Planet Olin

Well, I’ve slipped into another posting lull on this site, so I’m coming back on just to tell anyone who might read that I’m not dead. I’ve been doing most of my posting lately over at alwaysBETA, but mostly I’ve just been too darn busy. School is good but it’s crazy as well. Even though I told myself I wouldn’t, I’ve taken on more work than I can handle once again. It’ll all get done, but in the meantime it feels a bit like constantly swimming out of a whirlpool.

I just returned from my spring break. Some of my friends from school and I drove up to Toronto, Canada for some fun and relaxation. We found some of the best margaritas in town, toured a few breweries, and generally had a good time exploring the city. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately?) I didn’t get any work done on the trip, so it’s back to the grindstone.

The second half of the semester has brought with it a new literature class in my school schedule. Science Fiction has replaced “6 Books That Changed The World”. So far, I’m enjoying it more than the last class, both because the literature is more immediately engaging and because the assignment schedule is more laid back. I just finished the reading for Tuesday. Sci-Fi always strikes me in strange ways. Whatever the specific emotion, good sci-fi always seems to have a profound emotional effect on me after I read it. I’m either excited, confused, depressed … but it’s always something. I’m not sure why that is, but it always makes it very fun to read. I’m totally sucked in.

One of the stories that I just finished reading was “The Weapon Shop” by A. E. van Vogt. Holy cow. I haven’t fully finished parsing everything yet, but it was so good! For some reason, I feel like I can relate to the story. The use of perspective is really effective in keeping the reader riveted to the narrative the whole time. In some ways, I think it reminds me of one of my favorite books, “Babbitt” by Sinclair Lewis. My mind is blown. Wow.

Anyway, sorry for the absence of any posts on this site. I’ve got a new design coming soon, along with the much-needed addition of a seperate photoblogging stream planned. I don’t expect that they’ll go up before summer, but oh well. You’ll see them eventually. I have some exciting opportunities this summer that I’ll be able to talk more about soon.

I want to take a chance to reflect a little about what I do with my life here. Most of my blog entries are about a specific event or trip, but this will be more about the bigger picture. I’ve been blessed, I’ve had good luck, however you want to say it. I found a group of people here that immediately accepted me as family and it’s made my life here so much richer. Madge had a chance to see it when she visited me this past weekend. I had borrowed a sleeping bag from my friend, Sonia for us to use. Sunday night we had to go pick it up from the house. They invited us in and talked to us for quite sometime. They didn’t let us leave without having something to eat, and definitely wanted to give us more than we desired. They offered beds there as they didn’t know what Sonia was lending me the sleeping bag for, and they wanted me to explain to Madge that this was my home and my friends are always welcome. Musci (hope I’m spelling that right, it’s a Basque name) is definitely my surrogate mother. Piero (a Italian friend who was in a similar situation and who has now returned home to Naples ) called her “la mama española.” Today Sonia and I went to see a free modern art museum here in Salamanca . I didn’t know it existed. Da2 (dados). After that we went and saw the Adsis Foundation in San Juan which I hadn’t yet visited. From there we went back to her house and I ate there with the “other” family. The group is divided into two houses both of which constitute my home here in Spain . I’m always amazed by their capacity to love. I wouldn’t say they love me as we normally use the word love, because they likely don’t know me that well yet. Still, they definitely show me that agape love that we always hear about. They always want to know how I’m doing, how’s my family, are my studies okay, how am I feeling with the Spanish, etc. After lunch (Oscar, one of the priests, prepared a baked salmon topped with chopped onions in orange juice. Ricisimo…) we take coffee in the living room. It was a tranquil day. Just being with them I absorb so much about Spanish culture and also I start to learn the expressions. For me, these are the days of note, when I’m not in classes and I’m not going out. I hope that by the end of my time here I’ll be able to give back to them some of what they’ve given me.

