Whistleblowing Ethics
THE WEBSITE WILL............ (A )HELP WHISTLEBLOWERS .EXPOSE WRONGDOING WITHOUT DAMAGING THEMSELVES ............... (B) STRENGTHEN CURRENT WHISTLEBLOWING LEGISLATION AND PRACTICES.............. (C) CREATE EFFECTIVE CODES OF ETHICS............. (D) HELP BUILD AN ETHICAL ENVIRONMENT IN OUR WORKPLACES
Sunday, January 13, 2019
Sunday, January 19, 2014
SENATE INQUIRY - WHISTLEBLOWING
I have recently completed a lengthy inquiry on
whistleblowing:world wide, to be published next month under the title “ In the
Public Interest”. I also submitted to the earlier Treasury inquiry on
corporate whistleblowing and subsequently written an analysis of that
inquiry. My main points taken from this earlier work, are;
1, Australia needs a corporate whistleblower
protection scheme , and needs one urgently.
2. The current whistleblower provisions in the
Corporations Act cover only contraventions of that Act . They need to cover all
wrongdoings against the law , including health, safety and environmental
violations .
3.Australia needs a rewards scheme similar to
The False Claims and Dodd Frank Act in the US. The economic and ethical
arguments in support of such a scheme are too large to be ignored.
4. Australia should not, as in the US, adopt a
whistleblower protection scheme for each industry. Such an approach complicates
the difficulties already facing whistleblowers. Instead, it should adopt
a scheme for all industries and for the public sector, as in the UK, with a
comprehensive listing of wrongs against which the government will provide
protection.
5. ASIC’s performance has been woeful. A more
comprehensive solution is for the Commonwealth Ombudsman ( or similar body ) to
act as a coordinating and supporting agency for whistleblowing
The whistleblower can disclose his/her information to the regulator
or the coordinator, as they wish.
Peter Bowden ( Dr.)
[Ed.} Applied
Ethics
Thursday, January 9, 2014
THE CIA WHISTLEBLOWER
PETER
BOWDEN
BE, MSc, PhD.
peter_bowden@usyd.edu.au
6 Teakle Street
Summer Hill
NSW 2130
Australia
61418 166 577
612 9797 6459
Ms Erlinda
Hernandez
Bureau of Prisons
Residential Reentry Office
PO Box 7000
Butner, NC, USA, 27509
cc: Mr. Charles Samuels
Director of Bureau of Prisons
320 First St. NW
Washington, DC USA, 20534
Dear Ms. Hernandez:
At the suggestion of the Government Accountability Program in the United States, of which I am a supporter I urge you to allow John Kiriakou (inmate 79637-083 at Loretto) to serve the last nine months of his sentence in a halfway house, so that he may resume productive contributions to society.
Kiriakou served in the CIA for over 14 years. During that time, he was involved in critical counterterrorism missions following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Throughout his career, Kiriakou received 10 Exceptional Performance Awards, the Sustained Superior Performance Award, the Counterterrorism Service Medal, and the State Department's Meritorious Honour Award.
In 2008, Kiriakou confirmed the name of a former CIA colleague to a reporter writing a book on the Agency. The name wasn’t made public as a result of the confirmation. Kiriakou, under threat of more severe terms and financial ruin, pled guilty to violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison.
But the real reason Kiriakou was prosecuted is because he is an anti-torture whistleblower who was brave enough to speak out against the agency's practices. He never tortured anyone – yet he is the only person to be prosecuted in relation to the torture program under the George W. Bush administration.
Kiriakou is an honourable and patriotic person . He does not deserve to be made an example of wrongdoing. I ask that he be granted at least nine months of halfway house time so that he may begin his life again as a valuable member of society and as a father to his five children.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this message.
Bureau of Prisons
Residential Reentry Office
PO Box 7000
Butner, NC, USA, 27509
cc: Mr. Charles Samuels
Director of Bureau of Prisons
320 First St. NW
Washington, DC USA, 20534
Dear Ms. Hernandez:
At the suggestion of the Government Accountability Program in the United States, of which I am a supporter I urge you to allow John Kiriakou (inmate 79637-083 at Loretto) to serve the last nine months of his sentence in a halfway house, so that he may resume productive contributions to society.
Kiriakou served in the CIA for over 14 years. During that time, he was involved in critical counterterrorism missions following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Throughout his career, Kiriakou received 10 Exceptional Performance Awards, the Sustained Superior Performance Award, the Counterterrorism Service Medal, and the State Department's Meritorious Honour Award.
In 2008, Kiriakou confirmed the name of a former CIA colleague to a reporter writing a book on the Agency. The name wasn’t made public as a result of the confirmation. Kiriakou, under threat of more severe terms and financial ruin, pled guilty to violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison.
But the real reason Kiriakou was prosecuted is because he is an anti-torture whistleblower who was brave enough to speak out against the agency's practices. He never tortured anyone – yet he is the only person to be prosecuted in relation to the torture program under the George W. Bush administration.
Kiriakou is an honourable and patriotic person . He does not deserve to be made an example of wrongdoing. I ask that he be granted at least nine months of halfway house time so that he may begin his life again as a valuable member of society and as a father to his five children.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this message.
Yours sincerely
Peter Bowden ( Dr.)
peter_bowden@usyd.edu.au
[Ed.} Applied
Ethics
http://www.tup.net.au/publications-new/Applied_Ethics.aspxWednesday, October 16, 2013
POLITICIANS, MORALITY AND ETHICS
You think the recent rorting of expenses by our politicians
is wrong? The rest of us pay our own way to go to the wedding of a friend or
colleague. We believe therefore,
that politicians, – not the taxpayer - should pay their own expenses when they are invited
to a wedding You also believe that the Prime Minister of this country, Tony
Abbott, is wrong when he refuses to take
action on the West Australian member Don
Randall, who has chalked up in more than
$10,00 in questionable
travel and expenses? Or that the
Prime Minister should question his own refusal to pay back the expense of attending
an Ironman event ?
If your children attend an ethics class at any of Sydney‘s
public schools they would agree with the Prime Minister. They will have learned
that ethical decisions are a matter of discussion, even argument. This will be
the method they will have been shown for reaching an ethical conclusion. They
will have had much practice. They will possibly have also learned that argument
and discussion in reaching moral decisions have been the method taught not only
at schools but in our universities and colleges. A method that has existed
since time immemorial. There are no hard
and fast rules on what is the right thing to do; only competing theories. If
Tony Abbott wants to justify his position in not taking himself to task for
unethical behaviour , or any of his ministers, he will find a supporting arguments in some of the Kantian theory, in
one of a half dozen utilitarian theories ,
or in virtue theory. After all, it is a virtuous act for a politician to
interact with the people in an Ironman series, and therefore fully justifiable
that the people should pay for this or any other political rort.
Our children and our politicians, would make a better world,
as we all would, if we all applied some empirical observation and practical
common sense to documenting what we regard as right, and what
we regard as wrong. In short, an enforceable code of ethical behaviour for
political life.
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Julian Assange Right or Wrong ?
JULIAN ASSANGE -
RIGHT OR WRONG?
This discussion is wider than Julian Assange. It brings in
Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and John Kiriakou – the CIA whistleblower who
revealed that the US used waterboarding torture techniques, and received a 30
month prison sentence as a reward.
But the talk shall
be confined to Assange, for it embraces the issues raised by all others
The
talk also brings in those philosophers that have raised the question of a
social contract – the contract that we, the governed, have with those who
govern us - Thomas Hobbes., John Locke and
Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the best known. Machiavelli and Montesquieu have also added their contribution; Machiavelli
on the power of the prince and Montesquieu
in "The Spirit of Laws"
1748, on the separation of powers. Montesquieu advocated the freedom
of thought, speech and assembly. He also left us with
..constant experience shows us that every
man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far
as it will go
All, except
Hobbes, and Machiavelli, treat the social contract as a contract between equals.
Hobbes argues that we ought to be willing
to submit ourselves to political authority. In The Leviathan 1651.That authority, for Hobbes was a powerful
king. "The war of all against
all" he argued, could only be averted by strong central government.
Locke 1632-1704 views the
basis of all morality, that we not harm others with regards to their “life,
health, liberty, or possessions in Two Treatises on Government.. 1689. But
does not set out who , the people or the
government , is the ultimate decision taker.
