victims of Epstein and his assistants, it's clear a conflict was presented.  Why then was the meeting held?  Why were the terms of her incarceration changed to make them less onerous for her as she was placed in a minimum-security prison?  No acceptable answer has been provided.  The implication is clear, however.  No new information regarding Epstein's illegal conduct, or Maxwell's for that matter, or that of any other person was provided.  So, it appears no benefit to law enforcement or the U.S generally was obtained.  It appears, rather, that benefit was obtained by another client.

Then there is the incredible matter of the settlement of the Trump claim against the IRS.  Agreeing to a settlement of all possible claims that might be made due to past conduct, in addition to the creation of a slush fund for use in cases brought by the U.S., would be absurd even if the case brought had merit.  We know, though, that the presiding judge sanctioned the lawyers who brought the claim and reported them to the relevant state disciplinary authorities.  Again, whose interests were being protected, and indeed furthered.

Any lawyer advocating for such a settlement on behalf of the U.S. would have to be a fool, or possibly corrupt; unethical as favoring a former client over the government.  This isn't even to think of the implications of a president suing the government of which he's the chief executive.

What can we expect from this man regarding efforts to obtain what are called the Epstein Files?  It's clear that the interests of law enforcement and of the victims won't be, and aren't, his concerns.

Our legal system is as subject to corruption as anything else is in a kleptocracy but may be a greater source of harm than the politicians who run it, because lawyers are instrumental in its operation and indeed facilitate it.

\