Should we require unanimity of the Supreme Court?

 

 To the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law, Harvard Law School,

Dear Randall Kennedy,

     I enjoyed your article in the London Review of Books of 21st Jan 2021, and was stimulated by it. You declared yourself to be a ‘Cynical Realist’, believing that the judges of the US Supreme Court are inevitably nothing more than politicians in robes, and are not, in fact, applying 'law' to their judgements.  But I think I am one of the other sort, whatever that is — perhaps a ‘cloud-cuckoo idealist’. 

     That is to say, I am inclined to think that, as to the justice of a disputed point, there is indeed a right and a wrong answer, definable in terms of a sufficient number of sufficiently well-trained deep-thinkers. 

     I would suggest that the Supreme Court be required to come to a unanimous decision. (Or at least a 2/3 majority.) If the justices could not discuss their way to a unanimous decision, I would have them sit there hour after hour, like cardinals at a papal election, till hunger drove one side to give way? 

    I do not think that a decision reached in that way would be worse than the predictable and apparently knee-jerk voting of the present Supreme Court? It would reinforce the claim that there exists such as thing as 'Justice'. 
Yours sincerely, 

Ian West

(See also: https://occidentis.blogspot.com/2021/03/one-justice-or-many.html   & http://occidentis.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-role-of-citizen.html.)

 (To subscribe [or unsubscribe], please email <cawstein@gmail.com> with the word Subscribe [or Unsubscribe] in the Subject line.)

Moral Choice: biology, philosophy or religion?

"Morality is best seen as a question of human biology, rather than one of philosophy; least of all one of religion."

Thomas Nagel raised an interesting question in the London Review of Books (3rd June 2021): how do we make moral choices. How do we reconcile ‘gut feelings’ with moral precepts, if they conflict? I do not think there is a real problem here, as I shall try to explain, though there are plenty of hypothetical problems. 

Nagel transfers to morality the concept of reflective equilibrium that John Rawls developed for the field of justice; a reflective equilibrium is the end-product of a reflective re-adjustment of one’s moral thoughts achieved by testing general principles against considered judgements about particular cases. The method itself could be called reflective equilibration (or simply reflection); it presumably involves successively tweaking the weightings given to the various relevant thoughts that come into one’s head until they cohere  into a consistent conclusion; one that is optimally concordant, or minimally discordant. It works if both the general principles and the particular judgements can be revised (tweaked). 

 

But Nagel’s main problem arises when there is a difference in kind between the various moral thoughts that have to be reconciled. He has been struggling for 40 years to reconcile two kinds of moral input. Some appear to come into the mind as rigid, clear-cut, laws telling us what is right, or wrong, (do not kill innocent people, do not tell lies); these he calls deontological. (They seem to be very like Kant’s categorical imperatives.)  Others actions, themselves neutral, have to be judged by their consequences as good or bad; these he calls consequential. A familiar form of consequentialism is Bentham’s Utilitarianism, seeking “the greatest good of the greatest number.” (See the very clear article on the Stanford Philosophy site: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/.)  

Nagel struggles a bit to define in general terms these two basic kinds of moral thought that present themselves to the conscious brain. He is not sure whence these intuitions come, and seems to be a little in awe of rules-based deontological morality; are these moral instructions hard-wired in our biology, or were we brain-washed by our parents? (To believe that one’s duties come direct from God does not solve the problem, except in so much as, by giving it a name, it allows the ‘religious believers’ to stop thinking about that particular problem.) Nagel is concerned to be even-handed between the two types of moral intuition but he is also concerned to allow morality to evolve, and admits that the rules-based thoughts offer more resistance to change than the ad hoc, utilitarian, type. Take homosexuality, for example; some people cannot overcome their instinctive taboo, but society as a whole is shifting its position. 

Some people are more inclined to be deontological; others to be consequential. I confess to being a deontologist, though an atheist; I don’t seem to mind too much if the rule is silly, or wrong, but I like to obey the rule nevertheless. For Nagel, the problem becomes: how can one do a reflective equilibration when some of the arguments are stubbornly inflexible? All the bending must be done by the consequential calculations.

And what about other people; must we equilibrate their intuitions also? Nagel concedes the problem but does not answer it:  “In some sense the moral point of view requires putting oneself in everyone else’s shoes…. The question" (he says) "is: how?” 

I deal with some of these issues in my recent book (West, I.C. (2019) “God for Atheists”, AuthorHouse, Bloomington.), though my conclusions are simpler than Nagel’s. Morality (I maintain) comes from the reflective equilibration, not of one mind only, but of all minds (or an adequate sample of minds). How is that done?.  Simply by asking questions, I suggest, and listening to the answers.

