Is our society in moral decline?

We're in moral decline: this is an idea that I've frequently come across in what other people have said, but never gave any serious attention to. 

This is the idea that our society is displaying a trend, where it is becoming more and more open to values and ideas that we've in the past deemed immoral and inappropriate: 

• Being open about one's homosexuality,
• Legalisation of marijuana,
• Increased acceptance to inter-racial relationships and relationships with huge age disparities,
• The public discussion of sex and related topics considered less of a taboo,
• Break down of social hierarchy between rich and poor, old and young

... and perhaps many more others. (None of these phenomena are absolutely global, but are definitely evident in some societies) 

As far as I'm concerned, these 'trends' do not exactly overwhelm me either positively or negatively. I have a feeling that I have, more than many others who are concerned about this moral decline, a better understanding of what morality really is (in a sort of meta-ethics context). (See here and here)

Morality is akin to emotions and bodily feelings: my opinion is that as best practice, we shouldn't let our feelings of morality affect our judgement any more than we shouldn't let our feelings of hunger or lust affect our actions. 

Moral decline or not - for me, that doesn't seem to be a huge issue to fuss over. What's probably worth spending more time on is to analysing the material and (socio-)psychological consequences of these 'moral' trends, and acting to make the best of what could and probably will happen.  

分享：點解要用粵文?

【我哋需要一場粵語新文化運動】 (輔仁媒體, 2014 年 3 月 4 日) [Click]

呢一篇短短既文章討論左好多題材，以下係佢主要既幾個論點：

• 因為以下各種原因，我地唔應該歧視白話文（即粵文）：

• 歷史論證: 白話文有好悠久既歷史(五四運動時已有人推行白話文)。我哋宜家以北方官話用為「書面語」，實係基於當時政治發展所影響。

• 語言學論證I: 係語言學既角度（如文法、用詞）分析，係睇唔出白話文同一般大路語文(如英語、德語）有咩分別。

• 實用主義論證:用白話文，可以令粵語用者更準確地表達自己。唔俾人用自己語言去表達自己，唔多唔少係違反自然。
• 語言學論證II:因為語言一般既文法同用字都係約定俗成，所以話白話文「冇自己既字」而棄用白話文既論證唔成立。

(相片來源: learningtree.files.wordpress.com)

其實呢篇文章本來主要係想鼓勵香港發展一場粵語新文化運動，但係對我來講最有趣係佢用語言學既論據黎支持佢個論點。有呢啲咁實在既證據支持，我哋仲有咩原因去話粵語「只係一種dialect, 唔係language」?　

（引述語言學家 Max Weinreich，佢有一句，"a language is a dialect with an army and navy." 粵語冇一個有實力既「代表國」，受到抹平其實唔係好出奇。不過，可以見得語言同俗語/方言既分別係好隨意，好arbitrary。)

除左可以話發展粵文「非常之唔經濟·、好多餘」同埋「有違大中華思想」之外，我實在唔係好諗到有咩其他好少少既原因去反對發展粵文。況且，以上兩個原因都冇咩說服力。

呢篇文章既論證同idea 都幾值得研究，特此分享下。

A Picture of a Modern Man

In this post, I'm going to illustrate the belief system of a 'modern man'. This 'modern man' is not representative or typical of any existing individual or any individual in an existing culture, so I'm not promising that you will be able to find someone like this in real life. For our purposes, think of this 'modern man' as a hypothetical being. Let's call him 'Bob', and these are the things that Bob believes in:

Hypothetical 'modern man' Bob.
(Sorry for the illustration)

Charity

For me (Bob), there is no reason to spare any charity to anyone, unless I am compelled to do so by a strong emotional feeling or any non-moral motivations. Non-moral motivations may include the need to maintain a 'healthy' public image or the need to conform to norms (familial, social, etc.). For example, if volunteering makes me sound like a kind person or makes me look good on my CV, I'd do it primarily for those reasons. 

While I may not donate money to a suffering child in a distant country, I am still willing to pay a significant sum to help a friend out because I am emotionally attached to that friend. 