Rousseau 1762 in The Social Contract has perhaps
the most useful concepts for today’s world: In the Discourse on Political Economy, he sets out
that the law is the expression of the general will. All citizens have
the right to contribute personally, or through their representatives, to its
formation.
My own construct is simple. I
have a contract with those who are in government. When I come to vote, I have
the right to know what that party and that representative believes, and how
they act - in dealing with other politicians, and with other powers. I
vote for the representative and the party that best represent my values. Although
neither may be elected, I still have that right.. If that information is kept
secret from me, that contract has been broken
In general I wish to know if
the extent to which they reflect my own values, so that I make my choice as
fully informed partner . Among many values I seek to identify, I would
wish to know if they had behaved immorally, for I would like to believe that I
would reject unacceptable behaviour.
On this basis, I believe that
I have the right to the information released
by Assange, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and John Kiriakou.
I place, however, two
reservations or conditions on this assertion:
!. Whoever releases the information
believes it to be true
2. That no harm is done by the
release
Julian
Assange, through Bradley Manning, released four sets of documents:
April 2010
The Apache helicopter gunship video, killing Reuters correspondents and
civilians
July
2010 The Afghan war
logs
October 2010 The
Iraq war logs. It was about this time that the Swedish sex allegations arose
November
2010 The Embassy cables
Under the concept that a social
contract exists between us and those who govern us, I would argue that we all have
a democratic and moral right to the information that was provided by Wikileaks.
Some will claim that political discussions between members of say, cabinet, or between
the diplomatic representatives of two powers, should not be public information.
They argue that the process of reaching a decision is tentative, that political
representatives would be unable to reach decisions if all their tentative negotiations
were to become public. I disagree.
I answer that tentative discussions
would be recognisable as such And in any
case , the end position of that political leader will come out over time, and that is the
position I would like to know,
Before reaching the
conclusion that I am entitled to the information released by Assange and
Bradley Manning I need, however, first to
check that my two conditions –the validity of the information and the avoidance
of harm.- have been met.
There is little doubt that
the information was true, for it was presented as actual documents - Official
US documents. There was editing of the
releases, but they were obviously from the
sources that they were claimed to have come from.
There has been much
controversy, however, over whether the
editing was sufficient to eliminate harm to any Afghani or Iraqi who had worked
with the US and allied forces, and particularly Assange’ s statement that those who collaborated with the allied troops
deserved to be named ( Charlie Beckett
with James Ball “Wikileaks;,2012, Polity ,p.86, quoting a Guardian Newspaper
source). Assange has denied this
allegation but has argued that the risk “was the greater good”.
If the allegations against
Assange are true, they raise serious questions about my willingness to support
Assange’s actions. .There certainly was editing of the releases, although
sketchy with the first set on Afghan. Also there has been no evidence since
that any names were released to the detriment of the persons concerned. “.It should also be noted
that after Manning’s trial, , Brig Gen Robert Carr, an intelligence
expert who led a Pentagon task force investigating the damage done by the leaks,
stated on the first day of the sentencing hearing in a military court in Fort
Meade, that no-one named in the Afghan war logs was killed (BBC blog, “ Manning
Sentencing”,1 August 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk)
A related issue is whether
the information gave aid to the enemy. We need to acknowledge that in times of
war, to provide such information is not acceptable. But it has not yet been
shown how the information has been of value to the enemy..Bradley Manning was absolved
of this charge
The issues of harm to
collaborators must also be raised in the case of Bradley Manning , who had no
ability to check the documents . I turn to that issue in a moment for they
affect how we regard Assange,
One final concluding sentence:.
Assange has been described in many unfavourable terms He has also fallen out
with many of his colleagues, The editors of The Guardian, Daniel Domscheit Berg
,who has published a very critical memoir, in particular. He is described and
comes through in the movie “ We steal
secrets” as egotistical, uncompromising, self –opinionated.
My final statement is that it
matters little, even if all these statements are true, One’s like or dislike of
Julian Assange is immaterial,
To return to Bradley
Manning:. He has stated that he could not keep quiet about the issues he saw in
the documents - the Apache helicopter; the US condoning the torture of captives by the
Iraqi military, innocent people at Guantanamo Bay. Manning could not check all
documents He therefore released information, some of which had the potential to harm, both Afghani
collaborators as well as US diplomats who were withdrawn after the embassy
cables were released
The alternative for Manning
was not to release the information . I trust that you join with me in saying
that the world has advanced one step further through Manning’s release of that
material. It has also moved forward, by Assange in publishing it. Moving forward in the sense that we are all
now better unformed on what our governments may do. And to take such action as
we see fit. We now have the information
to say, publicly, “I disagree”.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Julia Gillard WAS unethical
This is a clear and unambiguous statement that Julia Gillard, Australia's Prime Minister, was lacking in most commonly held ethical beliefs. But first, so that I cannot be accused of bias, I need to assert that I am a near rusted-on Labor supporter. In the first version of this particular blog, I wrote that that I would , with near certainty, vote for the Labor Party in the coming election.. That was when Julia Gillard was Prime Minister. I did vote that way, although Julia Gillard herself, had been deposed
There is much evidence in support
of my assessment of Ms. Gillard’ ethical values. High on the list is her June 2010 deposing of Kevin Rudd, then current Prime Minister. If the institutions in a society are to sustain, economically
and politically, a primary value held by anyone who elects their leaders must be
loyalty to that leader. Chaos will reign otherwise. Ms Gillard does not possess this virtue. Of
course, any institution, and most of all the institutions that manage a
country, must find for themselves the most effective leader possible. We have
been told that there were many faults with Kevin Rudd - that he was a
chaotic micro-manager, and rude to his staff . . None of us ever
worked for Mr Rudd, nor did the
reporters who broadcast these accusations. We, as did the news media, relied on those
politicians who deposed him. The
politician who benefited most was Julia Gillard.
To sum up in a basic moral though: If the people vote for a political leader, no matter how impossible to work with does that leader turn out, then it is an undemocratic to depose that leader. It is the policies he has broadcast that the people vote for, and their judgement on his ability to deliver.
The most damming of indictments against Gillard came in Peter Hartcher's analysis of the Gillard coup, presented in the Sydney Morning Herald November 18 issue. Gillard has always maintained that it was a last minute decision on her part to issue the challenge , based onthe declining popularity of the Rudd government. Hartcher gives convincing evidence that Gillard instigated the coup well before that meeting. Gillard denial is an untruth.
To sum up in a basic moral though: If the people vote for a political leader, no matter how impossible to work with does that leader turn out, then it is an undemocratic to depose that leader. It is the policies he has broadcast that the people vote for, and their judgement on his ability to deliver.
The most damming of indictments against Gillard came in Peter Hartcher's analysis of the Gillard coup, presented in the Sydney Morning Herald November 18 issue. Gillard has always maintained that it was a last minute decision on her part to issue the challenge , based onthe declining popularity of the Rudd government. Hartcher gives convincing evidence that Gillard instigated the coup well before that meeting. Gillard denial is an untruth.
Rudd was effective .It is
easy to demonstrate. He ended 14 years of conservative rule by John Howard. How many other Labor leaders had tried, but failed? Kevin Rudd then gave us a series of decisions that still
tell us why, in poll after poll, the Australian people prefer him as
Prime Minister.
First he gave us the apology to the aboriginal
people, a defining moment in Australian history. Second he brought this country
through the Global Financial Crisis in a better state of economic health than
most other countries. We have all benefited from Kevin Rudd’s decisions.
He introduced
the mining tax.
It was supposed to raise $3 billion the first financial year
and $10 billion over four years. His argument has undeniable validity - that the
minerals under the ground belong to the Australian people, not the
mining companies. The money could be spent on many needed services of
government. In the face of fierce opposition by the mining industry, the
mining tax was cut by Julia Gillard soon after she took over the top job. It
has raised just $136 million.
It has
been argued that even if she did come to power by unethical means , she has earned her position through
the election held a couple of months later - in August 2010, The
difficulty is that her subsequent
decisions exhibit the same dubious
values that brought her to power. She
first opposed voting for Palestine being given observer status in the United Nations
, only partially caving in when facing opposition in her Cabinet There
were 138 nations in favour to 9 against.