I described (in 2011) what I called at the time a “Philosophical Summing Junction”, roughly as follows: 

“We spent a happy hour or so, tossing around the question of who to save in the event of nuclear war; not because we anticipated needing a plan of action, but because Dr.X had challenged the claim that philosophy can clarify the mind and solve problems. I attempted to draw the exchange to a close by suggesting that in our 60 minutes of vigorous thought and discussion we had produced between us an almost complete answer to the question of how to proceed. Dr. X said he scored it "philosophy nil, chaos 100". So I tried to explain my contention again, at greater length.” (See https://occidentis.blogspot.com/2011/09/philosophical-summing-junction.html) 

I see the human mind as capable of liking to follow rules (on some occasions), of liking to save one's own daughter before that of someone else, liking to save the lives of strangers, even of dumb animals, baulking at the killing of innocents. I suspect that most people do not really mind if their actions are right or wrong in any philosophical sense, as long as they feel right. Furthermore, they like to be judged by people who come to the same conclusions as they do on these matters, people who know what is right, defined in this way.

I think this is the basis of the ‘Michael Sandel roadshow’. He steps onto the stage and asks a question, then takes comments from the audience for an hour. I think he has the correct approach to morality. 

In summary:  "Morality is best seen as a question of human biology, rather than one of philosophy; least of all one of religion."

International Aid: Treasury Update, 13th July 2021

(The House supported the motion, 333 to 298; but the country rejected it: 18.4 million opposing, 12.7 million supporting the government.)

Open letter to the Speaker of the House of Commons.

Dear Mr. Speaker, 

     I am sure you are aware that, in division 49 of 13th July 2021 on "International Aid: Treasury Update", the parliamentary representatives of 18.4 million British citizens voted against the government motion, and the representatives of only 12.7 million voted in support of the government. (⇞)

     The house supported the motion, 333 to 298; but the country rejected it. 

     The government should think carefully about writing into law an issue that is so clearly opposed by the country. (This warning could well have been given at the adoption of the poll tax and the privatisation of the railways.) 

(⇞ The weighting of each member of parliament was discussed in my post of 24 Dec 2019, https://occidentis.blogspot.com/2019/12/proportional-representation-must-come.html )

     Yours sincerely, Ian West 

Ian West, 9 Thenford road, 

Middleton Cheney, 

Banbury, OX17 2NB. 

(Comments are welcome direct to Cawstein@gmail.com)

 Should we expect (or fear) inflation?

(Open letter to Simon Wren-Lewis)

Dear Simon,

     I like reading, and struggling to understand, your blog posts. But there are two points in your latest post [1] that I would like to query.

Q1. You write: “ All the evidence, direct or indirect, points to the story about fairly anchored long term inflation expectations due to inflation targets and independent central banks being correct.”

 Does this mean: ‘ All the evidence points to the story being correct, that fairly (firmly? appropriately?) anchored long term inflation expectations due to inflation targets and independent central banks.......‘ ?  In which case it seems to me that the sentence in incomplete.

Q2. You find ‘bizarre in the extreme’ any fear about inflation when short-term interest rates approach zero (I do not like the vagueness and jargon of ‘lower bound’): “In that context, and when short term interest rates are at their lower bound, it seems bizarre in the extreme to start worrying about inflation expectations becoming unhinged. “

So your sentence becomes: 

‘When independent central banks control inflation by manipulating interest rates, and when short term interest rates are close to zero, it seems bizarre in the extreme to start worrying about inflation expectations becoming unhinged.‘

     I suppose many people in the UK are not confident that they fully understood inflation as it occurred in the seventies and eighties, when a strongly unionised labour market, forced a wage spiral and induced an expectation of an ever increasing rate of inflation. They fear the apparent loss of control. 

     UK house-price inflation is currently running at 10% p.a. That does not seem to be in accord with the explicit policy of either government, or bank. It suggests that neither agent has a complete grip on the situation (nor even understands fully what it is that the do not grip; supply of land? population? expectations?)

      In the last 12 months the US$ has slumped 10.87% against the Euro, 13.41% against the GB pound, and 16.7% against the Mexican peso. May that be the result of their use of helicopter-money in response to COVID?  That is steep, though I grant that there is no sign that it is “unhinged”. I suppose that expectations, at this stage, are that the dollar will claw its way back up, and that there will be considerable willingness on the part of workers to restrain wages. But we shall see.

      I have been trying (for my own benefit) to tease apart the linked and overlapping concepts of (a) true growth, (b) inflation,  and (c) interest rates [2]. I have some way to go for a solid understanding, and these are topics that call for numerical treatment. It will be noticed that I have not regarded over-night interest rates as a cause of inflation. Such interest rates may operate to manipulate expectations, by indicating (or sometimes mis-indicating) the intentions of the financial authorities.  But it is expectations that seem crucial to understanding inflation, and they elude mathematical treatment; they may not even be rational.