Politics
Political issues are uninteresting, unless these issues directly affect me or those whom I care about. By 'directly', I mean that the cause-and-effect is immediate and visible. For instance, changes in primary education funding policy are uninteresting, because I (Bob) do not expect to have any children in the foreseeable future and the welfare of any particular child does not affect me at the moment. 

Religion and the Meaning of Life

I do not deny that questions about religion and the meaning of life are important, but you can describe me as a 'procrastinator' in terms of how I actually behave in my inquiry. Other problems (e.g. earning a living, dressing to look smart, resolving conflicts and calculating tax payments) are actually more pressing, and importantly, more tractable than the question about God or the meaning of life. However, as a matter of intuition, I'm more inclined towards atheism than any other religious slash philosophical systems. I'm also more inclined to the view that there is no afterlife.

While I'm not exactly the 'carpe diem' or 'YOLO' sort of person, I believe in prioritising my time in solving the problems which have a real immediate impact. As for the "zen", mystical kind of questions, I'll figure them out at some point in the future when I've got a lot of time on my hands and nothing to do. 

Morality (general) 

My general judgments about what's right and what's wrong typically depends on (1) the beliefs of those around me and (2) the limited range of information I'm exposed to, but this is something that I'm reluctant to admit. In a nutshell, I 'go with the flow' with respect to morality, but I don't like to be thought of as someone who does so. Alternatively, you can describe me as 'practical' in relation to morality. 

The magnitude of my feelings about these judgments are generally weak to moderate, unless they are those which make an immediate and visible impact on how I live. 

So this is Bob. A law-abiding, practical, 'normal' man who is loyal to his family and friends but does not 'stick out' to irritate the norms of society. Call him materialistic, but Bob would say that there isn't a very good reason to behave otherwise. Why, after all, should anyone commit themselves to idealistic beliefs (about morality or politics) when they cannot know their truth or benefit from them within a single life time?  

But is anything wrong with Bob? 

Paradigm Shift

If I hadn't been organising the layout of my blog today, I probably wouldn't have come to re-read and ponder upon the entries that I have written some years ago. Although it wasn't entirely unexpected, I was initially rather shocked by some of the things that I have written before, which reflected the views that I had held (see here): 

(1) I argued that Hong Kong's functional constituencies serve a function that is comparable to the UK House of Lords, viz. supplying expertise to a piece of legislation. 

(2) By arguing against a radical reform of Hong Kong's political system, I was inclining towards the general pro-establishment view that we shouldn't be dogmatically rushing into universal suffrage.

(3) I clearly thought political stability was more important than securing universal suffrage as a political goal, as I thought the sort of political instability generated by legislative delays would ultimately damage Hong Kong's economy.

No doubt my beliefs today are different, if not completely contradicting my old views:

Functional constituencies, instead of facilitating a business environment that is favourable to a laissez-faire economy, seem more to me as obstacles hindering the implementation of fair welfare measures. Alternatively,  functional constituencies appear to me as "pockets of power" responsible for the phenomena indicative of market failure, economic inequality and alleged government-business collusions. Instead of seeing universal suffrage as a radical constitutional overhaul that we should remain sceptical about, I now see it as a necessary political solution to the economic, social and welfare woes now observed in Hong Kong. I no longer see "pleasing Beijing" even as a purely realpolitik policy to secure economic benefits and political stability for Hong Kong.

This sort of change in perspective, or a paradigm shift (though I'm not sure Thomas Kuhn would approve my use of the phrase) may have been triggered by the emergence of new evidence, more rigorous contemplation , or simply as a result of some remarkable personal experience.

If I were asked to give a reason for my "paradigm shift", I would say that the new events and evidence that has arisen require me to give a better explanation, and accordingly new claims and judgments (along with it a whole new paradigm) come along with these explanations. This reason for my "paradigm shift" is only acceptable on the condition that my old views had been based on reason; had it been simply based on personal taste, I would be accused of being irrational and inconsistent. In this case, maybe I shouldn't have been so shocked after all.  