Australia in one of its less glorious moments, abstained. Regardless
of your position in this dispute, it needs to be noted that both sides accept a
two state solution. The observer position is a small step in that direction.
Gillard
has never back tracked on calling Julian Assange‘s release of the Wikileaks
documents a criminal act, despite not being able to tell us what law he broke.
Nor has she ever retracted this accusation.
Then there was the
crackdown on 457 visas – this is the visa that
allows skilled immigrants into the country when there is a shortage of
Australian Labour. Andrew Bartlett of the Australian Democrats put it
neatly in a post on 20/3/2013 in On Line Opinion The Gillard and Hanson accord on 457 visas is a dangerous development
The cry that migrants are 'taking our jobs' is a myth with a long and ugly history in Australian political rhetoric.
He went onto note– The fact that Pauline Hanson has
come out in support of Prime Minister Gillard's pledge to "put Aussie workers first" starkly demonstrates the dangerous ground that
the PM and a few trade unions have ventured onto with their calculated attack
against skilled migrant workers.
Her record on combating corruption leaves much to be
desired. Stephen Bartos, a former senior public servant,
argues that corruption in Australia in the public service is most likely on par
with that of other developed nations (Canberra
Times March 5, 2013) . He points to the
current inquiry into the former NSW government as evidence, and the failure of
the present Prime Minister- from the same political party, to commit to a
crackdown on corruption. Also that despite parliamentary
committee recommendations there is no overarching federal anti-corruption
investigative body; and that whistleblowing legislation had been inexplicably
delayed for years, Australia is the only country in the developed world that
provides no protection for its national government officials who expose corruption
On the list of unethical actions, but still not at the top of my was the PM inviting radio jock Kyle Sandilands to play the Easter
Bunny at an egg hunt at her Sydney residence .This despite many of the
offensive remarks that Sandilands has made .
The Sydney
Morning Herald (March 27, 2012) told us that Kyle Sandilands breaching decency standards. The
media authority, ACMA, has found the comments he made were deeply derogatory
and offensive. From now on Sandilands will be prevented from broadcasting any
material that is likely to demean women or girls or face a loss of licence. The egg hunt was for sick children, but the inviting of Sandilands
puts at question her earlier “mysogony” attack on the leader of the opposition.
Her
opposition to gay marriage would appear to be
driven by poll opinions. The position is also at odds with very simple moral guidelines
of equal treatment and justice for all in our society.
Near
top of my list, however is that Gillard describes herself as an atheist. As such she has
a special obligation to promote moral standards. In an era of declining church attendance and
increasing doubt about religious beliefs, atheists have a duty to endorse, even
build on the moral values of our society. They follow a long line of humanists, extending
back over the centuries.
Richard
Dawkins, in The God Delusion (2006) sets
out ten commandments , which he found on an atheist website . They are sound commandments, enjoining us principally not to harm others in any and all matters, but also to
think independently, questioning everything. They encapsulate the form
of the Golden Rule that tells us : “Do not do to others what you would not want
them to do to you.” He then adds five
more of his own, one of which asks us to leave unto others the freedom to enjoy
their own sex lives, without discrimination. Gillard would not appear to follow
this commandment.
Finally ( almost ) is the cutting off of the
Deductible Gift Recipient tax status for donations to our ethical classes in
schools See David Hill’s condemnation of
this decision in the
Sydney Morning Herald on March 11, 2013 . Although not ostensibly a Gillard
decision , she must be aware of the furore it has created and that has possibly resulted in
the termination of the ethics classes in our schools.
For
me, the issue at the top of the list is that she is a woman, - normally the guardians
and teachers of the moral values in our society. And that she is the first
woman prime minister of our country.
Julia Gillard has tackled head on her principal perceived
weakness among voters by framing the next federal election as being about trust. (SMH.
March 27 ,2012 ), asserting “I am the one you can trust” , Can we ?
Saturday, March 9, 2013
THE TRIAL AND DEATH OF SOCRATES
Socrates was accused of corrupting the youth, and of
impiety. He was sentenced to death by a majority of his peers in a 500 person jury.
Socrates accepted the penalty using the arguments set out in the Crito – that as
a citizen, it was his duty to accept the laws of Athens. His acceptance appears
at odds with his strong statements at his trial that he was innocent.
The Crito raises a conundrum. In fact, it makes no sense. I
am not sure that Plato faithfully reported Socrates’ arguments. I believe that Socrates
wanted to accept death, but that Plato put in his mouth those magnificent words
about his duty as a citizen in order to make Socrates out as a more morally
perfect man than he actually was. Socrates accepted death, not for the reasons
Plato gave him, but for other reasons. For one of three reasons or more likely,
a combination of all three:
1, He was guilty, and he accepted that, or at least accepted
he had lost the confidence and support of a majority of his fellow citizens.
2, He was 70 years of
age, and not about to leave Athens, where he had spent the greater part of his life. Xenophon, a pupil of Socrates, although not
at the trial, states in his Apology that
Socrates had come to regard death
for himself as preferable to life.
3, Socrates was not
about to take Xanthippe, his wife, and their children to
some country that would accept a fugitive from Athenian justice. Xanthippe was a
young wife, young enough to have three
children, described as quite young in
the Apology and Phaedo,
Plato however, could not give these reasons. He wanted to portray a stronger picture of Socrates.
In a series of dialogues that extol Socrates’ virtues, he could not put forward
a picture that painted Socrates as possessing fallible traits.
We come now to Plato’s version of Socrates defending himself
in the Apology. Plato portrays Socrates as obviously believing that he was
innocent. This was likely a true picture,
for many people were at the trial who could confirm Plato’s portrayal. There is
however, a second part to the conundrum of Socrates’ trial and execution. Was Socrates actually guilty? If not, why
then did a majority of his fellow citizens condemn him to death?
I believe that they were following Anytus, who appeared in
Meno, and who warned: “Socrates, I think you are too ready to think
evil of men: and, if you take my advice, I would recommend you to be careful”. Socrates’ reply, in Anytus’ hearing, is
quite derogatory of Anytus: ”… when he (Anytus) understands, which he does not
at present…he will forgive me.” Anytus
apparently did not forgive, for he was the principle accuser, and the one who
demanded the death penalty.
My own belief is that Socrates annoyed quite a number of
people, including the two fellow accusers Meletus and Lycon , although we know little of them. Socrates can be
extremely supercilious, claiming to know nothing, but nevertheless pointing out
to people the error of their ways. An example is seen with Crito. Crito is a
friend, and does not take offence, but in a so-called dialogue, Crito’s
contribution to the dialogue is a series of agreements: ‘yes,’ or ‘no’, ‘certainly not, Socrates’.
Most of Plato’s dialogues portray Socrates holding forth on whatever the issue
is.
Those who are not
Socrates’ friends will take offence. My particular favourites of these
offensive monologues from Socrates – which remember, is Plato writing several
years after Socrates has gone- is in Meno, and in Protagoras.
One philosophy blog states:
Many of Socrates’ opponents or
collaborators in the dialogues are made to agree with Socrates for the purposes
of the discussion when we – the readers – often feel that objections need to be
made; the answers Socrates’ interlocutors give often seem rigged by Plato to go
in the direction that he wants. This can seem acceptable in some cases because
Plato is simply using the dialogue to expound his ideas and the artificiality
of the responses is not relevant to the philosophical point he is making. (Philosophy Blog 2013)
I agree with this analysis. I believe that Socrates is
particularly scathing of Protagoras, who is an avowed sophist. My own reading of that dialogue is that
Protagoras is just as believable as Socrates. One of the co-accusers of
Socrates at his trial, Lycon, was a possible supporter of the Sophists.
There are other reasons why the accusers acted. A dislike
for Socrates’ support for the Thirty Tyrants would have motivated all three.
Neither Plato nor Socrates was an advocate of democracy. Meletus was also a
poet, a profession not strongly endorsed by Plato and Socrates. These reasons
may have caused the three to argue to the jury of five hundred to condemn
Socrates. My own belief, however, is that Socrates had offended too many
prominent Athenians through his supercilious dialogues, and these were the
reasons why a majority of his fellows voted the death penalty. Death may seem
to us a severe penalty, but we have to remember that the death penalty was
accepted practice in Athens at this time. History has recorded, with occasional
exceptions, that nations have executed people for crimes of different types for
many centuries. The Code of Hammurabi,
chiselled into tablets in 1760 BCE, stipulated the death penalty for 25 different
crimes. Today’s arguments against death were irrelevant.