Yours sincerely, Ian West.

(Comments are welcome, direct to cawstein@gmail.com)

References

[1]  https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2021/06/how-should-we-think-about-talk-of.html 

[2]  http://occidentis.blogspot.com/2021/04/growth-inflation-and-interest.html

 Another Scottish Referendum?

     I suppose we have to have another Scottish Referendum. The SNP seem to have won the confidence of the Scottish people. And it seems inherent in the political system we have evolved that the First Minister can bring matters to the Scottish Parliament. They will have to judge the benefits and costs, but if that democratic body votes for a referendum, how can it be denied?

     However, I hope we all agree that the disastrous mistakes of the Brexit referendum must first be noted and then avoided. Namely: 

1. There should be complete clarity as to the implications of each conceivable result, as to whether the government is compelled or merely advised by the result.
2. There must be a  very significant majority, perhaps 2/3, perhaps 3/5,  before any suggestion of significant constitutional change be made. 

     It is widely thought that our sovereign parliament should not be bound by a referendum. But it has become clear that parliament is not sovereign, because it is not proportional; it sways madly from side to side due to the crazy voting system. One proof of this assertion is that a referendum was called for in the first place.

     It is also becoming clear that a question of great magnitude should not rest on a slender 52:48 majority. Such an insignificant majority has split the country so nearly into equal halves that it can be plausibly argued that we have got the wrong result. Proof of this is the desperate refusal of the brexiteers to allow a second Brexit referendum. What if 1% of voters changed their minds? What if, in 2 or 5 years’ time, the removal of older voters and the introduction of younger voters changed the result from “out” to “in”. Would we then reverse the enormous task of reordering the constitution, the government, the law, and the economy and accept that we had frittered away a decade for nothing?

     Let us hope that this is so obvious to everyone that it need not be said. For it has not been said yet. 

'Best for Britain'

'Best for Britain'

Naomi Smith

Best for Britain relaunched itself on Monday 26th April 2021 as a permanent, pro-active, voice advocating an internationalist stance in support of Britain’s best interests. Internationalist patriotism seeks to promote Britain's position in trade, research, openness, democracy, and justice. Britain should aim to be world leading, rather than world beating. By asking the right questions, the new 'Best for Britain' survey makes clear that British people inherently favour inter-national co-operation on issues like climate, science, poverty, communications and trade. 

    Naomi Smith welcomed the following distinguished speakers.

 

Emily Thornberry

We must recognise 3 truths. [1] We are moving on from Brexit and the question of the Customs Union and Single Market; [2] we must now clarify our own priorities, and establish our own standards, and must not lower those; [3] we must seek to facilitate our trade with Europe, for Europe remains our nearest and most important trading partner.

Sir Peter Westmacott

Four points. [1] One lesson to learn from the parallel between the USA and the UK in the last 4 years of Trump/Brexit is that there is work to do on the “home front”; work on stagnant salaries, anger and alienation. [2] We must not overlook, relinquish or jeopardise our existing global status. [3] We must keep working with allies and potential allies on climate, cybercrime, and issues such as China, G7 and COP26. [4] We must not overlook the international importance of the Good Friday Agreement, and peace in Northern Ireland.

Sir David Lidington

Britain’s best interests in this Post-USA era all point to an international stance. This clearly applies to COVID, climate-change, and crime; but also in regard to incorporating Asian countries into the G7 (making perhaps a D10), and helping Africa. It was a wake-up call to learn how dependent we had become on Chinese technologies; we must collaborate better with our European allies.  

  

Caroline Lucas

Global co-operation matters, and this must be stated, for it cannot be assumed. We should ask ourselves the question: How do we want Britain to be viewed by others? Not only in terms of aircraft-carriers, surely!  Under the heading of the Climate and Nature Emergency, what about three tests of true leadership:

[1] Justice, (facing up to our historic role and responsibilities).

[2] Coherence of policy, so not cutting aid while posturing on carbon emissions. 

[3] Climate realism; are we moving fast enough; target not 2050 but 2030?

Similarly with regard to trade, should we not hope to be good citizens, and aim for respect in our pursuit of justice and ethical standards? We should uphold existing obligations, but also recognise new obligations, and define new crimes such as Ecocide. 