On truth in politics

How many of us can claim that our beliefs have remained constant and unchanged throughout our entire lives? I would guess the the answer to that question is very few, if not none at all. For the insistence to hold the same belief in the light of new, conflicting evidence would be a kind of dogmatism. If dogmatism prevails, science would never progress and debates would be ultimately fruitless. In the most extreme form of dogmatism, nothing can be learnt from any enquiry or reasoning activity. Hence, it seems that there is nothing wrong or problematic about revising our beliefs when we come across new and credible evidence which demonstrates to be inconsistent with what we originally believe. In fact, it seems to be the rational thing to do. 

If this conclusion holds true, then the question of what evidence we choose to expose ourselves to is highly important. One may ask the following question, ‘Surely if one is to maximise the chances of attaining the truth, one must be exposed to ALL available evidence?’ That is a valid point. However, faced with the physical constraint of possessing finite resource and time, and that the sum of all knowledge in the world is of such an unimaginably huge quantity (if not infinite), how is it possible for us to realistically expose ourselves to ALL available evidence? 

If it is established that possessing complete awareness of all available evidence is impossible, then the overall balance of the evidence we access becomes an important issue. If it is not possible to become aware and to comprehend all the literature against, say, wealth redistribution, then the least that one can do is to ensure that one is exposed to the evidence provided by both sides of the debate. Whether any debate can be simplified into two clearly distinct sides is another issue, but staying open-minded in what we read and listen to seems to be the best approach of preventing ourselves from falsely believing in lies. 

To judge what is true and what is false, in politics, is an extremely difficult task. In contrast to philosophy, or in the natural sciences, there is a huge interest to deceive and to create exaggerated, if not downright false reports. A false report of a scandal, or perhaps the taking of a certain individual’s words out of context, for instance, can be of extreme benefit to a particular party. Even statistics can be interpreted, or should I say distorted, in ways which could advance a particular political end. How can we judge whether we are learning or whether we are being brainwashed by false ‘knowledge’?

‘Reason’ - may be the typical response to this question. But is reason infallible? Even the cleverest person in the world, it seems, is vulnerable to making mistakes. Even IF we concede that the cleverest person in the world is capable of avoiding all possible mistakes in reasoning, then it would seem that the average person must at least be vulnerable to some error in judgment. I understand that excess scepticism can debilitate action; but it seems that if we wish to hold true beliefs, or simply to avoid holding false beliefs, we must be sceptics to some extent. I also acknowledge that being overly sceptical can prevent us from fully committing to a cause; but perhaps this is only because a full commitment, when lacking a balanced knowledge ‘around a subject’, is rarely an embodiment of rationality. What this further entails is that perhaps one should always think carefully before making any claims about what they know or believe with certainty, particularly when the belief in question concerns politics.

Statistical Analysis on UK Elections 1997-2010

An Overview

This brief analytical study of the statistics in 4 recent UK general elections (1997-2010) may have many implications for the entry-level politics student. The 2010 general election saw the end to the dominance of the Labour Party (and New Labour?) as well as the first successful bid of the Liberal Democrats to Whitehall as a result of a hung parliament – only the second one to occur since 1945. Statistics from these 4 general elections also reveal an increasing share of the vote by minor parties (suggesting the end to the 2-party system?), as well as the lowest turnout percentages since the Second World War (voter apathy! Or an improving standard of living?). No new or major thesis is being put forward in this analysis, but it is hoped that these numbers will help readers understand more about the UK system of elections (and government).

The Labour Party

Out of the four general elections in 1997, 2001, 2005, and 2010, the Labour Party is relatively successful in producing a majority of seats. Although the party saw a gradually declining majority from 1997 to 2005 (from 179 to 66), in 1997 and 2001, under the leadership of Tony Blair, the party was still able to produce “landslide” majorities of 179 and 167 respectively. The Labour Party won all general elections under Tony Blair, whereas with Gordon Brown the party lost the 2010 election with only 258 seats, which was 67 seats short of a majority.

