Yesterday at the pub I was involved in a very extended (civil and remarkable productive) dialog about morality and society. We touch on many topics in the course of discussion, one of them being the difference between reason and faith. And I had to come up with a new word. Firstly, we agreed on the tautologies:

It reasonable to have reason.
It is unreasonable to have faith.

The second one is true because of the definition of faith (having belief without reason). So, by analogous reasoning, I also stated:

It is faithable to have faith.
It is unfaithable to have reason.

I’ll let you decide what I mean by that.

Yesterday a very interesting speaker, Eric Hehner, gave a talk at the graduate seminar:

TITLE

A Probability Perspective

ABSTRACT

This talk could be called “probability meets programming”. It draws together four perspectives that contribute to a new understanding of probability and solving problems involving probability. The first is the Subjective Bayesian perspective that probability is affected by ones knowledge, and that it is updated as ones knowledge changes. The problem of assigning prior probabilities is mitigated by the Information Theory perspective, which equates probability with information. The main point of the talk is that the formal perspective (formalize, calculate, unformalize) is beneficial to solving probability problems. And finally, the programmer’s perspective provides us with a suitable formalism.

I found the talk extremely fascinating. He first compared measures of probability, entropy, and information, demonstrating that they were (in a sense) substitutable concepts (analogous with Energy and Mass, or Energy and Temperature).

b bits	=	2b states	=	2-b chance
log(s) bits	=	s states	=	1/s states
-log(c) bits	=	1/c states	=	c chance

He also waxed poetical about how we are often fooled about probabilities, so it pays considerably to mechanize our calculations regarding those probabilities. It helps even further if we have a formal language into which we can directly translate our real-life word problems, so that we don’t accidentally setup and then solve the wrong problem. That is, we can then move on from debating about interpretations of the problem, and into actual calculation.

• If I have two children and one of them is a girl, what is the probability the other is also a girl? (ans: 1/3)
• If I have two children and the older one is a girl, what is the probability that the younger is also a girl? (ans: 1/2)

He also talked quite a bit on the Bayesian approach to probability, and why it is much nicer than the frequentist approach, because it assumes much less about the world. There is no need for a prior, and your measured probabilities are updated naturally as your knowledge of the world changes.

From this he moved on to providing a proto-language approach to how one would setup and solve these sorts of problems. He co-opted existing computer language constructs to do this. First we notice that in statements like

IF cond THEN this ELSE that ENDIF

the cond is a boolean value. But there’s a priori no reason why we are prevented from interpreting it as a probability, a real value in the range [0,1].

IF 1/2 THEN print(”heads”) ELSE print(”tails”) ENDIF

He quite nicely demonstrated a calculus that gives you the ability to compute the result of such random decision trees. So, for example if you were faced with the Two Envelopes Problem how you could compute the value of a strategy expressed in his probability language.

I really liked the talk because of the way in which it drew upon existing fields and showed a very curious intersection of them. After the talk I asked if he could use this language to calculate an optimum strategy (he said no, he hadn’t done that, but it would be a good area of research) and if he had considered the addition of a switch-case statement (he had, but though he didn’t know how it would look in the language, he quite liked the idea of adding it).

The research paper, a Probability Perspective underlying his talk is available, as is his book, A Practicle Theory of Programming. He also mentioned that he has a grad student that has applied this probability programming to proof of quantum algorithms with much success, and that he’s yet to find a student to implement (write a compiler/interpreter for the language)

It’s been 4 days since Californians voted to deny rights to a certain minority of its population. Let’s look at a few of the arguments against gay marriage:

• It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage.

This argument was loud and clear in a TV ad that depicted a child showing the children’s book “King and King” to her mother. The mother of course was absolutely aghast. The ad then threatened that passing Proposition 8 would prevent such dire consequences. This was countered with an ad in which our Superintendent of Public Instruction, Jack O’Connell publicly stated this would not happen. Clearly, since almost everyone in CA came out of the CA public school system, we should all know how it works, and which of these two scenarios is the more believable. In actuality, the CA public education system never actually teaches anyone about its own organization; So we’ve all graduated without any knowledge about the system itself.

So, lets look at the law, CA Education Code Section 51933:

• …
• (b) A school district that elects to offer comprehensive sexual health education pursuant to subdivision (a), whether taught by school district personnel or outside consultants, shall satisfy all of the following criteria:
  • …
  • (7) Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.

So clearly issues regarding marriage will be mentioned in class, and CA schools will be obligated to mention that gay marriage is legal within the state. We also have code 51932, which reads

• (a) This chapter does not apply to description or illustration of human reproductive organs that may appear in a textbook, adopted pursuant to law, on physiology, biology, zoology, general science, personal hygiene, or health.
• (b) This chapter does not apply to instruction or materials that discuss gender, sexual orientation, or family life and do not discuss human reproductive organs and their functions.

Which means that sexual education materials must be non-discriminatory, and thus corroborates that gay marriage will be taught in schools.

