Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Statue-Toppling, The Ethics Incompleteness Principle, And Calvin Griffith, Part One
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Michael Ejercito
Jun 21, 2020, 12:31:13 PM6/21/20
to
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/this-time-from-the-atlantic-you-cant-expect-cops-to-improve-without-lots-more-gun-control/
Statue-Toppling, The Ethics Incompleteness Principle, And Calvin Griffith,
Part One.
JUNE 21, 2020 / JACK MARSHALL
The Ethics Incompleteness Principle, a core concept on Ethics Alarms, holds
that even the most convincing ethics rules, moral codes, laws and principles
have exceptions. The inspiration for this observation was the work of
Czech-born mathematician Kurt Gödel, whose two Incompleteness Theorems,
which relate to mathematical proofs, are his most famous contribution to
civilization and science. A linguist as well as a scientist, Gödel
unintentionally delivered an essential blow against the ethics absolutism of
Kant and rigid morality when he proved that human language is not
sufficiently precise to define rules that will work as designed in every
instance. The logical extension of Gödel’s theorems, which he applied only
to mathematics and, by extension, physics, tells us that there will always
be anomalies on the periphery of every normative system, no matter how sound
or well articulated it is. If one responds to an anomaly by trying to amend
the rule or system to accommodate it, the integrity of the rule or system is
disturbed, and perhaps ruined. Yet if one stubbornly applies the rule or
system without amendment to the anomaly anyway, one may reach an absurd
conclusion or an unjust result. [ Here is an online discussion of the
application of Gödel to ethics, which appeared years after the Ethics
Incompleteness Theorem was posited on Ethics Alarms.]
The Ethics Incompleteness Principle suggests that when a system or rule
doesn’t seem to work well when applied to an unexpected or unusual
situation, the wise response is to abandon the system or rule—in that one
anomalous case only— and use basic ethics principles and analysis to find
the best solution. Then return to the system and rules as they were, without
altering them to make the treatment of the anomalous situation “consistent.”
Much as we would like it to be otherwise, for life would be so much simpler
if it were so, no system or rule is going to work equally well with every
possible scenario. This is why is why committing to a single ethical system
is folly, and why it is important to keep basic ethical values in mind in
case a pre-determined formula for determining what is right breaks down.
When a reader and frequent commenter sent me this announcement from the
Minnesota Twins a few days ago, my reflex reaction was as you would expect:
THE MINNESOTA TWINS STATEMENT ON THE REMOVAL OF CALVIN GRIFFITH STATUE
“When we opened Target Field in 2010 in conjunction wit h our 50th season in
Minnesota, we were excited and proud to welcome fans to our ‘forever
ballpark.’ As such, we wanted to pay permanent tribute to those figures and
moments that helped shape the first half-century of Minnesota Twins
baseball – including a statue of Calvin Griffith, our former owner and the
man responsible for moving the franchise her e in 1961.
” While we acknowledge the prominent role Calvin Griffith played in our
history, we cannot remain silent and continue ignoring the racist comments
he made in Waseca in 1978. His disparaging words displayed a blatant
intolerance and disregard for the Black community that arethe antithesis of
what the Minnesota Twins stand for and value.
“Our decision to memorialize Calvin Griffith with a statue reflects an
ignorance on our part of systemic racism present in 1978, 2010 and today. We
apologize for our failure to adequately recognize how the statue was viewed
and the pain it caused for many people – both inside the Twins organization
and across Twins Territory. We cannot remove Calvin Griffith from the
history of the Minnesota Twins, but we believe removal of this statue is an
important and necessary step in our ongoing commitment to provide a Target
Field experience where every fan and employee feels safe and welcome.
PAST, PRESENT OR FUTURE, THERE IS NO PLACE FOR RACISM, INEQUALITY AND
INJUSTICE IN TWINS TERRITORY.”
There were three features of the announcement that set off ethics alarms.
First, it appeared to be one more pandering PR department George Floyd
Freakout grovel. Second, it evoked memories of the Boston Red Sox’s
disgraceful decision to remove a street name by Fenway Park honoring Tom
Yawkey, the team’s owner for four decades and the sole reason, in all
likelihood, that the Red Sox are still in Boston. (My posts about this
cowardly decision are here.) Yawkey’s crime was that his Sox were the last
Major League team to integrate, and that while Yawkey himself never made a
statement that could be fairly called bigoted, his racism was presumed from
the fact that he had opportunities to sign all-time greats Jackie Robinson
and Willie Mays, and passed. Griffith, while no Yawkey, was the owner who
was responsible for the Twins being in Minnesota, moving them there in 1961
from Washington, D.C. where they were known as the Washington Senators (not
to be confused with the successor D.C. team, also called the Senators, which
is now the Texas Rangers and embroiled in its own George Floyd Freakout
controversy) and the perennial doormats of the American League. (See: “Damn
Yankees.”)
The final ethics alarm was, of course, my philosophical and ethical
objection to statue-toppling as a pernicious form of cultural bull-dozing
and Soviet-style historical censorship. As I wrote in one of many
condemnations of the practice, which is again in full flower thanks to the
anarchists, America-haters and morons who have infiltrated the ranks of
civil rights activists,
Those who want to tear down monuments to the imperfect, whether they know it
or not, are impeding knowledge, perspective, wisdom, and understanding. They
want only one view of history, because they will only tolerate one that
advances their ideology and values—just as the Americans of the past
believed in their values. Foolishly, I suppose, they trusted future
generations to act on their own ethical enlightenment without corrupting the
historical record.
