​“If Beale Street Could Talk,” (a film based upon the 1974 novel of the same name by James Baldwin). Written and directed by Barry Jenkins.
 
Plot Summary
This is a simple story which is intended to be emblematic of the young African American experience in New York City during the early 1970s.  It begins with a love story between Alonzo Hunt (Fonny) and Tish Rivers.  The two have been friends since early childhood. 
 
Fonny was an aspiring sculptor who specialized in wood as his medium.  He like small, abstract pieces.  He is a man who is very authentic in his worldview approach to life.  His friendship with Tish develops into adult love and they begin to be intimate with an eye toward marriage.  They try to find an apartment that they could rent, but there was little in the way of decent housing available to African Americans.  Still, they persisted.
 
One evening while shopping at a bodega a Latino man makes unwanted advances to Tish.  Fonny steps in and tosses the man to the sidewalk.  Then comes the beat cop, Officer Bell, to survey the scene.  He is a white racist who wants to take Fonny in for questioning.  The bodega owner, a woman, intercedes for Fonny, but Officer Bell has his eyes out for bringing Fonny in.
 
Not long afterwards a Puerto Rican woman, Victoria Rogers, is raped.  She really does not know who did it, but Officer Bell convinces her that it is Fonny and this suggestion makes her pick out Fonny in a lineup.  Despite an alibi (being with a friend, who has just gotten out of jail) and the implausibility of Fonny being in two places so far apart at the same time, Fonny is found to be subject to reasonable suspicion and therefore is arrested and put in jail pending trial. Fonny languishes in prison.  No “speedy trial” for him (despite this being a constitutional right).
 
Tish visits her lover regularly.  They begin calling each other “husband” and “wife”—even though they are not married in the eyes of the state. When Tish tells Fonny that she is pregnant with his child, it is even more poignant for him to be languishing in prison awaiting trial for a crime he did not commit.
 
When the two families are told that Tish is pregnant, Fonny’s mother has a fit using as a cover her intense Prostestant Christian religious beliefs. This creates a scene in which Fonny’s father knocks his wife down in the Rivers’ apartment.
 
The two fathers, Frank Hunt (Fonny’s father) and Joseph Rivers (Tish’s father), get together to steal goods in the garment district and then re-sell them (they act as “middlemen”).  The point is to raise money to pay the lawyer’s costs.
 
Victoria Rogers flees to Puerto Rico.  Sharon Rivers, Tish’s mother, gets a plane ticket and tries to convince Victoria to change her testimony.  It doesn’t work.
 
Back in New York, Fonny decides to cop a plea (even though he is innocent) and he is serving his time even as his son grows up.  In the poignant closing scene, Fonny is allowed visitation of his family in a family room (supervised by several policemen).  Fonny’s son draws pictures with crayons of when his dad is coming home.  Tragically, these tender years are lost to Fonny due to a poor system that has no “checks and balances” for young African American men.
 
It is a story of one family, but it is meant to be more broadly emblematic.
 
Themes   
 
The overwhelming theme is that due to a system that has broad racist assumptions, innocent people can become crushed.  If such injustice happens over and over again, then it poisons the social structure of society.  Such is the situation with the Rivers and Hunt families.  They suffer unjustifiably, but their pain is but one cry in a cacophony of sorrow.
 
One interesting philosophical question that is raised is whether it is right for Mr. Hunt and Mr. Rivers to engage in theft in order to save Fonny.  This is similar to the “Heinz Dilemma” in feminist ethics.  In that case there is a wife who has a disease that will kill her unless she gets a certain drug.  The pharmacist won’t lower his price (too high for the family to pay).  The question is then asked whether the husband should steal the drug to save his wife.  Kohlberg (the creator of the Heinz Dilemma) thinks that it is clear that the husband should steal the drug.  This brought push-back by feminist philosophers such as Carol Gilligan, who in her book In a Different Voice, demurs and thinks that some constructed dialog might be the better course.  In Barry Jenkin’s script from James Baldwin’s novel, the point of view is in favor of Kohlberg over Gilligan.
 