So part of the student culture here involves “ir de botellón,” which is intimately related to “ir de fiesta.” The latter means literally going out to party, and generally means going to bars and or discotecas(dance clubs). The former, however, just means going out and drinking. It means not in the bars, but rather buying liters of your favorite alcohol for consumption at home with friends or possibly even in a park or somewhere public. This brings us to the Macro Botellón which means exactly that…huge groups of people with copious amounts of alcohol. They don’t know how it started or who organized it, but through email and text messaging, many cities across Spain had a Macro Botellón last Friday the 17^th. In Granada it ended up being consented by the Government and 20,000 people showed up and partied without major incidents. Salamanca was a different story. The police heard of the plans to meet in two major sites and blocked off entry ways refusing entry of those with alcohol. Plans foiled all was quiet until about 2:30 when I guess the police found out that there were about 500 drunk people on the Roman Bridge. When they tried to break it up they had glass bottles thrown at them. Then they found another 1500 people in the Plaza de San Justo where the same thing happened. Throughout the city miniature riots had started. 11 of the cities trash and recycling bins were destroyed by exploding bottles of alcohol. Injuries and other costs are estimated to be about 24,000 euros for Salamanca . 16 people were arrested. In Barcelona it was worse and 68 people were injured and 54 arrested. I’m just lucky I guess. Friday morning I had left for Madrid to meet Madge. If there was a Macro Botellon in Madrid , we didn’t notice since we went to bed at 10:30 (yes on St. Patrick’s Day). However, it would explain the amazing number of sirens going all night long helping to keep me awake in the hostal.

Amusing:      http://boston.craigslist.com/about/best/aus/135744279.html

Just a quick note. I'm not entirely sure which people have my address here. Anyway, it will be changing. I'm in the process of moving into an apartment with two other students. Please don't send things to the address I've given you. If you've sent a letter or something recently, thanks, I love surprises, but please also let me know. TTFN.

So I finally made it to Toledo this last weekend. At first the roads were snowy, and two hours out we stopped and almost turned around because bus traffic was prohibited in Madrid. Things worked out in the end though and we finally made it. It´s another fairly small city, rich in history. What I loved the most was just the landscape surrounding the city. It´s surrounded on three sides by the Rio Tajo. It´s known as the city of three cultures for having housed Christian, Jewish, and Islamic peoples simultaneously. This mixture is noticed throughout the city in the Mudejar style architecture. Of the 9 synagogues that once existed, only 2 are left. Anyway, it was an awesome day and much warmer than Segovia. Here´s a shot of the city from a lookout point.

Of course, Toledo has a Cathedral as well. This one happens to be the 2nd largest in Spain, and the 5th largest in the world. (Take that Pearl.) On the inside it has two stunningly huge organs.

And what city would be complete without a castle. Also referred to as Alcázar, this one was closed for renovation, so this is the best view I got. It´s situated on top of the hill.And then my favorite part. This is the Rio Tajo (River Targus). On the hill on the left is an old school/training house for infantry.
And proof I was there.

Yes, this blog entry is devoted to the second great love of my life after peanut butter. Now I won’t say I’m a milk expert. I can't tell you where the cow was raised or what it's eating just by tasting its milk. Let’s just say I’m an ‘aficionado.’ I am, in fact, from the Dairy State . I’ve grown up surrounded by dairy farms, and even used to visit them for breakfast on the farm on my birthdays. My mom even has a strange fascination with the bovine creatures (dumb as rocks they are). Anyway, I’ve loved milk ever since I was little. At school where I finance an overpriced meal plan (the staff is amazing, I love them, but the food is expensive), I try to help make up for it by drinking at least two glasses of milk at each meal, three meals a day, 7 days a week.

Here in Spain I’ve very rarely had the occasion to drink milk. This hasn’t been terrible. I usually just have water. It’s easier to get wine here than it is to get milk. Sometimes, though, I do get it hot for breakfast with ColaCao (a chocolate powder like Nesquik). Not ideal, but better than nothing? I’m not sure. The milk here breaks two basic premises that I hold to be true. 1) Milk does not come in box. 2) Milk is not kept at room temperature. Yes, the milk at school comes in a box, but it’s at least in a bag in that box. I’m talking more like juice box, box. And room temperature? It’s kept on the shelves in the pantry. Today I was served it room temperature. No, this was an outrage. Milk should be cold; at the very least chilled and only occasionally hot. Also for all you skim milk drinkers out there (you know who you are), don’t even bother. The milk here is whole milk. The reason? In Spain the only reason to have milk is to mix with your coffee! Café con leche or Calimocho as the national drink of Spain ? Maybe it should be put to a vote…ARGH!

Assuming not all lies are wrong, justifying becomes a dilemma. How can one justify lies, and can they all be justified away depending on point of view? Several different philosophies carry different opinions of the topic.