Socrates must have realised that he had offended many people,
perhaps even during his trial, and that realisation was possibly another
contributor to his decision not to fight the death penalty - to choose death instead.
Friday, December 7, 2012
New whistleblower protection in the United States
The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act was passed into legislation by President Obama in November 2012 , Approved unanimously by Congress, this act updates and strengthens the earlier act designed to protect public sector whistleblowers . For the Washington Posts report on it click here.
The new act has been thirteen years in the making, strongly lobbied by a number of whistleblower support Groups including the Government Accountability Project GAP,
The new legislation protects Federal employees (in addition to existing protections ) from reprisal if they: are not the first person to disclose misconduct; disclose misconduct to co-workers or supervisors; disclose the consequences of a policy decision; or blow the whistle while carrying out their job duties.
"This reform took 13 years to pass because it can make so
much difference against fraud, waste and abuse. Government managers at all
levels made pleas and repeatedly blocked the bill through procedural sabotage.
But once there were no more secret 'holds,' the WPEA passed unanimously,
because no politician in a free society can openly oppose freedom of speech.
Over the years, earlier versions of this law had been called the Taxpayer
Protection Act. Nothing could set a better context for fiscal cliff
negotiations than a unanimous, bipartisan consensus to protect those who risk
their careers to protect the taxpayers. This victory reflects a consensus
ranging from President Obama to Representative Darrell Issa. The mandate for
this law is that the truth is the public's business."
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
A NEW BOOK ON APPLIED ETHICS
THE AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL AND APPLIED ETHICS HAS COME OUT WITH A NEW BOOK
Published by Tilde University Press and able to be ordered through Amazon, through Macmillan in Australia, or directly from the publisher (here)
What are the advantages of this book ?
The book is very different to anyother ethics book that you have read . It does contain the ethical theory that you have read elsewhere , but it takes it much further, in that it also gives you those ethical theorists- Beauchamp and Childress, Gert, and Frankena that have pulled together the theories into a coherent whole.
A greater strength however , is that it draws on 22 contributors across 14 different disciplines - all members or associates of the Australian
Association of Professional and Applied Ethics - each writing for his or her own discipline . Each is skilled in the discipline, and knowledgeable of the ethical issues that it faces.
The book is necessary reading for teachers of ethics in all disciplines, and for ethics officers in the workplace,charged with developing and running an ethics program in their organisations.
The book has the subtitle "Strengthening ethical practices ". In total , it describes seven practices that ,if taught,and applied in the work place , will bring about improved ethical behaviour , These seven are described in this blog (Here), reproduced below
Seven practices to strengthen ethical behaviour
a) Strengthening our ability to recognise when we ourselves have been unethical. Since first writing those words, I have come across two more references to the fact that we fool ourselves when we judge our own ethical or unethical behaviour (Dorothy Rowe, Why we lie, and Dan Ariely The (honest) truth about dishonesty. How we lie to everyone - especially ourselves). Both are psychologists. Ariely documents numerous experiments that will convince any reader of our underlying dishonesty.
b) Steps to encourage us to speak out against wrongdoing (this is blowing the whistle on wrongdoing – well proven in its effectiveness in stopping unethical or illegal activities), The research that demonstrates this conclusion is available HERE
c) Developments in codes of ethics that make them effective. See Vanya Smythe’s article in Applied Ethics. The research is not a 100% guarantee, but still convincing.
d) Policies adopted by private sector organisations to institutionalise ethical behaviour, The paper documents a half dozen practices- all recent developments - in current use.
e) New programs for ensuring greater honesty in government. Both d) and e) document the programs. Extensive research is under way to identify their effectiveness.
f) Building action on empirical findings, not argument. This is the disputed issue – see below.
g) Teaching these practices
Labels: Applied ethics, professional ethics, workplace ethics
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Whistleblowing and Justice
The recent Global Financial Crisis, from which the world is
only now recovering, has had a massive negative impact .Many have seen their savings
decimated, those about to retire or
already retired , have suffered immensely. Job losses have been huge The causes
of the GFC are debated, but widely attributed to unethical or at least inadequate
sub-prime lending practices by financial intermediaries. Yet few whistleblowers came
forward to warn the financial community , or the regulatory authorities of the perverse practices of Lehman Bros, Goldman Sachs ,etc. who were at the heart of
the problems. The CEO of the last mentioned company has publicly argued for a reduction in old age entitlements (here) .
Some
writers even attribute the crisis to the growing inequality between the rich and the poor, noticeable worldwide but particularly in the
US. From 1980 to
2005, more than 80 percent of
total increase in Americans' income went to the top 1 percent. Timothy
Noah in The United States of
Inequality writes
The United States' economy is
currently struggling to emerge from a severe recession brought on by the
financial crisis of 2008. Was that crisis brought about by income inequality?
Some economists are starting to think it may have been. David Moss of Harvard
Business School has produced an intriguing
chart that shows bank failures tend to coincide with periods of
growing income inequality. "I could hardly believe how tight the fit was,"
he told the New York Times. Princeton's Paul Krugman has
similarly been considering whether
the Great Divergence helped cause the recession by pushing middle-income
Americans into debt. The growth of household debt has followed a pattern
strikingly similar to the growth in income inequality (see the final graph).
Raghuram G. Rajan, a business school professor at the University of Chicago, recently argued on the New Republic's
Web site that "let them eat credit" was "the mantra of the
political establishment in the go-go years before the crisis." Christopher
Brown, an economist at Arkansas State University, wrote a paper in 2004
affirming that "inequality can exert a significant drag on
effective demand."
[http://www.slate.com]
Labels: ethics, Justice as fairness, practical ethics, whistleblowing
Thursday, November 22, 2012
A Reply to Hugh Breakey,
On his blog , http://hughbreakey.blogspot.com.au/
, Hugh posted a series of four arguments
disputing my claim that moral philosophy had lost the plot. His article is Ethical conduct: What’s philosophy got to do with it? My claim was that moral philosophers, teaching and writing on ethics, are
ignoring a number of recent developments that will strengthen ethical
practices. My claim was first launched on our philosophy café website (here) , but followed up in Australian Ethics , a
journal for which Hugh is the editor.
The
following paragraphs contain my reply to Hugh
ooooo
I accept all Hugh’s four arguments. With possibly the exception
of his fourth. Of course moral philosophy has added to our knowledge and
comprehension of ethical behaviour. There will not be a teacher of ethics in
any of the disciplines and professions across a university or college who has
not read Plato or Aristotle, nor the many books on ethics put out by today’s moral
philosophers. He or she will have
engaged in a struggle, often desperate, to come to grips with what is to act
ethically, what is wrongdoing, how do they stop it, and finally can they , and if so how, teach these concerns in a course. The consultant or newly appointed
ethics officer in the workforce will of necessity have examined the same
sources, read many of the same books. And just as desperately wonder how to
implement these principles in his or her organisation.
It will have been a time of much learning. Teachers of
engineering, medicine, pharmacy, business, social work, etc., newly
volunteering to teach the ethics course in their disciplines, or ethics
officers in the workforce, will have much to learn. It will be a time of great fulfilment.
Even enjoyment. They will nevertheless face problems. Taking the four benefits
of philosophy that Hugh raises:
To obtain
the first benefit, they will necessarily have read the moral theories. They may
not come to the conclusion that Hugh puts forward: that “moral philosophy can be important (by) …forcing
practitioners to face up …to universal principles of proper conduct”. The
newly appointed ethics lecturer or consultant will learn that there are no universally
agreed principles of moral conduct. The arguments that he referred to, started
by Plato and Aristotle, are still on- going. Two thousand three hundred years
later we still not have agreed on the difference between right and wrong. We
are still arguing. Richard Joyce, a well published philosopher, is one among
many who portrays a negative picture: The theories are plentiful, the convolutions
byzantine, the in-fighting bitter, the spilt ink copious, and the progress
astoundingly unimpressive” (Moral Fictionalism,
Philosophy Today , No.82, 2011, pp14
-17)
Our ethics specialist then has a massive problem in
deciding what they say in class or in the workplace. They have a choice from
multiple ethical theories (fifteen according to one of Peter Singer’s books). In
essence, however, there are three major theories – deontology, utilitarianism
and virtue. Each of course has multiple versions, and each is being still
argued. The arguments, according to an article in the same Singer book, are
described as “internecine warfare”. For a less bitter dispute, see Hugh’s blog on
why he is no longer a utilitarian, and my response on why I am totally
committed to utilitarianism ( but in one of the many versions).