Assessment
 
The movie is an apologue told in strong strokes.  This is appropriate for fictive narrative philosophy since it is one option for setting out an argument for a position. In this case the conclusion of the argument is: “The United States’ society in the early 1970s in New York (supposedly a liberal city regarding racial and ethnic difference) is deeply racist by the ruling European-descent power structure.  This unfair system grinds innocent people up and ruins lives.  If this happens in one of the so-called tolerant cities, it is far worse in the other parts of the country.  The plot, as set out, makes plausible this claim.
 
Some professors from Literature Departments, may demur since the “show but not tell” strategy is dogma.  However, since I do not hold to this as a critical principle for all of fiction, I come down in favor of the presentation and recommend it broadly to audiences across America.
 
Attempt: ***/ Accomplished: *****
January, 2019 

​BLACKkKLANSMAN
A Movie by Spike Lee
*For those who have NOT watched the movie
So if you haven’t watched the movie your first reaction will probably be to the title referring to someone who is black (African American) AND a member of the Ku Klux Klan (a group whose mission it is [at a minimum] to spew hatred against African Americans or [further] to send African Americans back into slavery).  How could an African American ever become welcomed in the Klan? 
Well, that’s enough of a draw to get you into the theater.  Obviously, everything is not what it seems.  A little trickery will be in order.  That chicanery drives the main plot and it is entertaining the way a good mystery or suspense thriller is entertaining.  It is also very uncomfortable to be in the presence of so much hatred (albeit portrayed by actors).
The major theme concerns race relations both in the story’s center, 1972, and today in 2018. 
For those who are intellectually and emotionally drawn toward this theme, this is a movie you should see as soon as possible.  It is one of Spike Lee’s best.
 