Then I read what Calvin Griffith said while addressing a Lion’s Club in
1978.
To be continued in Part 2
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Statue-Toppling, The Ethics Incompleteness Principle, And Calvin Griffith,
Part One.
JUNE 21, 2020 / JACK MARSHALL
The Ethics Incompleteness Principle, a core concept on Ethics Alarms, holds
that even the most convincing ethics rules, moral codes, laws and principles
have exceptions. The inspiration for this observation was the work of
Czech-born mathematician Kurt Gödel, whose two Incompleteness Theorems,
which relate to mathematical proofs, are his most famous contribution to
civilization and science. A linguist as well as a scientist, Gödel
unintentionally delivered an essential blow against the ethics absolutism of
Kant and rigid morality when he proved that human language is not
sufficiently precise to define rules that will work as designed in every
instance. The logical extension of Gödel’s theorems, which he applied only
to mathematics and, by extension, physics, tells us that there will always
be anomalies on the periphery of every normative system, no matter how sound
or well articulated it is. If one responds to an anomaly by trying to amend
the rule or system to accommodate it, the integrity of the rule or system is
disturbed, and perhaps ruined. Yet if one stubbornly applies the rule or
system without amendment to the anomaly anyway, one may reach an absurd
conclusion or an unjust result. [ Here is an online discussion of the
application of Gödel to ethics, which appeared years after the Ethics
Incompleteness Theorem was posited on Ethics Alarms.]
The Ethics Incompleteness Principle suggests that when a system or rule
doesn’t seem to work well when applied to an unexpected or unusual
situation, the wise response is to abandon the system or rule—in that one
anomalous case only— and use basic ethics principles and analysis to find
the best solution. Then return to the system and rules as they were, without
altering them to make the treatment of the anomalous situation “consistent.”
Much as we would like it to be otherwise, for life would be so much simpler
if it were so, no system or rule is going to work equally well with every
possible scenario. This is why is why committing to a single ethical system
is folly, and why it is important to keep basic ethical values in mind in
case a pre-determined formula for determining what is right breaks down.
When a reader and frequent commenter sent me this announcement from the
Minnesota Twins a few days ago, my reflex reaction was as you would expect:
THE MINNESOTA TWINS STATEMENT ON THE REMOVAL OF CALVIN GRIFFITH STATUE
“When we opened Target Field in 2010 in conjunction wit h our 50th season in
Minnesota, we were excited and proud to welcome fans to our ‘forever
ballpark.’ As such, we wanted to pay permanent tribute to those figures and
moments that helped shape the first half-century of Minnesota Twins
baseball – including a statue of Calvin Griffith, our former owner and the
man responsible for moving the franchise her e in 1961.
” While we acknowledge the prominent role Calvin Griffith played in our
history, we cannot remain silent and continue ignoring the racist comments
he made in Waseca in 1978. His disparaging words displayed a blatant
intolerance and disregard for the Black community that arethe antithesis of
what the Minnesota Twins stand for and value.
“Our decision to memorialize Calvin Griffith with a statue reflects an
ignorance on our part of systemic racism present in 1978, 2010 and today. We
apologize for our failure to adequately recognize how the statue was viewed
and the pain it caused for many people – both inside the Twins organization
and across Twins Territory. We cannot remove Calvin Griffith from the
history of the Minnesota Twins, but we believe removal of this statue is an
important and necessary step in our ongoing commitment to provide a Target
Field experience where every fan and employee feels safe and welcome.
PAST, PRESENT OR FUTURE, THERE IS NO PLACE FOR RACISM, INEQUALITY AND
INJUSTICE IN TWINS TERRITORY.”
There were three features of the announcement that set off ethics alarms.
First, it appeared to be one more pandering PR department George Floyd
Freakout grovel. Second, it evoked memories of the Boston Red Sox’s
disgraceful decision to remove a street name by Fenway Park honoring Tom
Yawkey, the team’s owner for four decades and the sole reason, in all
likelihood, that the Red Sox are still in Boston. (My posts about this
cowardly decision are here.) Yawkey’s crime was that his Sox were the last
Major League team to integrate, and that while Yawkey himself never made a
statement that could be fairly called bigoted, his racism was presumed from
the fact that he had opportunities to sign all-time greats Jackie Robinson
and Willie Mays, and passed. Griffith, while no Yawkey, was the owner who
was responsible for the Twins being in Minnesota, moving them there in 1961
from Washington, D.C. where they were known as the Washington Senators (not
to be confused with the successor D.C. team, also called the Senators, which
is now the Texas Rangers and embroiled in its own George Floyd Freakout
controversy) and the perennial doormats of the American League. (See: “Damn
Yankees.”)
The final ethics alarm was, of course, my philosophical and ethical
objection to statue-toppling as a pernicious form of cultural bull-dozing
and Soviet-style historical censorship. As I wrote in one of many
condemnations of the practice, which is again in full flower thanks to the
anarchists, America-haters and morons who have infiltrated the ranks of
civil rights activists,
Those who want to tear down monuments to the imperfect, whether they know it
or not, are impeding knowledge, perspective, wisdom, and understanding. They
want only one view of history, because they will only tolerate one that
advances their ideology and values—just as the Americans of the past
believed in their values. Foolishly, I suppose, they trusted future
generations to act on their own ethical enlightenment without corrupting the
historical record.
Then I read what Calvin Griffith said while addressing a Lion’s Club in
1978.
To be continued in Part 2
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
0 new messages