His second benefit is clearly a benefit. Let us assume that
you, the reader, are the newly appointed lecturer or ethics officer. You will
come to a conclusion on each of Hugh’s points:
1. cultural relativism:
the view that morality is just whatever the local culture says it is,
2. psychological
egoism: the idea that people only do whatever they think will make them happy, and;
3. religious
necessity: the view that the only reason people can genuinely be moral is
if they believe in God.
You
may reach a position on all three of Hugh’s assertions. You might become, as I
have become, an absolutist, the opposite of a relativist. I believe there is a
right and a wrong in every human situation, no matter how ethically complex. But if you do reach a conclusion, you will
realise that your conclusions will still be subject to dispute. Hugh states: “I
acknowledge there is much that may be said in favour of versions of each of
them”. His statement is true. There are many current arguments
against my absolutist position. If you read Plato’s Euthyphro, you will realise that some of
these issues have been argued for a very long time, and are still argued today. "Is
what is morally good commanded
by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is
commanded by God?"
Hugh’s third position is that moral philosophy, and in particular
ethical argument, can change behaviour. I have no disagreement. My position is
that moral philosophers do not go far enough – they stop short, even exclude, many
activities that can strengthen ethical behaviour. Let us remind ourselves of the
seven areas set out in the original article:
a)
Strengthening our ability to recognise when we
ourselves have been unethical. Since first writing those words, I have come
across two more references to the fact that we fool ourselves when we judge our
own ethical or unethical behaviour (Dorothy Rowe, Why we lie, and Dan Ariely The (honest) truth about dishonesty.
How we lie to everyone - especially ourselves). Both are psychologists. Ariely
documents numerous experiments that will convince any reader of our underlying
dishonesty.
b) Steps
to encourage us to speak out against wrongdoing (this is blowing the whistle on
wrongdoing – well proven in its effectiveness
in stopping unethical or illegal activities),
c) Developments
in codes of ethics that make them effective. See Vanya Smythe’s article in Applied Ethics. The research is not a
100% guarantee, but still convincing.
d) Policies
adopted by private sector organisations to institutionalise ethical behaviour,
The paper documents a half dozen practices- all recent developments - in
current use.
e) New
programs for ensuring greater honesty in government. Both d) and e) document the programs. Extensive
research is under way to identify their effectiveness.
f) Building
action on empirical findings, not argument.
This is the disputed issue – see below.
g) Teaching
these practices
Plus a final section (h) – The implications of these findings
My argument is short. Each of these practices, as outlined
in the original philosophy café paper (http://www.philoagora.com/
- recent talks), if adopted, will strengthen ethical behaviour. Yet none of these practices, with a few
exceptions, is taught in the schools of moral philosophy around the world, or
set out in the major publications on ethics written by philosophers.
We come to Hugh’s fourth point, the “unwarranted distinction between argument and
empirical evidence” (point (f) above). To this writer, the fourth is the
same issue as the fifth point: “Before concluding, though, I must respond to the important point … about
philosophical disputations”.
The
first statement to make is that five of the concerns I have listed above are
based on empirical evidence. There is research that tells us these practices work.
If promoted in ethics courses in our colleges and by ethical programs in our
places of employment, they would bring about strengthened ethical behaviour. Irregular
– but still improvement. Yet they are not endorsed by the vast majority of
moral philosophers. Why not? I can only give a speculative answer– that
philosophers have been educated with a preference for argument, and these
findings are the result of applied research, that for the most part, comes from
other disciplines.
I have outlined my
thoughts on arguments in a separate paper, Critical
Thinking, on my blog http://whistleblowingethics.blogspot.com.au/.
That paper uses three references to define what philosophers describe as
critical thinking. The three references are: Jill LeBlanc, (1998) “Thinking Clearly.
A guide to critical reasoning, Lewis Vaughn, (2008, 2nd. ed.) The Power of Critical Thinking and the
notes for an undergraduate course on Creative Thinking at Macquarie University.
Each asserts that the philosophical
position is to use argument as a basis for thinking critically. The following
paragraphs summarise the reasons (set out in the blog) that contradict their
claim that argument can generate critical thinking:
1. Argument, as
promoted by the three references, ignores a number of practices in other
disciplines that can generate creative, forward looking thinking – thinking
that answers the question of what should we do? Principal among these is quantitative
evaluation techniques. The three references also ignore approaches used to
generate creativity in thinking, as well as techniques such as decision trees
and influence diagrams used to assess the impact of adopting different courses
of action.
2. Argument
generates criticism. Almost by definition it requires a ‘for’ and an ‘against’
if an argument is to occur. As a method of thinking, it does not generate
building on what has gone before. Arguments occur to destroy, or at least
contradict, what has been developed so far. These pages, for instance, are an argument.
3. Argument does
not lend itself to rigorous quantitative techniques. Empirical research at
times requires statistical analysis. If the three references are taken as a
guide, their coverage on statistics is such that any statistics based quantitative
analysis would be beyond their readers.
4. Argument based
critical thinking relies on inductive and deductive reasoning. In the long run,
both types of thinking come down to observation – to empiricism. Strong
empirical capabilities will generate strong arguments, but, I assert, empirical
research is not a philosophical virtue. This may be the reason why philosophers
have been arguing with each other for over 2000 years.
Finally, I come to
the final two points – g) the teaching of these practices, and h) the impact if
they are not taught. In the original paper, I suggested that society was the
bigger loser, for we are not obtaining the full benefits of the discipline of
moral philosophy. It is a discipline which,
although it assures us that it is the mother of ethical theory and
practice, does not teach a full set of approaches to strengthening ethical
behaviour, nor undertake the research necessary
to assess and improve developments already underway.
On reflection, I
now believe that it is the student of ethics in our schools of moral philosophy
who is the bigger loser. Teachers and
practitioners in ethics can search out these new developments themselves
(although with some difficulty). Students, however, take ethics courses. Many,
one suspects, hope to work at extending ethical practices as widely as possible
throughout our communities. Instead, they have been given an incomplete
knowledge of developments and capabilities in ethics work in government or the
private sector. They have been turned out – for only a few - with the capacity to
on-teach what they have learned so far. And that learning is circumscribed. It
is also of limited value in the work day world.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Critical Thinking
The Society for Applied Philosophy argues on its website that “many topics of public debate are capable
of being illuminated by the critical, analytic approach characteristic of philosophy.”
This essay argues that critical thinking in philosophy, as described in
courses with that title, as well as in reference books on the topic, and in
particular in the emphasis on argument, does not fully meet its objective, if
that objective is to strengthen our ability to think critically.
I shall first define critical thinking. Then, using three philosophical
works as benchmarks, I shall assess whether the thinking methods that they
propose is capable of clarifying issues of public debate. The assessment, on the
whole, finds that deeper, more analytical methods from other disciplines will
strengthen our capability to think critically on issues of concern to us individually
and also as members of organised society.
The three benchmarks are: Jill LeBlanc, (1998) “Thinking Clearly. A guide to critical
reasoning, Lewis Vaughn, (2008, 2nd. ed.) The Power of Critical Thinking, and the course notes for an
undergraduate course on Creative Thinking at Macquarie University.
What is critical thinking?
This examination in part depends on a definition of ‘critical thinking,’ and
in part, through an answer to the question of why we should teach it. It would
seem almost axiomatic that to think critically would be to strengthen our
ability to think through and decide on the issues and concerns that face us,
and our communities. This is consistent with the SAP statement above, which
implies that we need a critical, analytical approach to throw light on ways to
resolve issues of public concern. Such
thinking is also consistent with the SAP statement
of its own objective:
The Society for Applied Philosophy (UK) was founded in 1982
with the aim of promoting philosophical study and research that has a direct
bearing on areas of practical concern.