But let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves here, the education code still might not require that a child learn about gay marriage, because parents are allowed to remove children from school regarding certain types of education. Codes 51937-51939 which provide notice and parental consent regarding “comprehensive sexual health education¹, HIV/AIDS prevention education, and assessments related to that education” in order that parents can remove their child from such education are unfortunately too specific. That is, parents are not required to receive notice about materials regarding marriage, nor would they be able to pull their child from school². (although any local school could certainly inform parents during a PTA meeting, and simply look the other way when a child is absent)

So I have to counter this with an open question: What is so bad about a kid learning that CA approves gay marriage? To do otherwise would deny them knowledge of the fact that gay couples do get married. Besides which, fact-based education isn’t the same as an endorsement. Besides, CA allows gay couples to adopt children; so learning about gay marriage doesn’t harm children at all. No credible study has ever found that children are negatively impacted by being raised in a lesbian or gay household.

• All major world religions and civilizations have historically condemned the practice of homosexuality.

First, anyone remember the Greeks and Romans? what about Hindu and Chinese art that depicts homosexuality? We don’t have universal historical condemnation of the practice. But even if we did, that wouldn’t necessarily make it wrong. Inter-racial marriage was condemned for a long time, but is completely accepted practice now. It’s time to grow up.

• Being gay is a choice.

Really, and I suppose that you are in full logical control of your attractions? That you are fully conscious and aware of the reasons for your attraction? That you’ve never questioned why you felt an attraction? or felt that your attraction was illogical? People don’t really choose who or what they are attracted to, it’s something that strikes them from within, that doesn’t follow the laws of society or rationality. We don’t choose who we are attracted to or why; we only rationalize it after the fact. For many people, being gay isn’t a choice, it’s the nature of their life.

• Homosexuality is a crime against nature.

This argument actually dates way back, at least all the way to Plato. See the previous blurb about choice. Or look at all the documented cases of homosexuality in nature, in zoos, and among monogamous animals. The fruit fly has a gene that practically guarantees strict homosexual mating practices.

• Homosexuality is dangerous. (Religious)

This argument can get very interesting: Supposing you believe in an omnipotent deity that dislikes homosexual practices, and has been known to destroy entire cities for committing such sins. Then you could reasonably argue that allowing such practices endangers society. But it simply doesn’t hold up to the historical record. People have been gay (and practicing) since before Plato; What happens between conscenting adults won’t bring down the apocalypse. (Or that would have happened already, your deity has had plenty of time and opportunity.)
As an aside, a variant of this argument was used to persecute christians during the Roman Empire because they refused to make sacrifices to a certain pagan god, and thus endangered the city.

• Homosexuality is dangerous. (Secular)

Because of the dysfunctional, unhealthy and changeable nature of homosexuality, legitimizing it as “marriage” constitutes irresponsible and reckless public policy that endangers the future of our children and grandchildren. But I disagree. Driving a car is a reckless act of self-endangerment, yet completely legal (even encouraged). The use of any of a number of household chemicals or cleaners is certainly unhealthy, yet also completely legal (even encouraged through advertisement). Ensuring that people behave in a functional, healthy, responsible manner through the drafting of law nearly always fails. It confuses what is moral and what is legal. There are many behaviors that one might consider immoral (eating horse meat) but that should certainly be legal. Just because your moral code tells you not to do something, doesn’t give you the right to demand the same of everyone else.

• Legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing polygamy or bestiality.

Not necessarily, we could easily outlaw marriage between a man and a horse, and simply stick with defining it as being between two people. Canada legalized same-sex marriage, and they aren’t having a sudden outbreak of polygamy or polyandry, nor has the country gotten appreciably hotter (gone to hell).

• But defining marriage doesn’t take away their rights.

Firstly, Separate but equal is not equal. Though, I would actually love for CA to complete remove all references to marriage from all of its current legal code and replaces it with the term ‘civil union’, and then make some small change that grandfathers previous marriages to be civil unions, and out-of-state marriages to be CA civil unions. Then the religious conservatives can have their precious marriage. This is not a workable solution.

CA has a code³ that converts valid marriages in other states into valid marriages in CA. I’m sure that many other states have similar codes. I’m also sure that other states have no such clauses regarding what would become a CA civil union. So, no couples leaving CA under this proposed change would be recognized in other states; and there’s nothing that CA can do about it. For largely historical reasons, the term marriage is in the legal codes, both in CA and elsewhere. Thus, for practical reasons, this forces CA to extend marriage to its homosexual citizens, and not to declare everyone as having a civil union.

• It Preserves Traditional Marriage

Ok. Then we should support arranged marriage? Or disallow divorce? Tradition isn’t always right, sometimes we need to move on.