*For those who HAVE watched the move
The year is 1972.  Richard Nixon is running for re-election.  The posters abound.  The place is Colorado Springs, CO.  Ron Stallworth (John D. Washington) is a recent college graduate looking for his mission in life.  He decides to join the Colorado Springs Police Department.  Their recruitment sign said that they were open to “minority candidates.” But the facts on the ground were more ambiguous. They had no black police officers on the force.  The lieutenant said that Stallworth would have to be the “Jackie Robinson” of the police in Colorado Springs. Though there was some support for Stallworth—particularly by the man making the hiring—there was significant resentment, too, among a few.  The rest were perplexed.  
Because Ron Stallworth was bright, he did not like his first job in the records department walking back and forth  among metal open shelving to retrieve and present files to one of the racist cops in the department.  It is an interesting scene of “micro aggression.”
Then Ron confronts the man who hired him so that he might go undercover.  The boss was interested but where would he send the rookie?  The lieutenant leaned towards narcotics. Why did he think Stallworth would fit in there?
Then they changed their minds.  The lieutenant decided to wire him for a speech to be given at the university in town sponsored by the Black Student Union, whose president was Patrice (Laura Harrier).  The speaker was the one-time Stokely Carmichael, now named Kwame Ture. Ron is supposed to mingle among the mostly student crowd and determine just what the reaction is—viz., is there a “black revolution” on the horizon?  Ron meets Patrice.  He listens to the speech and feels conflicted.  He appreciates the depiction of the wrongs done by the white society to those of African descent. But he is inclined to support the tactics of gradual change from the inside instead of violently attacking the system.  This has been a tactical dividing line among African Americans since the days of Booker T. Washington and Marcus Garvey.
Ron arranges to meet Patrice at a bar.  She is late because the local police harassed the speaker and his entourage (which included Patrice).  She was groped and disrespected by the police who were bent on low-level violence as an act of power.
The next day Ron makes his report. But the brass do not like the information on police misbehavior.  It was time to re-assign Ron.  The boss thinks narcotics would be a good place for Ron since African Americans were really the main source of drug use.  Ron gets a better idea.  He sees an ad for a white supremacist group.  He calls the number and uses his “white voice.” Ron gets an invitation to join.  Ron presents the idea to the brass: Ron talks on the phone and gets all the contacts while a Jewish cop, Flip Zimmerman (Adam Driver) becomes Ron Stallworth-2 and shows up with his white skin as a calling card. 
Ron-2 meets with the group that is a Klan cell with some Nazi inclinations, as well.  Ron-2 meets with some skepticism in the five-member cell.  But the head likes Ron-2 and so he is invited to fill out membership papers.  One member is very suspicious of Ron-2 (thinking he is a Jew, which he is by birth). There is a scene in which the paranoid man, P-1, tries to get Ron-2 to take a lie detector test in the basement and also wants to inspect his penis for possible circumcision. When Ron-1 hears all this on the wire, he thinks fast and throws something through the window of the house giving wife of P-1 the heavy-jeevies as she sees a black man running away.  The small klan cell takes to the yard.  Ron-1 is speeding away in his car while P-1 tries to shoot.  Ron-2 takes the gun away and shoots after the car (obviously missing on purpose).
Things are getting tense.
There is a scene where the Klan cell tries to demonstrate to each other their shooting skills by shooting at targets that look like caricatures of natives from Africa.  Ron-2 shows himself to be a sharp shooter.  (Does this give the Klan cell second thoughts about Ron-2 missing the car that carried the “reengage black man”—really the police officer Ron-1)?
Ron-1 has a number of phone calls with David Duke (Topher Grace).  These are wonderful examples of racial prejudice and its marketing plan for the general public.  Some of the interchanges are subtle; most are very gross.  But the worldview behind these exchanges gives an insight into one sort of racial hatred.  The word “white” becomes a tag-word on so many expressions by Duke.
Duke loves his new recruit Ron-1 so he wants to come to Colorado to meet him.  At the same time there is an icon of the very early black movement (in the WWI years) who is still alive.  These two celebrities come to town and this is the final section of the main plot.  The Klan cell wants to put a bomb next to the place where the African American icon will be speaking (played by Harry Belafonte).  The deliverer of the bomb is P-1’s wife who is itching to kill African Americans.  The police ironically assign Ron-1 to be the body guard to David Duke.
With much suspense Duke controls his “religion-like” message except when Ron-1 gets Ron-2 to take a Polaroid picture with Duke.  Duke is confused, but allows it to happen, but gets flustered when Ron-1 puts his arm around Duke’s shoulder (so that the picture depicts Duke embracing a black man). 
The bomb episode is thwarted by Ron-1 who gets the police there.  Plan-B is instigated by the wife.  Then Ron-1 saves Patrice in a tense scene while P-1 shows up but because the bomb is misplaced he detonates it and is killed himself.  P-1’s wife is confronted by Ron-1 who wants to handcuff her.  However, she puts up a fuss while the white police arrive and beat on Ron-1 who tells them he’s a cop, but they don’t believe him.  When Ron-2 arrives, his word is immediately respected and all is good. 
Then in a cameo scene the cop who had harassed Patrice is caught as he tries to do it again—this time while Ron-1 has a wire. That cop is history.  It all seems like a happy ending.
THEN, fast-forward to Charlottesville, VA, 2017 and the events there with the President refusing to denounce the Klan + Neo-nazis.  It is a chilling ending.
 
Random Thoughts: 1. It is interesting that the Klan in the movie use the phrase of purpose: “Make American Great Again.” (In this case, I believe reference to the South and Slavery.) 2. It is also interesting that the Klan cell chants (what seems to be in the context of the movie) a general Klan-neo-Nazi refrain—“American First.” 3. David Duke’s speech pattern instead of representing the way that people from Louisiana speak—sounded to this viewer as the speech patterns of Donald Trump.  This #1-3 sounded like a statement that Trump represents this group and that, like Woodrow Wilson (who played “Birth of a Nation” in the White House), is the most overtly racist president the USA has had in the last 100 years. 4. Plato said that evil was ignorance in practical decision-making, phronesis. Since the Klan cell described in the movie represent very stupid people, this might be seen as reinforcing Plato’s idea.  
Philosophy of History: The Klan randomly idealizes a time in history that is the “golden age” = slavery.  Since the time of Hesiod in ancient Greece, this has been one attempt to understand historical development.  It is aligned to the idea that the conquerors write history from their own perspective. Whether the verdict is evolution or devolution, most people living in a period are not well-equipped to render such historical judgments.
Assessment: From what is the scope intended, I think the movie delivers the goods.  