In none of the general elections was the Labour Party able to secure a majority of the popular vote: it was most successful in 1997 in securing 43.2% of the vote, and least successful in 2010 in securing only 29% of the vote. In all its “victorious” years, Labour’s mandate (i.e. right to govern) was lowest in 2005, only winning 35.3% of the vote.

The Conservative Party

In contrast to Labour, the Conservatives only won 1 out of the 4 elections between 1997 and 2010. Its victory in 2010, however, was not entirely a satisfactory one, as it was still 20 seats short of winning a majority despite winning 36.1% of the popular vote (more than Labour’s 35.3% in the 2005 g.e.). The 2010 general election was David Cameron’s first victory as the leader of the Conservative party.

As opposition

The Conservatives have managed to retain a minimum of 30.7% of the popular vote (1997) out of the 3 general elections which they secured their position as the largest opposition party. Popular support, measured in votes, was highest in 2005 at 32.4% under the leadership of Michael Howard, increasing by roughly 1% each year from 1997 in the general elections which the Conservatives were in opposition. The Conservatives ran the 3 general elections under 3 different leaders: John Major in 1997, William Hague in 2001, and Michael Howard in 2005. The 2010 general election under David Cameron saw a 3.8% increase in the popular vote for the Conservatives.

The Liberal Democrats

An increasing share of the popular vote for the Liberal Democrats could be observed in the four general elections in 1997-2010. Beginning with only 16.8% of the vote in 1997 under the leadership of Paddy Ashdown, the Liberal Democrats managed to win nearly a quarter of the popular vote at 23% in 2010 under Nick Clegg, an increase of roughly 6.2 percentage points. The biggest increase in percentage points between elections, however, occurred in the 2005 general elections which saw the Liberal Democrats’ share of the popular vote rise roughly 3.8% from 18.3% to 22.1% in four years.

In terms of seats, the Liberal Democrats actually saw a fall in 2010 despite consistently increasing in the years 1997-2005. Seats won by the Lib-Dems in the House of Commons fell from 62 in 2005 to 57 in 2010, although having won a bigger share (approx. 1%) of the popular vote. This was, however, still a considerable increase from the 1997 result, where the Lib-Dems only managed to win 46 seats under Paddy Ashdown.

Within the period, Charles Kennedy was the only leader who led the Lib-Dems to run for more than one election (2001 and 2005). Nick Clegg was the only leader who managed to lead the Liberal Democrats to form a (coalition) government.

Minor Parties

Minor parties (excl. Labour/Conservatives/Liberal Democrats) saw their apex in the share of the popular vote in 2010, which constituted a significant 11.9%. This contrasts with results in 1997, where small parties only contributed to 9.3% of the total vote. Comparing with historical statistics, the average popular vote in % for minor parties from 1945 to 1992 was only 3.35%, which demonstrates how significant the increase has been for the recent general elections. It is also worthy to look at a few case studies: while in 2005 the UKIP failed to gain any seats despite winning 2.2% of the vote, the Green Party gained its first House of Commons seat in 2010 with merely 1% of the vote. Also, in 2010, 35% of the voters supported a party other than Labour or the Conservatives.

Turnout

The turnouts in % for the four recent general elections were also considerably low. Turnouts from 1945 to 1992 average a respectable 76.7%, but the closest figure to that in the ensuing four general elections was 71.4% in 1997. Most notorious was the turnout in 2001, in which only 59% of the registered electorate voted in the general election. Between 2001 and 2010 a gradual improvement could be witnessed, with 65.1% of the electorate voting in 2010 general election.

Proportionality

The FPTP (First-Past-the-Post) system used for the UK general elections is known for creating interestingly disproportional results. In 2005, Labour won 55% of the seats in House of Commons with a mere 35.3% of the popular vote. In 2010, the Conservatives won 36.1% of the popular vote, yet had only managed to win 46% of the seats. Between 2005 and 2010, the Liberal Democrats saw an increase of about 1% in their share of the popular vote, but a fall of 8% in their share of seats. UKIP won 2.2% of the vote in 2005 with no seats, but the Green Party won one seat with only 1% of the vote in 2010.