• Marriage is for Procreation, not Recreation

This argument is found in The Somerville Paper. It argues that �Through marriage our society marks out the relationship of two people who will together transmit human life to the next generation� and further argues that marriage �is not a recognition of the relationship just for its own sake or for the sake of the partners to the marriage�. These are not necessarily true statements. We already allow infertile couples to marry, and the principle reason that people get married is because they love each other, not because they want society to continue, or because they get a tax break. Marriage is about having a long-term loving and stable relationship with another person; it’s not about gender, and it’s not about procreation. [it actually the other way 'round: all the laws regarding marriage are actually cruft that lets society recognize/endorse the pair bonding]

Marriage should be what brings us together today. It shouldn’t separate us. It should be about true love.

This issue is really one about civil rights. Homosexuals are being denied their civil rights, as were blacks, women, and inter-racial couples before them. Having the progressive state of CA deny marriage to homosexuals, feels like being stabbed in the heart. I expected more from my state of California. The U.S. expected more from California.

1. CA education code 51931 (b) “Comprehensive sexual health education” means education
   regarding human development and sexuality, including education on pregnancy, family planning, and sexually transmitted diseases.
2. one of these days I’ll write something about how mandatory education is wrong. Principally, it’s because of issues like the current one only arise in massively coercive systems.
3. CA Family Code 308. A marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state.

Last night I was embroiled in a long argument with my flatmate about the Government. I used the typical Libertarian claim that the government was an immoral institution because it uses coercive force to collect taxes. Of course, he countered by saying my residency in a country implies a contract with the government, and the government is only using retaliatory enforcement should I breach the contract by nonpayment. Technically this is true, I could vote with my feet. I usually use this argument myself to defeat claims of economic exploitation. I was very nearly had by this, until I realized that because the U.S. grants citizenship by birth, I was entered into a contract without conscent, even though I could void the contract by leaving, it’s impractical to do so (and all the other countries are worse).

So, I moved to claim that irrespective of my complicity or acceptance of a contract the arrangement was immoral. That is, I could voluntarily conspire with another in order that we murder a third. The fact that I voluntarily joined the agreement does not make such an arrangement a moral institution. So, by residing in the territorial confines of a government, and participating in it’s voting system, and receiving its benefits (safety, public education, etc..), obeying its laws, means that I have formed an agreement with what I claimed is an immoral institution. But because I’ve received benefits, and maintain residency, I’m implicitly accepting the contract, so collection of taxes is contractually enforced. Not to pay constitutes a breach of contract that warrants retributive force. So, I had to concede that it was no longer the enforced payment of taxes that made the institution immoral. I could have parried this by pointing out that I was conscripted into the contract via my birth in the U.S. (BTW: I don’t at all agree that entering into a contract via birth is moral or even legal. Though my flatmate thought it acceptable.)

So, I tried a different strategy. I claimed that the government involves itself with immoral behavior in killing others, both during war, and via the death penalty. I thought I might win with this, because I could easily demonstrate our initiation of force on other sovereign peoples, and that because governments regularly do this it is therefore an immoral institution. But he claimed that in doing a blame calculation you must pin it on the people involved, not the institution, because it is ultimately the people who carry out the wishes of the government. Unfortunately, I’m not very well equipped to defend this point, though I did mention that you can easily sue both companies and the government in court (they have legal status as a person) and that because the government has a large number of people it is always able to replace the executioner with an individual that is willing to comply (that is, the institution can ensure an immoral action takes place even when the majority of the members would passively resist by resignation). [I didn't even bother to appealing to the Milgram experiment to demonstrate coercion]

Finally though, I was shot down:
Only a sentient being can have morality.

So institutions can’t be moral or immoral, it doesn’t apply. The government, as an institution, has no intrinsic morality. I had to withdraw my object to the government on moral grounds.

Also, I’ve never found anyone that agrees with me that our ultimate goal with regard to government should be to get rid of it. I find that some people agree when I claim that we should make it smaller each year, but that nobody agrees we should get rid of it altogether. Typically, they ask for a replacement system, which I don’t have. But that still doesn’t invalidate the goal. I like to argue that via a long process of whittling, we might be able to achieve it. But more importantly: if we don’t state that as an explicit goal (even if unachievable), we won’t have a mark to aim by, and government bureaucracy will grow steadily (as evidenced by history).

I claim lack of imagination. After all, there are many unachievable goals that are revered as noble. (ex: living you life as a perfectly moral being) In the end I’ve noticed that people tend to assume that anarchism necessarily implies unorganized militant chaos. I should probably work to dispel that myth. But it’s really hard when I’m unable to propose a workable alternative. Nobody strictly follows the logic, rather they follow their beliefs about anarchism.

My next argument will probably be about “what will Libertarians do about emergency services”? My current roomate thought in my ideal world without taxes or subsidies, there’d be no incentive for anyone to form emergency relief services. (honestly, he voluntarily donates time to Habitat for Humanity and still argues this cynically about his fellow humans)

Of course I should probably also look into the morality of contracts based on territoriality. The inconvenience of moving is pretty coercive.