The term ‘critical’ has at least two meanings. One is to find fault; the
second is the meaning implied by the immediately preceding paragraphs – that it
is to think through issues of significance to ourselves and our communities. I
will use the second definition as the only one which is useful, and draw on the
three references to explain why it is ‘crucial or decisive’, to use a Lewis
Vaughn description. He states: “You came into this world without opinions or
judgements …and now your head is brimming with them”. He further adds: “the quality of your beliefs is the
fundamental concern of critical thinking.”
(op.cit .p. 1)
‘Ultimately, what critical thinking leads you to is knowledge,
understanding and - … empowerment’ (op.cit.p.1)
“Critical thinking enables problem solving and active learning” (p.5)
An examination of various references on this topic gives similar
conclusions. One series of definitions, however, is that critical thinking
comes down to argument. Jill
LeBlanc, in her treatise on thinking clearly emphasises the role of argument.
“Our ultimate goal in studying critical thinking is to learn to evaluate
arguments” (p.1.). She defines an argument as: “… an attempt to justify or
prove a conclusion” (p.2).
The Macquarie University
course ‘Critical thinking’, emphasises reasoning; “Our aim in this course is to
teach you the fundamentals of good reasoning. We will illustrate these
fundamentals by looking at reasoning from newspapers, journals, advertisements,
textbooks, and some philosophical works.”
Despite the wide ranging
definition that he uses, Vaughn also agrees with the emphasis on argument “Arguments
are the main focus of critical thinking”, (p.10),
The Macquarie statement leaves
unanswered, or at least only implies, a more fundamental question – why do we need
good reasoning. For this answer I will
again draw on Vaughn - that it is to lead us further to knowledge. I also argue
that in attempting to think critically we are seeking answers to the long asked
questions “What should we do? “, “How should we lead our lives?”. The
baseline references draw upon the early Greek philosophers in seeking answers to these questions. They
are, in a strong sense, philosophical questions.
The Macquarie unit also
places an emphasis on argument, but provides a wide ranging objective behind
this approach: “We do not argue solely to make
someone agree with us, but to find the truth about some matter, and to provide
good reasons for others to believe our conclusions.”
LeBlanc also reaches beyond the argument to embrace wider issues. She
says: “If you accept a candidate’s arguments to vote for her, you cannot forget
that her policies will affect the lives of many citizens. Will her policies
change their lives for the worse?”
These statements again bring up the issue that critical thinking has as
one of its objectives, developing our thoughts, and arguments, on the broad
social issues that we face in life. Finding a solution to the refugee boats
coming to Australia and the loss of life with them is a good example. But in the broad, I would argue that the
objective behind attempts to think critically is to advance knowledge.
Uncertain origins
The above propositions put forward the early Greek philosophers and the
dialectic approach to explain the development of critical thinking. De Bono
(2000) also makes this assertion. However, other references claim a development
of critical thinking concepts as late as the 1980s (Tucker, 1997).
Critical thinking (CT) gained widespread recognition as a behavioral
science construct in the
1980's when Goodwin Watson and Edward Glaser’s ‘Critical Thinking’ Appraisal became a
widely used tool for assessing the
effects of undergraduate education on reasoning skills,
Subsequent paragraphs in this essay tend to draw the conclusion that
there are several theories on critical reasoning. As the three base references
are philosophical in origin, and as the authors themselves are philosophers, we
can reasonably categorise as philosophical, the critical thinking methods in
this paper in the comparison with other disciplines
Concerns
with the suggested approach on thinking critically
The questioning of this approach is based on three concerns:
1. That it does not present the full pedagogical content of what is
required to think critically.
2. That critical thinking, as defined, is oriented excessively to
criticism - that it does not build
on itself. It is a thinking approach that can be contrasted with that of
the sciences.
3. Some of the concepts that are presented are misleading
In a sense these are sins of both omission and commission. ;
Omissions
in concept and practice
Evaluation
This primary concern arises from the implications of LeBlanc’s statement
on the importance of critically examining political commitments, and the impact
that they have on our lives. Evaluation practices attempt to question our
thinking about policies that affect ourselves (and our societies). Yet
evaluation does not appear to be covered in any of the referenced texts on
critical thinking. I argue that effective evaluation is necessary for the
putting forward of arguments and deciding of answers to the many questions that
we are asking of ourselves, of our societies, or our governments.
I will first briefly explain evaluation and then expand on its role in
thinking critically
Evaluations can be put in terms of an argument. If I state for instance, The intervention in the Northern Territory indigenous communities has
proven successful; and if I provide positive statements from several politicians and public
servants as reasons for supporting this assertion, then I have an argument.
And, I trust, an example of critical thinking[1].
If a formal
evaluation of this program has been undertaken, I have a strong factual basis
behind the conclusion that has been drawn. An independent evaluation will tell
me what has worked, what has not, and will give indications, sometimes quite
powerfully, of what should or should not be done in the future. In short,
evaluations provide sound arguments behind adopting a particular course of
action. Much new legislation and many policy initiatives require that they be
evaluated after a stipulated period of operation.
There are many
programs set up by public authorities , charities and other non-government agencies, and even by private
businesses, the evaluation of which lead society into new ways of thinking.
Examples include the benefits of early interventions in education; provision of
mental health services, types of prison reform, ways of stopping unethical
conduct in the public sector, and so on. These are all social issues about
which we need considerable critical thinking.
Evaluation has many
components: ex-ante evaluation (which is an evaluation of the thinking before
it is put into practice), impact evaluation, process or on–going evaluation,
ex-post evaluation. These components and their role in collective thinking have
not changed greatly in several years. See Bowden (1988) and texts such as De
Coninck et al (2008). These texts describe methods of analyses that are
designed to strengthen our
thinking on programs, small or large, that have the potential to contribute to
the betterment of society,
Creative thinking
A second aspect of the critical
thinking process that raises a concern is that the texts mention nothing on
creative or innovative thinking. It could well be argued that much thinking that is important, that is attempting
to resolve the question of what should we do about a particular issue, requires
creative or innovative thinking. It is
questionable whether the methods set out for analysing arguments engender
creative thinking. The Macquarie notes for instance specifically mention that
one of the two types of reasoning even prevents imaginative reasoning:
A
deductive conclusion may be used to arrive at something which is implicit, but
will not allow us to arrive at genuinely novel facts.
There are several
approaches to generating innovative thinking that could be taught. This
writer’s favourite is The Five Whys - a thinking process developed by the
founder of the Toyota Car company. It asks in succeeding order why a particular
problem is occurring. An example is Why is the world is facing economic problems
at the moment? – Because of the Global Financial Crisis…Why did this crisis
occur? – Because loan funds were too cheap…Why were loan funds,,,, etc., etc.
Other creative
thinking concepts are Edward de Bono’s concept of Lateral Thinking (1970), or
his revised Six Thinking Hats (2000).There are many others – brainstorming,
delphi techniques, etc. - available in the literature.
Critical thinking as criticism
Yet another concern,
related to creative thinking, is the negative aspects of critical thinking. To
be critical is one definition of a criticism.
It is relatively simple to pull apart an argument. It is much more difficult to build a thought
that wins acceptance, that advances knowledge.
My concern is that the emphasis on argument and on the analysis of
arguments makes it much more difficult to move thinking forward.
The
skill at unmasking error, or simple intellectual one-upmanship, is not
completely without value, but we should be wary of creating a class of
self-satisfied debunkers (Roth,
2010)
It could well be
argued that this difficulty has also likely been the reason why little
agreement is achieved in philosophical thought. Many examples can be given of this disagreement. John Stuart Mill, in
the opening sentences of Utilitarianism
,writes:
From the dawn of philosophy, the
question concerning the summum bonum, (the controversy respecting the criterion of right and
wrong) has been accounted the main
problem in speculative thought, has occupied the most gifted intellects, and
divided them into sects and schools, carrying on a vigorous warfare against one
another. And after more than two thousand years the same discussions continue,….