Initial Thoughts on Black Panther
 
1. Power dynamics.  (Social/Political Philosophy)One interesting presentational point is the re-direction of power in various ways.  First, this is displayed in the very set-up of Wakanda.  It is the most advanced country in the world by quite a bit.  This shifts a popular conception of sub-Saharan Africa as being 3rd World and not technologically advanced.  This means that the so-called G-20 Nations which aspire to that (and the associated hauteur) are fundamentally wrong in this assessment.  Second, is the role of women.  Women in this movie have power--both in the physical sense (the best warrior in the country is a woman and she is also the top general) and in the intellectual sense (the best scientist in the world is living in Wakanda is a woman).  Third, is the way that the cast of tribal leaders represent the various ways that humans act in the world: kind, generous, mean, treacherous, etc. All of humanity is represented via the black African people of Wakanda.  This shift in power dynamics can make the audience look at the outside world with fresh eyes.
 
2. How we handle positive accidents. (Philosophy of History)Let’s look at two positive accidents and see how history and our fairy tale history contrast.  In the first instance take gun powder.  Gun powder was first discovered in China.  They decided to use it for artistic productions connected to New Year and other celebrations.  Gun powder was later independently discovered in Europe.  What the Europeans did with it was to construct weapons of death and then went around the world using their superior technology to kill, steal, and enslave others.  This was certainly a bad use of an accident that has made a blot on human history.  In contrast to this, the accident that brought the asteroid with vibranium to the region of Wakanda had a different effect.  Vibrarium was hidden inside the country for a long time and helped the people develop a civilization that was largely cooperative.  (There is a moment in the movie when the usurper, Erik Killmonger, is about to take over the throne and assert global military domination—perhaps because he was raised in the United States—but he is thwarted.)
 
3.  Positive ethical duties. (Ethics)The people of Wakanda had traditionally lived secretly.  Like the country in Nepal in The Lost Horizon, there is posited to be a society living at a much higher technological, medical, and organizational level.  Should such a society just live for themselves at the top of the humankind’s achievements?  Is there a positive ethical duty to go outside and assist others?  Well, the new king T’Challa thinks there is.  At the end of the movie he starts on such a project in Los Angeles in the very building where Erik Killmonger’s father was killed.  This is a dangerous because once other people find out about Wakanda’s wealth and expertise, then they will come after them to try and steal it for themselves.  There is often danger in acting altruistically for the sake of helping others who are in distress (no matter the cause).  This risky moral play will be the subject of sequel movies.  Acting morally on behalf of others, always comes with a risk— just act Gandhi or Dr. King.

