The equivalent exchange principle

In the past week, England has been assaulted by violent riots which have shocked the world and many theories have been put forward to explain this phenomenon. In the following article, Rebekah Hebbert explains these recent events by a lack of morality and the prevalence of relativism in western societies. And while I don't believe in pure relativism, here is however the rational outlook on the situation.

While Miss Hebbert is coherent, she makes one assumption which is at the basis of her argument with which I don't agree. She mixes relativism with anarchy when she says that doing no harm is an arbitrary moral principle. That is not true. If you are an extreme supporter of relativism, you believe that every person has the right to choose what they want to believe. It also comes with the principle that no belief is more important or has more value than any other. And if you are to take Descartes' principle of "I think therefore I am", you equate a person's existence or being with their cognitive activity and therefore their beliefs (I make here the assumption that all beliefs are the product of a rational process and while that is an entirely different argument, I do think that to be true for every person believes what they do either because of their education, their past, their disposition, etc.). Therefore, if all beliefs are equal, all people are equal. And if you respect all beliefs, you must respect all people and their right to live out their beliefs. And for that, you must not harm them. Relativism represents a person's freedom to think and to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't overlap with that of someone else and the difficulty stands in determining where one freedom ends and another one starts (material and physical damage on the other hand are way across the line so it's not hard to figure out that me hurting you or breaking into your house and stealing is not supported by a relativist philosophy). You can look at relativism as a continuum where everyone is connected and I can only push so far without bumping into the person next to me. Anarchy on the other hand is quite egocentric and does not consider others. It is individual freedom pushed to the extreme without taking into account the others around.

I believe that what happened in England is a mix of all the reasons mentioned in the article. Yes society is relativistic and yes conflicting points of view can stand side by side. However, the "do no harm" imperative has been respected because relativism holds it in high esteem. But when figures of authority such as policemen and business people break it by abusing their position, the equality of people principle comes into place. Therefore, if those in authority believe that hurting those in a lesser position is alright, then that last group of people will come to the conclusion that such a belief is valid for them as well. And here the continuum and connectivity breaks and we slip into anarchy. But this only happened because those in authority chose to break relativist principles in the first place. Kind of like Newton's 3rd law that states that if you exert a force on an object, that object will exert an equal and opposite force on you.

However, I have to say that pure relativism is impossible to attain in any society because stereotypes and prejudice exist, thus putting an imbalance in the perceived value of a person and his or her beliefs. For example, if I were to believe that people who are unemployed are in this situation because they are lazy and I were to consider laziness as a bad thing, then I would come to see these people as a bad thing for society and this would decrease their value as a person and the value of their beliefs in my eyes. But you see, if I were a pure relativist, I would never harm them because I would consider that there is no absolute truth so I cannot be sure that I am right and, in the offset chance that I am wrong, me harming them would become objectionable. So if we think about it, it is not relativism that is in cause here, but, on the contrary, the fact that people think that there is an absolute truth and that they possess it. Therefore, they would excuse harming others by saying that they work in the name of truth and goodness or if they are conscious that what they are doing is bad, then they would see it as just payback for a wrong that they have been done in the past (like the death penalty for criminals).

This situation in England started because a man who was being arrested by the police got killed in the process (we had something similar in Canada when a young black got killed by the police in Montreal North). Therefore, the policemen stereotype and their targets want justice for the wrong that they perceived has been done to them. Which brings us to the conclusion that, like I mentioned earlier, the problem is not relativism, but the belief in an absolute truth which is based not on reason, but on emotion, stereotypes and prejudice.

"Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost". That is the principle of equivalent exchange. If, for whatever reason, the scale points in favor of a group, all equilibrium is lost and sooner or later revolt will come in order to restore the balance (thesis and antithesis bring about synthesis like good old Marx said). The only damper on this particular revolt is that it was done impulsively and as a means to vent out accumulated frustrations and to get even. Therefore, instead of restoring any balance, it will achieve the exact opposite as the government's response seems to be a turn towards absolute control (actually, it kind of reminds me of the US' attitude towards communists during the Cold War). All that to say that we still have a long way to go until equivalent exchange will be respected (in England as well as everywhere else in the world; look at the Middle East or the civil wars over elections in Africa). But for that, we must recognize our problems for what they are. Not a question of philosophy or morality. But an imbalance of power and wealth that is not always distributed based on individual effort alone. Life's not fair, true! But we must strive to make it as fair as possible.

Food for thought or How the materialist theory of history is related to my lazy study habits

I think I fell in love today.

For the very first time in my meager 20 years of existence, I am looking forward to a course and I am NOT disappointed after the first class!! And I bought the book and I started reading it right after class (and a bit before) and taking notes and....now I sound like a nerd. That's what my friend told me when she saw me studying on the first day back to school. I don't caaaarrreee!

But that rant wasn't the purpose of my post (I know, could've fooled you). I actually wanted to share a piece of information that I learned and that I find shocking (even though it really isn't when you stop to think about it). So dear reader, imagine this: in humans, the frontal lobe of the brain, which is largely responsible for personality and organization, doesn't fully develop and continues to change until well into one's 20's!!!

Ahhhh I know, right? I can see your face right now. Amazing, incredible, fan-freakin-tastic, why are you getting so worked up over this useless piece of information, you nerd? Aha, well I shall tell you, avid reader of mine! This means that from certain points of view, there is still hope for me, while from others I just might be doomed.

For example, like many students in this world, I have a fundamental flaw and which is that I do everything (or almost) at the last minute. Which means that I'm very familiar with the concept of starting to cram 6 chapters 3 days before an exam. And that is not good. I always wondered what my grades would be like if I actually studied on time (or if I could actually remember the material from a course for more than a semester). BUT, with this new fact put into light, it might mean that my organizational (or lazy) habits are just a consequence of the not-yet-development of my brain (just as teenagers are more prone to depression over small things because they are not yet mentally equipped with the maturity needed to deal with them...that is not a judgement, it is a fact). So yey for that (though I'm not kidding myself too much)!

On the other hand, personality traits that I used to admire in myself no more than 3 years ago from which I have strayed and which I thought still hidden deep down inside, just waiting to come out again, well I might have to face the very real possibility that they are gone! So my creativity might have been blown out the window (maybe I still have some hope for this one), my environmental sense gone down the drain, my empathy completely dried out and my cool, aloof, non-mushy-huggy-touchy-feely character completely broken down. And I have noticed in the last couple of years that people and experiences to which I am extensively exposed have changed who I am and have shaped the way I see the world. I initially thought this might be a phase caused by the afterglow of the exposure (like a cake that is still hot when you take it out of the oven) . However, I might now be forced to reconsider that assumption and come to terms with the fact that these changes might be permanent. This has also made me realize that when you choose a field of study or a job, even though you might not pursue a career in that field, even though you tell yourself it is a temporary disposition until something better comes up, it might still affect your personality for better or for worse. The same reasoning applying to the people you spend your time with. And it might bring some credit to Marx's materialist theory of history. What he basically says is that human nature does not exist and that human behaviour is only dictated by the mode of production which causes the social conditions available. Therefore, capitalism would encourage individualism and selfishness in people, while communism would encourage a sense of collectivity and of selfless involvement in the community. However, I don't think Marx was talking only about people under 30 years old.

Anyway, I think that pretty much resumes what I had to say on the subject. Therefore dear reader, I hope that this discussion will make you think twice before making a choice in the future for it might affect you more than you think!