Aristotelian ethics often serves as the basis for modern ethical theories. In his work Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle sets out that anything done with the goal of the highest good was an ethical action. This highest good, eudemonia, could generally be considered to mean happiness. It is a goal which is desirable in itself, and other goals are desirable because they ultimately lead to achieving this highest good. When lying is taken in the context of Aristotelian ethics, it seems that as long as the goal of the lie is ultimately happiness, the lie is justified. It seems logical that most people lie for their own or others' happiness, making it seem as though Aristotelian ethics generally justify lying. On the other hand, it is necessary to consider that Aristotle also supports moderation, so lying to excess would probably not be supported.

Utilitarian moral philosophy seems to be able to justify anything is similar to Aristotelian ethics, claiming to favor what causes the "greater good". Surprisingly, this philosophy was also favored by Machiavelli political views with the phrase "the ends justify the means". Most modern utilitarians will state that their philosophy is different than Machiavelli's in that the ends does not justify all means, but in general the differences are somewhat nuanced. Using this basic credo, utilitarians can and do sometimes justify lying as a morally decent behavior. It is possible to imagine a situation where one could tell a lie that does maximize happiness, causing a net increase in good through the amount of benefit to the liar. This would be a justifiable lie to a utilitarian.

A related concept to utilitarianism is a recent moral philosophy called painism. Painism, like utilitarianism, is based off of results, but claims that the only results which should be avoided are those which cause pain. This form of utilitarianism would allow for a much larger number of justifiable lies; no longer do lies have to maximize happiness, they basically only have to do no harm.

Deontology, in direct conflict to the beliefs of Utilitarianism, holds that actions can be fundamentally right or wrong, regardless of the consequences. Kant, a proponent of deontology in ethics, had a strong belief in that lying is wrong and we are responsible for our lies. To logically back up the claim the lying is wrong, Kant claims that moral behaviors must be universalizable. A behavior or action that can be universal will not be self-destructive or contradictory. In the case of lying, the commonly used example is lying to get money. A person lies in order to attain a loan, knowing that they will be unable to pay back the money. If one person commits this act, the loaning institution would probably loan the money, whereas if the behavior were common, a loaning institution would most likely change their loan policy. If everyone committed the behavior in question it would substantially alter the behavior of society in such a way that it would no longer be possible to commit this behavior. This is meant to prove that lying is always wrong and never justifiable.

Discourse ethics, although much more detailed, can be summarized a kind of consensus ethics. In this kind of moral evaluation, a community must argue the logic behind their norms, coming to an understanding of what can be expected in terms of ethical behavior within the community. As discourse ethics is a subjective form of ethical evaluation, there could be situations where a community believes lying is justified and is the correct choice. Such cases that we have witnessed in the past include governmental lies spread during wartime to benefit the morale of a country, or telling children that the stork brought them to save their innocence from more unsavory ideas. It is reasonable to think that communities exist where lying is exclusively wrong. For instance, academic communities would not look kindly upon lies circulated as fact in academic papers. The subjective nature of discourse ethics makes it difficult to truly classify if and how lies would be justified.

Finally, there is the moral philosophy of casuistry. This philosophy generally consists of considering each ethical dilemma as a unique case. This case can be considered using other similar cases as a basis, but acknowledges that every instance of a moral dilemma is unique from every other moral dilemma that has or will exist. Moral maxims are considered along with the specifics of the case, then a decision of right or wrong can be reached. This kind of individual consideration is good in theory, but much harder to complete fully in practice. It could be used, and is used, to justify lies, but involves a great amount of mental processing.

These philosophies are just some of the many moral philosophies that exist in the world, applied to the idea of lying. Does anyone actually use any of these specifically, or does real life generally result in using a combination of these, applying different moral philosophies when convenient? How do you justify lies?

This post is based off of articles from the Encyclopedia of applied ethics and the Introduction to Ethics class taught at Brandeis University.

Lying seems like a straightforward concept, but for my purposes, it could use a quick definition. Using a basis of philosophers running from 300’s to the 2000’s, I propose that that lying, when I refer to it, means a purposeful misleading statement. This statement can be made through body language, verbally, implied by silence, or signaled by radio - any kind statement will do - but the deception must be intentional. On some level the liar must know the facts being conveyed are false; simple, misinformed statements are not truly lying.

With lying well defined, the obvious question is:

Is lying always wrong?