​The Shape of Tomorrow
 
On Friday, October 6th the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced that the International Campaign to abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) has been awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize, “The organization is receiving the award for its work to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and for its groundbreaking efforts to achieve a treaty-based prohibition of such weapons,” the Norwegian Nobel Committee said in a statement.  Indeed, perhaps at no time since the unstable 1950s has the world been closer to nuclear war.  Over the past few weeks the rhetoric has increased between Trump who threatened to “totally destroy North Korea” and referred to President Kim as “little rocket man” and Kim Jong Un who, in turn, said, “I will surely and definitely tame the mentally deranged U.S. dotard with fire.”  North Korea’s foreign minister Ri Yong Ho on September 25th proclaimed that Donald Trump had declared war on North Korea when Trump tweeted that North Korea won’t be around much longer. 
            What are we to make of these exchanges in which both leaders call the other madmen and threaten military action against the other that sounds as if it’s consistent with pre-emptive attacks by either side? And the attacks sound like nuclear attacks as per Trump’s declaration when he threatened to unleash “fire and fury like the world has never seen.” How are people to understand such rhetoric? 
            It is against this backdrop that ICAN has been working to press for support of the disarmament treaty that they negotiated in July.  Those negotiations were boycotted by the nine nuclear nations (the U.S., Russia, China, North Korea, Britain, France, India, Pakistan, and Israel) and their allies.  However, there was participation by two-thirds of the U.N.’s member nations and 53 countries have signed on.  This is a show of international anxiety about the current instability of the nuclear threat.
            The instability of the 1950s led to a mutual strategy between the U.S.A. and the USSR called MAD (or mutually assured destruction).  Both countries had the largest stockpiles of weapons that were deployed in various regions so that they might respond to an offensive attack by the other party.  On top of this informal strategy were the various bi-lateral treaties to limit the stockpiles of the two nations and the multi-national Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.  Though the tensions were high, there was a general confidence that neither side wanted a nuclear war.  It was an unthinkable outcome to be avoided at all costs.
            Today, the world does not have such confidence when we bring in the leaders of the U.S.A. and North Korea.  At this writing it seems improbable that North Korea could render a single nuclear weapon against the United States, much less a destructive event envisioned by MAD.  However they could reach Seoul, (population of 10 million/ metropolitan area population of 25 million).  They may be able to hit targets in Japan, as well.  This would amount to an enormous bloodbath.  Thus, launching a nuclear or even a conventional attack against North Korea might have some severe consequences. 
Is this a sable situation similar to what we possessed under MAD?  There is no way to know for sure.  It depends upon the leader of North Korea understanding that he is NOT under attack and that all pressure to be applied will be economic and political.  Does Kim Jong Un understand this?  It depends upon who you ask.  Prior to January 20, 2017 the answer was, “yes.”  After this date the game changed to one of bluffing—aka “chicken.”  The rules of this game require that each party (Trump and Kim) believes that the other may actually commit a military act to gain advantage—even though that game scenario has cataclysmic negative outcomes from both directions.  Thus, one would have to say that each leader is either bluffing for some sort of posturing effect or that one or both is stupid or mentally unfit.  Various outside commentators have made assessments about the capacities of the leaders, but thankfully, neither country is totally dependent upon the man at the top, alone.
Kim has a circle of advisors and so does Trump.  How much sway do these advisors have?  In the United States we have Mattis and Tillerson (who has recently claimed to have forged a direct contact with North Korea—though Trump rebuked him for that remark).  Both Mattis and Tillerson have shown themselves to have the capacity of independence as evidenced by their comments when the President spoke out about the Charlottesville unrest. 
It should be noted that un-written protocol for the President to have the power to launch a nuclear attack goes back to Truman who ordered the only two atomic attacks in history.  However, there is precedent for disobeying orders in the military.  Anyone in the Army, for example, may disobey a command when that command directly contradicts the Army Code of Conduct.  This might create the groundwork for Mattis and/or Tillerson disobeying/interfering with a Presidential order to mount a nuclear attack against North Korea in response to a North Korean nuclear weapons test, for example.  They could claim that such a response fails the proportionality provision of the rules of war to which the United States is a signatory.
Will these advisers have the independence to disobey an order to initiate a nuclear or conventional attack—when either scenario has a cataclysmic negative outcome?  Time will tell.  But a possible bright spot is the planned China trip by Trump in November with Chinese President Xi Jinping.  Certainly it would seem that this would discount military action against North Korea before then (unless it’s all a ruse). 
The stakes are certainly high.  Beatrice Fihn, Executive Director of ICAN responded to the Trump-Kim exchanges this way, “Nuclear weapons do not bring stability and security. . . We can see that right now.” Diplomacy is our only hope.  Let’s pray that those around Trump and Kim can make the difference and save the world.
 
Michael Boylan is Professor of Philosophy at Marymount University.  He has held positions at the Center for American Progress and the Brookings Institution and has served on federal government committees.  His most recent books are: Natural Human Rights: A Theory (political philosophy), Teaching Ethics with Three Philosophical Novels (pedagogy), and Georgia: A Trilogy (philosophical novels).
 
 

​Will We Go to War with North Korea?
 
