Our tolerance for inequality, as a species, seems fairly high. We are capable of accepting at a fairly early age differences in intelligence, physical ability and even wealth without much difficulty. The brute facts of one’s biological circumstances seem no more remarkable than any other accidents of birth. That is not to say that we are not prone to envy in the face of inequality. But we are liable to accept it as a feature of the world rather than as an injustice.

Our sense of what is fair is more situational. It is, shall we say, the beginning of ethics to make a judgment about the fairness of a particular situation. Inequality is ethically neutral, however those actions or consequences that flow from inequality may be deemed to be fair or unfair depending upon ones perspective, which is determined to a great extent by personality.

The fact that you have more than me is ethically irrelevant unless your gain was unfairly accumulated. Now we get to the crux of the matter. Excluding outright criminality (such as blatant theft), what types of wealth accumulation are unfair? We can’t simply say that because there is so much wealth concentrated among so few people that the wealth of the wealthy was unfairly accumulated.

This necessarily becomes a political problem. Obama’s appeals to “fairness” via the “Buffett Rule” are not related to reality. He presumes, rightly, that most people will instinctively feel that it is unfair to tax the rich at a rate that is lower than the average guy. But if this principle is correct–that fairness entails proportional sacrifice–then taxing the middle-class at the same rate as the super-wealthy comes nowhere near fairness. 35% of $150,000 per year is a greater sacrifice than 35% of $250,000,000. That’s not to mention the increased burden of all the other forms of taxation that fall upon the $150,000 household.

We need a language of fairness. It’s not a part of our cultural heritage. One could argue that religion has been civilization’s answer to the question of unfairness from the beginning. Whether it is the will of God or the circle of Samsara, life is difficult and there’s not much you can do about it.

Perhaps a future civilization based on a common language of fairness will fare better than the latter day civilizations that have used a system of ritual legalism to protect the phantasm of human rights.

Typically, around nine in the evening, after preparing individual meals for the children and seeing them off to bed, I will recline for an hour or so and watch whatever is available on our local PBS affiliate. After opting some time ago to not get cable service, I find that the only programming I can watch in the evenings tends to be of the public variety. So it was last night as I watched an episode of Nature on the intelligence of crows. Last week I saw a remarkable episode of the same program on the intelligence of turkeys.

Coincidentally, earlier yesterday I stumbled upon a blog post on a lefty site bemoaning the fate of the planet, and in particular, the horror of greenhouse gases that will be released into the atmosphere in coming years as energy consumers burn the dirty, dirty oil that is currently being dredged up from the tar sands of the Alberta prairie. The shale oil will certainly be burned, either here in North America or somewhere else. We know this to be true. Humans need energy and fuel and so forth.

Crows are smart enough to use tools to make tools. Now if you think about that for a minute it’s really quite impressive. It’s something that, apparently, even our fellow primates don’t do. Intelligence appears to be an inevitable outcome of natural selection.

Perhaps it’s time for our species to get out of the way. If the planet is getting used up, then we ought to plan our own demise and set a timeline for the end. My suggestion is that the entire species voluntarily refrain from reproducing after a certain date. Let’s say we have about two-hundred years left, so we make sure we stop reproducing completely by the end of the 21st century. That will free us up to exploit the planet as much as we want for another three or four generations. It could be a wonderful party. Without having to worry about waste and scarcity of resources, the human population of the planet will be able to live in style on its way out.

The crows won’t miss us much (although they have adapted quite well to living among us). And I think we as a species ought to be proud of our accomplishments and make every effort to preserve an archive of those accomplishments for the crows (or whatever other creature) succeeds us in a few million years. The sun is only about half-way through its lifespan, so this planet could easily be around long enough to support the development of another equally intelligent species.

I have been following some of the political discussions swirling around the blogosphere relative to the Libyan intervention. Much of the discussion has been heated. There are those who support the intervention, apparently on humanitarian grounds, regardless of their political affiliation. It is better, they seem to argue, to approve of the use of illegitimate force if it will prevent catastrophic bloodshed at the hands of a deranged dictator. That’s fine. I hope it all works out.

Those against this particular intervention are from all over the political map. People are war-weary at this point, not to mention a great deal poorer, and the sight of cruise missiles lit up at night just doesn’t have the allure it used to. There are principled anti-war positions from both left and right (not to mention anarchists who don’t fit on the spectrum).

I am politically adrift. I have only lately cut myself off from the organized left. Now I’m not sure where I will fit in. Perhaps being truly unaffiliated is the best political position to be in. It forces us to examine each situation on its own merits. This brings me to the ethical question. Group affiliation (in religion, as well as politics) simplifies the ethical decision-making process. The Group takes a position, based on some set of shared values, beliefs or prejudices. Group members need not be bothered with the trouble of thinking through each and every position so long as the The Group has a position for them. Those who drop out of the Group are stuck making those decisions on their own. And so those decisions are determined by the individual’s values, beliefs and prejudices rather than those of the Group.

What do I value the most? Autonomy. I am a self-directed individual. (Saying that says nothing, by the way, about free-will or the mind-body problem or consciousness or any other interesting philosophical issue). The phenomenon of personhood is self-direction. I have other values, of course, but this one seems to be number one. I resent the use of force and the threat of force that are necessary for our system of society.

But even the last statement above doesn’t follow necessarily from my primary value. Just because I value my autonomy doesn’ t mean I value yours.  If I am a member of a priviliged elite the fact that my freedom comes at the expense of others might not bother me so much.

So how does my belief in the value of autonomy determine where I should stand on Libya? Here is an easy to follow mathematical formula that solves everything:

I take my value of personal autonomy, multiply it by the 10 million people in Libya, divide it by my disgust with western imperialism and a history of occupation, multiply that by my repulsion at the military-industrial complex, add in my resentment of my income tax liability for 2011, subtract my disdain for The Green Book, and multiply all that by my distrust of the press. The result: Leave this intervention to the Italians.

Now the holidays are over and I cast my mind to resolutions for the new year.

Here’s what I would like to be blogging about in 2011:

1. Catalog of beliefs. List of statements of the form “I believe that x is true.” (This could be a short list)
2. Persistence of contradictory truth. Can non-verifiable metaphysical statements acquire a status of “true” in the same way that created artifacts acquire status of “art”? This would not be relativism.
3. Establish criteria for the evaluation of political philosophy.
4. Read Merleau-Ponty. Looking for academic support for primacy of perception in the study of philosophy.
5. Begin defining religious categories (e.g. mythology, cult, dogma etc…)
6. Take an ethical position.
7. Religion as cultural art form.
8. Clear definitions of and relations between the following terms: chance/randomness/indeterminacy/causal opacity.

As always, your assistance is welcome and desired.