This question has plagued modern ethicists, but has also vexed religions for hundreds of years. Some religions claimed that if statements could be made in one's head that would make a lie true, then it was not actually a lie; the intention in one's head was clear, but misinterpreted by the other party. With this kind of logic I could claim, free of heart, that I do not study engineering, while secretly adding in my head "every night." Certainly it's true that I don't study engineering every night, but anyone told this would rightfully be confused. These kind of exceptions are one, fairly extreme end of the spectrum.

On the other end of the spectrum, St. Augustine , a Catholic monk from the late 300's, wrote prolifically on various moral dilemmas facing the religious faithful and population at large. It's through his writings that we first see the assertion that lying is always wrong, without exception. The Catholic Church is still a strong believer in the sin of lies, continuing to use Augustine's definitions of mortal and venial sins with respect to lies. In other words, Augustine defined a system where all lies are wrong, but some are more wrong then others still persists today.

The thought of all lies being wrong is a bit extreme for today's modern citizen. Several times a day we seem required to do things which are misrepresentations of the truth. We feign interest in the response to "How are you doing?" in order to prevent hurt feelings or prevent future awkward situations. It's almost inconceivable to answer no to simple questions about the quality of a haircut. These are lies oft justified in a daily existence, often not even consciously considered. Although St. Augustine would not agree, the majority of our society today seems to be justifying these lies somehow.

In conflict with the moral high ground of St. Augustine , but towards the middle of the spectrum, is utilitarianism. The basic tenet of utilitarian moral philosophy is to maximize net happiness. Applying this idea to lying, one can easily justify many of the smaller, daily lies, and perhaps some of the larger lies. These lies often save someone else pain, sheltering people from insults which would serve no purpose or maintaining healthy relationships. In the situation above regarding small talk, the lie does no damage to the person, while maximizing future benefit. Everyone seems to benefit from these little lies.

Or so it seems. Although the appearance is that everyone benefits, a few more factors can be taken into account to change the utilitarian conclusion. Perception to others seems to be the reason behind many of these small lies; we wish to appear “good” or “nice” people to others. The behavior mentioned, assuming all goes well, should yield that kind of result, but has the potential to backfire. If the lie recipient ever discovers the lie, the entire act of lying was worse than useless – it could actually be damaging. Not only would the person know your true thoughts, they would also feel betrayed by you, damaging trust, perhaps irreparably. Additionally, if one considers the habit of lying, by telling these small lies, we could be setting ourselves up for larger lies, developing habits that are ultimately bad for our credibility and status. When considered from a utilitarian perspective, the habit of lying or consequences of a revealed lie could tip the scales past neutral to lying producing a net unhappiness. Perhaps lying is never justifiable after all.

Is lying always wrong? If it is, why lie? If it isn’t, when is it right?

This post is based upon readings from Sissela Bok's "Lying : Moral Choice in Public and Private Life", St. Augustine's "To Consentius, Against Lying", and Joseph Margolis' "'Lying is Wrong' and 'Lying is not Always Wrong'".

What's on your resume?

I don't ask this question because I actually want to know, but to point out a pervasive habit. It's come up more and more as the Class of 2006 prepares for the next steps in life. We find ourselves really wanting to get that job or grad school offer, so we don't outright lie, but we make some statements which could be misinterpreted. We say we're working on publishing papers, when the papers may never be published, or talk about experience with Linux, which actually means we used it for half a class during our first semester of college. Not outright lies, but not complete truth either.

Lying is a tricky little dilemma, and misrepresentation is just a form of lying.

Why are we, and presumably others, misrepresenting ourselves like this? Could it be necessary for us to lie because it’s what’s expected to get the job? Are we just driven and using our communication skills to tip the scales in our favor? Is this to compensate for other weaknesses, perceived or real, like going to a small, unknown university or sub par GPA? There must be reasons for these little lies.

Moreover, how do we feel about these lies? For some every little inflation and imperfection glossed over is a trying experience, while for others, this is a normal part of life, not even noticed consciously. Do people generally feel guilty over these little lies? Should we feel guilty? Does the size of the lie matter? Do the consequences matter? How do we quantify our lies and their ill effects?

The answers to these questions are unknown and, for the most part, are likely to remain that way. The ethicists, both classical and modern, have written about lying and philosophies that apply to lying. With their lucid guidance, perhaps a deeper understanding of lying and its’ implications in a modern lifestyle will emerge.

Why do you lie?