 
Over the past few weeks the rhetoric has increased between Trump who threatened to “totally destroy North Korea” and referred to President Kim as “rocket man” and Kim Jong Un who, in turn, said, “I will surely and definitely tame the mentally deranged U.S. dotard with fire.”  North Korea’s foreign minister Ri Yong Ho on September 25th declared that Donald Trump had declared war on North Korea when he tweeted that North Korea won’t be around much longer. 
            What are we to make of these exchanges in which both leaders call the other madmen and threaten military action against the other that sounds as if it’s consistent with pre-emptive attacks by either side. And the attacks sound like nuclear attacks as per Trump’s declaration when he threatened to unleash “fire and fury like the world has never seen.” How are people to understand such rhetoric? 
            One way to think about this is via game theory.  In game theory one tries to attach values upon different courses of action and then assess the outcome that has the highest benefit.  Whenever one result is so cataclysmic that it dwarfs all other expected values, then it achieves the probability status of dominance. Whenever, within a range of probabilities, there is one outcome that is dominant, then this fact dwarfs the other expected outcomes and becomes the focus of attention. In the past, such a game scenario created the so-called MAD (or mutually assured destruction) strategy for any war between the USSR and the United States.  Both countries had the largest stockpiles of weapons that were deployed in various regions so that they might respond to an offensive attack by the other party.  This game used very high levels of destruction of both sides to create an unacceptable outcome for both parties (i.e., dominance).  Therefore, an acceptable stalemate was achieved that was stable save for an accidental freak event—such as the Cuban Missile Crisis.
            With North Korea the power balance is different.  At this writing it seems improbable that North Korea could render a single nuclear weapon against the United States, much less a destructive event envisioned by MAD.  However they could reach Seoul, (population of 10 million/ metropolitan area population of 25 million).  They may be able to hit targets in Japan, as well.  This would amount to an enormous bloodbath.  Thus, launching a nuclear or even a conventional attack against North Korea might have some severe consequences. 
Recently, I had a conversation with a retired army general about the game outcomes of a surprise conventional attack against North Korean nuclear facilities with the goal of taking out North Korean nuclear capacity all together.  He said that the critical game condition would be our intelligence about where all the missile launchers are as well as their stockpile of warheads.  Even if we had perfect information (unlikely), there would still be a conventional response against South Korea and a resumption of the Korean War.  North Korea continues to maintain an army of around a million.  It is one of the largest standing armies in the world.  This would certainly be a negative expected value of such a high degree that dominance would be exhibited against the scenario.   
As a result it seems that there are no good game scenarios in which a positive expected value might be achieved through the use of military force against North Korea.  In each case, dominance exerts itself through the unacceptably high negative outcomes.  Thus, it would seem that only diplomatic options should be employed.  In the diplomatic game some kind of common ground is thought to be a necessary starting point.  Before January 20, 2017 the game played out like this: 1. The United States, along with the world community (through the United Nations), in return for real diplomatic negotiations about North Korea’s nuclear stance would offer the positive possibility of economic interchange that would boost prosperity for the people of North Korea and, by extension, enhance the popularity of the country’s leader.  2. North Korea would often agree, and even sign documents, but would later renege and adopt bellicose language and continue on its nuclear program.  3. Countries around the world, including to a lesser degree China, would put economic sanctions on North Korea.  4.  North Korea would yell louder and the rest of the world would pretend that they didn’t hear—and then loop back to #1.  This cyclic diplomatic game would repeat over and over while North Korea continued to develop better ballistic missiles and more powerful and compact nuclear weapons.  Is this a sable game?  There is no way to know for sure.  It depends upon the leader of North Korea understanding that he is NOT under attack and that all pressure to be applied will be economic and political.  Does Kim Jong Un understand this?  It depends upon who you ask.  Prior to January 20, 2017 the answer was, “yes.”  After this date the game changed to one of bluffing—aka “chicken.”  The rules of this game require that each party (Trump and Kim) believes that the other may actually commit a military act to gain advantage—even though that game scenario has dominant negative outcomes from both directions.  Thus, one would have to say that each leader is either bluffing for some sort of posturing effect or that one or both is stupid or mentally unfit.  Various outside commentators have made assessments about the capacities of the leaders, but thankfully, neither country is totally dependent upon the man at the top, alone.
Kim has a circle of advisors and so does Trump.  How much sway do these advisors have?  In the United States we have Mattis and Tillerson (who has recently claimed to have forged a direct contact).  Both Mattis and Tillerson have shown themselves to have the capacity of independence when the President spoke out about the Charlottesville unrest.  Will they have the independence to disobey an order to initiate a nuclear or conventional attack—when either scenario has a dominant negative outcome?  Time will tell.  But a possible bright spot is the planned China trip by Trump in November with Chinese President Xi Jinping.  Certainly it would seem that this would discount military action in Korea before then (unless it’s all a ruse). 
Since I am, by nature, a hopeful fellow, my crystal ball suggests that instead of military action, we will move into a new version of Diplomacy (Diplomacy 2.0) which will have its own game rules built upon a more successful array of economic and political pressures and incentives for North Korea to re-enter the community of nations.  A lot will ride on this game.
 