An even more
telling example of the negative power of argument is seen in some of these
‘sects and schools’ .The Beauchamp and Childress formulae, for instance (2001),
a combination of Kant and Mill, although developed for biomedical ethics,
provide an extremely wide ranging set of ethical guidelines. They are taught in
the health sciences disciplines throughout much of the world. But they are
disputed.
Bernard Gert’s formulation of a common
morality (2004) has been treated in an even more cavalier fashion. It is
perhaps an even more encompassing theory. But at a relatively recent symposium,
it is attacked by every philosopher who had a say on Gert’s prescriptions.
(AJPAE, 2005) The essence of their attack was a counter-argument, not an
attempt to find a universal formulation.
In one clear
example of the negative approach engendered by argument, in a book edited by Peter Singer, one
philosopher describes as ‘Internecine warfare’, the conflict between deontology
and utilitarianism, before going on to put forward his arguments for his own
theory – Virtue Ethics (Pence 1993).
LeBlanc, in her definition that “critical thinking is
to learn to evaluate arguments”, sets a scene where our thinking is not to
portray a positive, forward looking or innovative picture, but to assess whether the argument,
and therefore thinking behind it, is faulty. Possibly of greatest significance
is that part of a course on thinking critically which teaches you to recognise
logical fallacies. The Macquarie Notes
tell you that some references provide over 90 different fallacies. Macquarie
itself has upwards of twenty -
ambiguity, equivocation, vagueness, unclear meaning, vacuity, question-begging,
circular, relevance, straw
person arguments being among them. There is only one purpose in learning these
fallacies – to recognise fallacious arguments. In other words , to tear them
apart. Positive thinking – the
advancement of knowledge - would not use
these techniques.
A contrast
can be drawn with the thinking approach of the sciences. Any new theory will
face opposition, often widespread, and often critical. Look for instance at the
controversies over the hobbit discoveries in Indonesia (Homo floresiensis) or over global warming. The professional recognition
will go in the long term, however, primarily to those who build on or take
these theories further. The methods used will primarily be empirical.
The value of empirical research
A fourth
concern is the near complete ignoring of empirical research, and in particular,
the use of statistical analysis in research. None of the base line references
noted above have provided much of substance on empirically based research. Yet
if we quote a research project with a heavy statistical content as a premise in
support of an argument, it is necessary that we have also the statistical
capabilities to evaluate that research paper. Uncritical acceptance of a
statistical analysis, due to inability to assess the statistics, is uncritical
thinking, not the reverse. This issue is
linked with the concern about the validity of other types of argument,
discussed in the following paragraphs.
Concerns over misleading content
Argument
The concerns
of this paper about argument as
a basis for critical thinking are not
without support. One example is
from Louis Pojman who, writing with Lewis Vaughn in the sixth edition of a
widely used undergraduate text, Philosophy.
The Quest for Truth, states that he has “striven to present opposing views
on virtually every topic“(2009). His is
a questionable assertion, for the truth rarely has two sides. Nevertheless,
Pojman does assert that all philosophical issues have one position and a
counter argument. Bernard Williams also
speculates that philosophy is about reflective, persuasive argument (1985).
Many publications on philosophical ethics, including those of JS Mill cited
above, are often little more than arguments that refine and re-interpret the
various differences and arguments over ethical
theory.
It is
apparent that the “internecine warfare” is a well-established feature of moral
philosophy. Such a concept may cause few problems when the wrongs are simple
and straight forward. The problem is a
real one for many teachers and trainers in ethics however, when the ethical
issue is unclear. Such issues exist in almost every discipline,
John Lachs decries this
approach. He argues that “young philosophers (in the US) are taught that
argument is king …that knowledge of facts is superfluous” (2009). These
paragraphs endorse Lachs’ viewpoint.
The adoption of argument as a way of thinking is
widespread .Ethical classes recently introduced into Australian schools (in NSW) have a session on argument
.One of the Year 5 topics is ‘The Structure of Arguments’. The aim for this session
is
This topic introduces
students to the most fundamental tool of logical (and hence ethical) reasoning,
viz. the philosophical one of argument.
The children’s ethical classes reach as far as defining and discussing
deductively valid arguments.
Inductive and deductive arguments
I have particular
trouble with inductive and deductive arguments.
According to Vaughn “arguments come in two forms, deductive and
inductive. A deductive argument is
intended to provide logically conclusive support for a conclusion; an inductive
argument is intended to provide probable
- not conclusive – support for its conclusion” ( p.68)
Inductive arguments can present facts
I have a particular
difficulty with inductive argument being classified as weak or strong, never
valid. Yet a deductive argument can be valid. In the disciplines with which
this writer is familiar, most development is based on observation. And facts.
But if we take an example from the Macquarie Notes:
Every flame I have ever put my hand in has burnt me. Therefore, if I put
my hand in this new flame, it will burn me.
“Is this argument valid?” The Macquarie course argues that
it is not valid …….”because it is possible that putting my hand in
this new flame might not burn me. Perhaps this flame is entirely different from
every other flame I have experienced, and would have some entirely different
effect. It would be possible for the argument to have its premise true and
conclusion false, so the argument is not valid”.
The argument is, of course,
valid (in the normal sense of the word). It is a fact that you will be burnt,
because of the laws of physics.
The sun will rise
tomorrow. It is not only because thousands of years of observations say it
will, but the physical laws of the universe saying that it will. If we come to know that it will not rise
tomorrow, it again is due the same laws and the functioning, or perhaps
malfunctioning, of comets, asteroids, and other missiles in space.
Perhaps the
strongest argument that inductive reasoning can present facts is in a research
thesis. When first set out, it may only
be a theory – that this particular drug X will prevent illness Y. The
presentation for obtaining funding will be an argument. After the research, if
successful, and years of verifiable use, it has become a fact. Penicillin is a
good example.
“Inductive arguments
are not truth preserving” is a statement by Vaughn (p.10), a statement repeated
by all three references. True, the white
swan observation until the black swan was sighted was misleading, but it had no
impact on useable knowledge. Many inductive observations have produced great
advances for the human race. To criticise them as not truth preserving is to
deny the value of these analyses.
Deductive arguments
Leblanc includes
what she describes as categorical statements, or categorical syllogisms, under
this category. A frequently quoted example is:
All humans are
mortal,
Socrates is human
Socrates is mortal
My concerns are
twofold: One is the definition: “these are arguments which, if the premise is
true, the conclusion must be true’ (LeBlanc p.110).The second is that along
with a belittling of empirical research has been the elevation of deductive
arguments to the possibly of being valid.
The validity of deductive arguments
Valid,
according to the dictionary has several meanings - sound; just; well-founded; producing the desired result. Yet we can
get a situation where an argument can be valid but still be faulty due to
unacceptable or faulty premises. To this writer, a faulty argument is an
invalid argument. Most observers would
have the same response.
LeBlanc states: “it
is sometimes said that deductive arguments are true in all possible worlds.“
(p.110). If the premise is correct, the conclusion is correct. In this case the
argument is stated to be ‘valid.’
The premise however,
may not be true. We can question not only its truth but its relevance. Her
example is
If I were an earthworm, I could
fly.
But I cannot fly,
So I am not an earthworm.
LeBlanc
asserts that this argument denies the necessary condition. Therefore, it is “a
good argument”. But the other premise is
false – you are not an earthworm and they cannot fly; so overall it is an
invalid argument.
Dorothy Rowe, in her
Why we lie (2011) sets out an
argument where the premise is true, but “which can make an entirely false
deduction “(p.41):
This new person looks very much
like my cousin Harry
Harry is a liar
Therefore this new person is a
liar.
The
Rowe argument appears illogical yet the premises are true. The two guidelines appear to contradict. The
Rowe argument however could be inductive – by analogy. Her use of the term
“deduction’ and the similarity of the arguments illustrates this writer’s
concern with definitions and terminology. The use of commonly accepted terms in
an unfamiliar setting can easily mislead.
Deduction relies on observation, on research
The statement that t for a deductive argument he
premises have to be true before the argument can be acceptable makes considerable
sense. The reference texts tell us that there are four reasons for accepting
the premises – common knowledge, personal experience, expert authority, and
research (LeBlanc p.111). All are based on observation.
The deductive argument, therefore, in the ultimate
analysis, relies for its validity on induction.