On Democracy in Hong Kong

Hong Kong is one unique place where you can find such a high degree of economic freedom at the same where a commonman does not possess the political right to vote for the Head of Government. Both the Wall Street Journal and Heritage Foundation has ranked Hong Kong as the world’s freest economy for a consecutive 15 years, and on the accounts of GDP per capita Hong Kong is certainly one of the most prosperous and well-developed cities in the world. Yet, does it make any sense that people should enjoy economic prosperity and freedom while being in possession of no genuine political rights?

Firstly, it is probably a good idea to clarify to what extent residents of Hong Kong are deprived of their political rights. Hong Kong’s unicameral legislature, the Legislative Council, is made up of 30 elected members and 30 “functional constituencies” (“elected” by trade and labour unions in Hong Kong). Hong Kong’s Head of Government, the Chief Executive (who is Donald Tsang atm), is elected by a group of electors of about 400 people of which the government in China grasps many by the balls.

Obviously, compared to other notable democracies like the USA and the UK, Hong Kong residents have little influence in politics: Americans get to vote for their Presidents once every four years, on top of Congressional elections which happen once every two years; Britons cast a vote once every four to five years (depending on when the incumbent Prime Minister wishes to call general election) for a MP (Member of Parliament) belonging to a party, and the leader of the party holding 50% of the seats in the House of Commons becomes the Prime Minister.

However, it is far from ideal to use (according to many leading “Democrats” in HK) the USA or the UK model in its exact form for Hong Kong. The reason for USA’s frequent elections is because of the Founding Fathers’ intent to create a system of checks and balances in a federal system (where individual states pool their sovereignty to the federal government instead of a central government giving power to local governments), so that no alliance of interests could take control of the whole system of government in a country so diverse and large. As a region where efficiency is held in such high priority, greater checks and balances would only serve to magnify the legislative inefficiencies of the current system. Being small and having a relatively homogeneous society, what Hong Kong needs is a flexible government, rather than one which has to work with its hands tied together. Just see how Hong Kong people would react if it takes two decades to pass healthcare reform.

In my opinion, UK’s system of government is more appropriate for Hong Kong’s application, but similarly to U.S.’s system, it is neither perfect nor exactly the best fit for Hong Kong. UK has a bicameral legislature, which means that it has two separate Houses in Parliament. Like Hong Kong, not all of the UK Parliament is elected; the Upper chamber, the House of Lords, is made up of appointees called Peers/Lords, and as a collective the House of Lords has the legislative power to delay bills up to 12 months. Hong Kong’s “functional constituencies” can be pretty much seen in the same light. Even though “functional constituencies” are not elected, they have a function of providing expertise to a piece of law, and ensure that some laws are not passed merely to win the votes of the public. Policies like tax hikes, building airports and laying down railway tracks are often unpopular measures which have to be pushed forward for the benefit of all. As Plato argued, a ship can only sail properly when it is guided by a captain, and not by its whole crew. Democracy shouldn’t be blindly pursued as a social objective; rather, it should be considered as a means to improve the welfare of society.

I am not arguing that Hong Kong has the perfect political system, or that it is sufficiently democratic. I agree that “functional constituencies”, despite their contributions, need to be reformed and reduced in power; the electors voting for the Chief Executive need to be increased in both numbers and diversity, and people should be allowed more say in determining who are the electors. Lastly, the entire system should be made more accountable and democratic through devices like referendums and focus groups.

It must also be understood that Hong Kong isn’t as democratic as many liberals would like it to be because of its relationship with the PRC (People’s Republic of China). Hong Kong’s current position as an economic powerhouse and an international financial centre is both being safeguarded and upheld by the PRC’s own international economic presence. Whilst every effort should be made to resist conceding on Hong Kong’s present political freedom, pushing the boundaries too far by demanding radical constitutional reforms will only result in severe and lasting destruction to Hong Kong’s present economic success. Laissez-faire and huge financial transactions don’t mean jackshit when you are under unstable politics. Politicians/political activists should be wise enough to realise this.