Michael Boylan is Professor of Philosophy at Marymount University.  He has held positions at the Center for American Progress and the Brookings Institution and has served on government committees.  His most recent books are: Natural Human Rights: A Theory (political philosophy), Teaching Ethics with Three Philosophical Novels (pedagogy), and Georgia: A Trilogy (philosophical novels).
 
 

​Hiking the Appalachian Trail with Mark Sanford
 
We have a few causal (non-casual) issues to think about.  They are all related, but my order of presentation will be rather skewed.  First of all, I recently heard (MSBC 11-5-15: 7:45 pm) Mark Sanford who is the former governor of South Carolina and is now a representative in Congress for the 1st Congressional District discussing what to with the Guantanamo Jail in Cuba.  Roughly 112 of the original 780 prisoners are still left in custody.  None have been charged with a civil or a war crime.  What should we do with them?  Mark Sanford suggested that we take them “out back” in the Southern tradition (according to Sanford) and “put a bullet in their heads.”
Now maybe it’s because I’m working on a BIG book on Southern justice in the United States between 1870-1930 that this response is so troublesome to me. 
This is no joke or light hearted matter.
But it causes me to pivot to other non-jokes.  What comes to mind is the fate of Richard A. Clarke and the anti-terrorism team that he assembled for the Clinton Administration in scare of the turning of the millennium, 2000.  This was a very competent, dream team.  Clarke had cabinet level status, but he came from the other side.  George W. Bush dismantled the team and demoted Clarke (who warned about terrorism threats and whose efforts generated the August 2000 memo that there would be a terrorism attempt in September, 2001 originating from a northeast airport). 
This constitutes a policy decision by George W. Bush for which he is responsible.
George W. Bush had empowered Condoleezza Rice, an expert on the Soviet Union (pre-Russian Federation politics, 1990 and before).  Unfortunately, this skill set was not current to 2001—even though she fit the preferred political profile more than Mr. Clarke.  With respect to Mid-East terrorism, she was not knowledgeable. This constitutes a policy decision by George W. Bush for which he is responsible.    
Thus, when there was a terrorist attack on September 11, 2001 the George W. Bush administration was content with reading with children a book, “My Pet Goat.”  His mea culpa was, “How could anyone know this might happen?”  “Why do they hate us?”  And then he launched two wars.  The first: Afghanistan was unnecessary.  The reason for this assessment comes from a briefing I was privy to when I was a fellow at the Center for American Progress.  After the 9-11 attack the leader of Afghanistan, Mullah Omar, offered to bring Osama bin Laden to trial according to Islamic law (with the hint that Osama might be beheaded by Muslims in front of an international audience).  This information, to my understanding was not released generally to the American public. If we had accepted the offer, the role of the United States would be far different today.
 The second: to topple Sadam Hussein because he had weapons of mass destruction that he would use against the United States.  This was a spurious claim.  It was being disproven by Hans Glick in his incomplete U.N. report that detailed his search which had found nothing of the sort.  The reason the report was incomplete was because Bush did not let him complete it.  Bush was told by God to invade Iraq and dispose its dictator.  Okay.  Back to the beginning and Afghanistan and their offer to bring Ossama bin Laden to justice.    
But what might this offer mean? 
On one level, we could have had Osama bin Laden “tried and convicted” by his cohort group.  If he had been killed as the result it would have been Muslim justice in the international sphere.  If that had happened, then the colonial intervention that ensued would not have happened.  There would be no abiding anger against the United States.  So why didn’t we go that route?  Because we wanted to be the big dog on the block so that we might get respect for our power. But we philosophers generally accept from Republic I of Plato the five arguments that reject the “might makes right” claim by Thrasymachus (cf. Gorgias). 
So does causation theory have anything to say on this?  Thomas sets out a theory of public causation that says whoever alters the normal (natural) course of affairs is responsible for the consequences.  Others have suggested the trigger theory in which the proximate agent in the event chant is responsible.  Donald Davidson liked this approach, though it has serious counter-examples.  Finally, there is the theory set out by Hart and Honoré in Causation and the Law that creates a joint and several causation theory.  I believe all three are correct within certain restricted contexts. 
So how are we to get beyond this philosophical baggage and judge how we might close Guantanamo Bay prison?  How long must a mistake endure?  George Herbert Walker Bush in his forthcoming book (as told to his ghost writer) suggested that since his son’s freewill was compromised by Cheney and Rumsfeld that he should be seen as a neutral actor in the scene.  Well, since these folks are walking on the Appalachian Trail with others keen on re-writing history in their own favor (sometimes known as “spinning”), we should beg off and take out our inflatable life raft and go down another route towards the port of truth. 
Is it better than becoming a “sell-out” for partial truths, partial lies which constitutes much of what we call current political discourse?  Here I side with William Kingdom Clifford and my friend the late Roderick M. Chisholm who held there was a moral responsibility to exercise due diligence in the pursuit of truth.  To do otherwise is to deny out rational nature.  This is unethical.
 