Advancement of thinking
Another concern
under this category is that it is very difficult to identify a deductive
argument which advances knowledge. Most deductive arguments, it would appear,
are conditional. A conditional argument
is possibly the most common deductive argument. Such an argument takes the
form. “Only students with B+ grades can enrol in the subsequent unit’.
It would seem that
if an argument relies on a condition, then for the argument to advance
knowledge the condition would have to be filled. But we can never be sure that
the condition can be met, or whether wide observation or some empirical
research is necessary to determine if the condition can be filled. Take the example
of a conditional argument that attempts to advance our thinking:
The argument for introducing internet censorship is
that our children can find disgusting websites. These websites harm our
children in that it gives them a distorted view of life.
But censorship is contrary to the widespread
endorsement of the freedom of speech.
And we cannot prove that these websites cause any
harm to children. If we could prove that children were harmed we could advocate
censoring the internet.
Other arguments – ending
war in the Arab countries, reducing crime in the streets, will usually be
conditional on some premise of which we cannot be certain. Until the condition
is fulfilled, and found to be valid, there is no way in which the argument
would move us forward.
The exception occurs
on programs which have been evaluated. In other words, if we have obtained strong evidence, proof even,
that the condition has been effective. An example can be drawn from an argument
on childhood education strategies that children of low income, low education
families would do better in their school studies if they received a one year or
two year ‘head start’ at school. This
was a conditional argument. An ex-ante
evaluation said yes, it was likely that they would do better. The program was
put in place; an ex-post evaluation proved the assertion to be correct. The
program had an impact on early childhood education for all children as well as
for minority children (Graham, 1984).
Excessive definitions
The above paragraphs
have been leading to the concern that “critical thinking” as defined,
introduces a raft of definitions that do not assist in clear, innovative
thinking capabilities. It can be argued that ‘clear thinking’, as expounded by
the references quoted in this paper, consists primarily of a series of
definitions that are used to categorise types of arguments or parts thereof. It
is difficult to determine how these definitions strengthen a person’s creative
thinking. Examples are the terms inductive and deductive reasoning themselves,
noted earlier, when in the final analysis, all reasoning relies on observation
of some type. Deductive reasoning is possibly the more serious offender -
sufficient and necessary conditions; denying the necessary condition; affirming
the sufficient condition – in particular, are concerned with conditional
statements, LeBlanc describes her chapter on categorical logic ( the
‘Socrates is human’ logic) as ‘terminology-intensive’ (p. 54).
Linked and convergent premises, sub arguments, counter considerations,
etc. are other definitions where the contribution to strengthening critical
thinking in the positive sense argued in these pages, is difficult to identify.
The definitions, and what is argued as excessive terminology will assist a
reviewer in pulling an argument apart , in determining what is wrong with the
argument. They do little to strengthen
innovation in thinking - to create positive, forward looking
thought.
The
reliance on definitions is epitomised in one lecturer’s statement: “Only
DEDUCTIVE arguments can be valid or invalid (inductive arguments can be strong
or weak, such as arguments based on "research" and observation)”. An
argument where “a wrong premise can produce a valid conclusion has to be
deductive by definition”. (personal correspondence).
Other disciplines conceive critical thinking
differently
Under this category first must
be mentioned a work by Linda Elder and Richard Paul.
Elder is the President of the Foundation
for Critical Thinking. They argue that “all reasoning is based on
data, information and evidence” (Elder & Paul, 2007,Loc, 163). They assert
that there are eight universal structures of human thought: That it generates
purposes, raises questions, uses information, utilises concepts, makes
inferences, makes assumptions, generates implications, and embodies a point of
view. Aspects of their structure coincide with the main themes put forward in
the baseline references, but for the most part, the two thinking schemes are
very different. One obvious difference is their
argument that basis behind all
thinking is empirical.
A second issue is the variations in critical thinking methods
advocated by the different disciplines. If you search the holdings of a major
library for texts on critical thinking, you will locate many, numbering in the
several dozens. A sample of topics covered in a major university library
include critical thinking for language, for sports students, nursing,
psychotherapy, dental research, social care, sex and love and several others.
Most do not define critical thinking as argument. Taking just
one example Critical Thinking in the
Intensive Care Unit; (Cohen 2007), the author draws on the
following for a definition:
Alfaro-LeFevre (1999) defines critical thinking as careful,
deliberate, outcome-focused (results oriented) thinking that is mastered for a
context. Critical thinking is based on scientific method; the nursing process;
a high level of knowledge, skills, and experience; professional standards; a
positive attitude toward learning; and a code of ethics. It includes elements
of constant revaluation, self-correction, and continual striving for
improvement.
Another example is Critical Thinking by a psychologist and
business consultant (Feldman, 2009). He sets out four strategies for becoming a
critical thinker. Elements of his analyses coincide with aspects of the three
baseline references, but much of his work has no parallels. His examination of reasons to doubt certain
types of argument largely duplicate the baseline references, for instance, but
his treatment of explanations however, is considerably more detailed. Covering
roughly 20 % of the book, he treats explanations as a tool for strengthening
‘discovery and understanding’. LeBlanc assigns 9 pages out of close to 300 to
explanations - a much less detailed
coverage, and to this reader, quite superficial.
Yet a further example is
peer review. Although much criticised, peer review is a process which is
universally used to assess whether a particular line of thinking advances human
knowledge. The methods adopted in peer reviews across the disciplines would
appear to vary widely. They are not based on argument ,and do not necessarily follow the concepts
presented in the three references that this paper has used.
That different disciplines advocate different methods of ensuring one’s
thinking is critical, do not necessarily condemn the methods advocated in the
three references. But they do throw
doubt on any claim to a comprehensive coverage.
The differences also suggest the possibility that other methods may be
more effective.
In
conclusion
To sum up this argument: If we define critical thinking according to the
concepts set out in the three references that opened this paper, then those
concepts fail to provide a complete outline of possible approaches to
strengthen critical thinking. They also could also ,in the concepts that they do put forward,
mislead a student into adopting less
effective methods.
References
Alfaro-LeFevre, R. 1999. Critical Thinking
in Nursing: A Practical Approach. Philadelphia: WB Saunders.
AJPAE. Australian
Journal of Professional and Applied Ethics
(2005) Book Symposium. Vol.7
No. 1
Bowden P (1988) National Monitoring and Evaluation ,
Avebury , Aldershot
De Coninck, J et al (2008) Planning, monitoring and evaluation in
development organisations Sage, Los
Angeles
Elder, Linda and Paul, Richard (2007) The Thinker's Guide
to Analytic Thinking . Kindle Edition
Graham, H.
(1984). The uncertain triumph: Federal education policy in the Kennedy and
Johnson years. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Lachs, John
“Can philosophy still produce public intellectuals? Philosophy Now, September/October, 2009.
LeBlanc Jill, (1998) “Thinking Clearly. A guide to critical reasoning. New York, WW
Norton
Pence, Greg
(1993). ‘Virtue Theory’ in Peter Singer (Ed.). A Companion to Ethics, Oxford, Blackwell Publishers, p. 249.
Pence, Greg
(1993). ‘Virtue Theory’ in Peter Singer (Ed.). A Companion to Ethics, Oxford, Blackwell Publishers, p. 249.
Pojman, Louis P and Vaughn,
Lewis (2009) Philosophy. The Quest for
Truth (7th ed.). New York Oxford University Press
Roth, Michael, “Beyond Critical Thinking.” The chronicle of higher education. Jan 3 2010
Rowe, Dorothy (2011)Why we lie. London, Fourth Estate , Harper Collins
Society for Applied
Philosophy (2012) on the website for its annual conference:
http://www.appliedphil.org/view/index.html Accessed
August 2012
Tucker, Robert
(1997), Less than Critical Thinking. Accessed August 2012
Vaughn, Lewis, The Power of
Critical Thinking (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008, 2nd. ed.)
Williams,
Bernard (1985) Ethics and the Limits of
Philosophy. London, Fontana
1.
The Macquarie University course, PHI 120, Critical
Thinking, is online. Quotations and references are available only to those with
a password. Excerpts containing the
online references will need to be accepted without verifying,
[1]
This
program was introduced
by the Australian federal government in
2007 to address claims of rampant child sexual abuse and neglect in Northern Territory aboriginal communities.