Michael Boylan
11-10-15
 

​Is Money the Root of All Evil?
 
It is a common maxim that money is the root of all evil.  This seems to put the causal agent for evil on the exchange medium used to enable developed economies to leave barter (an earlier form of goods exchange).  I will argue that this common maxim is wrong on two fronts.  The first and most important error this common maxim makes is that it is not money (which is merely a vehicle of goods exchange) but rather the desire for money that is at fault.  In the children’s story “The Fisherman and his Wife” desire for material goods is shown to increase even as each wish is granted.  Desire feeds further desire.  This, of course, is the central tenet of Buddhism.  In my 2007 novel, The Extinction of Desire, it was shown that monetary windfalls are not necessarily good.  They are bad if they incite greater desire.  Thus, it is not money, per se, that is bad but the desire that is kindled for more and more that is evil.  It is evil because people infuse actual value into the money and material goods when they do not possess any intrinsic value.  Thus the person who is caught in this spiral makes a category mistake: he or she believes that they possess something of ultimate worth when they only possess a material transaction device.  Since the most important goods in life: love, friendship, kindness and charity are not material, a flaw exists in the materialists’ logic.
Money by itself is thus a neutral institutional device that is more efficient than barter for economic transfers.  Too much desire can create a logical error that can confuse the agent into infusing real value into something without any (but expedient value as an economic tool).  This mistake can turn its adherents toward a series of errors in the direction of life.  These errors can cause the materialist true believer into bad (evil) actions.  But it is the desire and the illogic that can follow from it that is the real culprit.
A better candidate for “all evil” might be the illusion that those successful Mammon-following candidates might hold as a personal worldview: I am so powerful with my accumulation of money that I am The Master of the Universe.  This is the sin of ultimate pride—assuming that you are god-like in your power.  It leads to many subsequent errors in judgment which, in turn, lead to bad (evil) actions.  Again, it is not the money, as such, but how one’s attitude about the money that leads people astray.  In this case it is the acquisition of power (cf. Tolkein’s Lord of the Rings) that causes the acquisition of false attitudes that lead to one’s downfall. 
Money is not the root of all evil.  Rather it is our attitudes about money that allow it to corrupt the human spirit.
Michael Boylan, Professor of Philosophy, Marymount University.

Georgia--A Trilogy: Part Two is the third book within inte Arche series of books that explore the major structural approaches of the novel.  This book, like Georgia--A Trilogy: Part One intends to be philosophy in the form of fiction.  This is done through character, plot and the 12 book epic structure (each book has twelve chapters).  Beginning each of the 12 books is an essay on narrative art and then some exhibits that situate the chapters in the book to the English litarary tradition and to African American literature.  All exist together, like the philosopher's stone, so that alchemy might result and turn the reading experience into gold.

​Readers are encouraged to post their thoughts here or on other blogs--such as Amazon or Goodreads.  

 From September 20 to October 20, 2016 Georgia: A Trilogy--Part One will be on a blog tour.  Catch up with the Blog Tour by entering Michael Boylan and the book title into your search engine.  Then read the various comments people make about the book.  Of course, if you want to make up your own mind, buy the book and write your own comments.  I hope you do enjoy the book.  It's been 42 years in the making and over 30 complete drafts.