Ian West  (27th April 2021)

(Please feel free to comment directly to me at  cawstein@gmail.com)

COVID, Clots and Platelets

COVID, Clots and Platelets

The very rare occurrence of death due to "blood clots following vaccination by AstraZenica's anti SARS-CoV-2 vaccine” (hereafter BCfAZV) is rightly causing concern. It is quite hard to get these rare events into perspective. Not from want of information; the authorities are being exemplary in the amount and clarity of the information they publish. No; it is more the amount of information, its complexity, and the repetitive nature of media coverage laced with strange medical terms that wears you down. And the very “rarity” of rare events is hard to grasp.

Platelets

We are told that these vaccine-induced clots are of a rare type — showing low or very low platelet count. Platelets (also called ’thrombocytes’) are blood cells charged with the job of clotting, and blocking the leakage of blood from blood vessels [1]. Too few platelets (a condition called thrombocytopenia) might indicate potential failure to clot; as when taking too much Warfarin. But in the thrombocytopenia following viral infection it seems that ‘something’ has triggered platelet-activation; the platelets cluster, stick, and die. Clusters of dead/dying platelets can break free and flow in the blood till they reach a narrowing, and block the flow. That is the danger. The remaining blood is depleted of thrombocytes/platelets.

Virus-induced Thrombocytopenia 

A somewhat lowered platelet count (< 100 × 10^6/mL blood) has been observed following a number of viral infections, including hepatitis B (and C) viruses, cytomegalovirus, Varicella zoster virus, HIV, and the arboviruses zika and dengue. In this latest COVID-19 pandemic it is found in up to one-third of COVID  patients, so we can add wild-type SARS-CoV-2 to that list of viruses that induce thrombocytopenia. 

One suggested explanation of the vary rare occurrence of BCfAZV is that after vaccination one or two patients go on to contract COVID, though (to date 2021-04-17) the diagnostic viral RNA has not been detected by PCR [2 (page 37)].

Abnormal clotting can be a factor in the pathology of pandemic and seasonal ‘flu (due to influenza A(H1N1) and other viruses)[3]. In these cases the mechanism may be different, may involve proteases, and pre-disposing genetic polymorphisms in complement proteins. But I flag it because there are a few cases, for that virus disease also, where it seems that it was vaccination that triggered the activation of the platelets.

Rare Events

An early response to the suggestion that the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine causes blood clots was to point out that clots do occur at a similar frequency without vaccination [4,Thromboembolism and the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine: side-effect or coincidence?]. The annual incidence of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis is said to be between 2 and 5 per million people [5]. Recent data (as of 4th April 2021) from the 34 million people who have just received the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine are: 169 cases of thrombus in the cerebral venous sinus, and 53 with thrombi in the splanchnic vein. If we restrict ourselves to the cerebral venous sinus, that is 4.97 per million. An observed/expected ratio of 4.97/ 5 is obviously not significant; until you realise that these blood clots occurred within 7 - 30 days of vaccination. So the observed rate could be 12 - 40 times the expected rate.

          Some commentators have tried to picture the “5-in-a-million” risk by talking of the risk of a fatal traffic accident on our roads, though that is yet another complicated question. In 2019 there were 1752 fatalities in the UK (population=67 million), which corresponds to 26.5 deaths per million citizens per year [11]; though road-death risk is clearly lower for some and therefore higher for others. 

To what new antigens are vaccinees exposed?

The RNA vaccines expose the recipient to the expressed SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and to phospholipid; that is to say, they are rather “pure”.

The AstraZenica vaccine carries DNA for the viral spike protein, together with coding for a 36 aa portion of tissue plasminogen activator leader sequence, plus DNA for all the components of the Chimpanzee Adenovirus vehicle (ChAdOx-1), plus the Adenovirus proteins themselves. (The choice of a replication-incapable Chimpanzee virus instead of a human strain as the vehicle was presumably so that it would be very unlikely that the recipient would already have circulating antibodies against the inoculum.) 

The Johnson & Johnson (= Janssen) vaccine uses human Adenovirus HAdV-D26 as vehicle. (There are over 80 different strains of human Adenovirus known, grouped into species (A, B, C, D, etc.)) Fewer doses of this Janssen vaccine than of the AstraZenica one have been administered to date, but a case of abnormal clotting following injection has now been reported [6].  

Human Adenovirus vehicles have been used since 2000 in exploratory experiments on gene therapy, and quite a lot of the resulting interactions between virus and host are well known. Thus, it is known that Adenovirus injected into a blood vessel rapidly binds to platelets [7], and coagulation factors in the blood [8][9]. 

Why, then, is fatal clotting so rare?

If Adenovirus vehicles normally interact with platelets and coagulation factors, why is the problem of thrombocytopenia and clots-in-veins so rare? One possibility is that there may be a rare genetic polymorphism in the human population that predisposes carriers of that rare genotype to full-blown platelet activation, and clots [10]. A second suggestion is that, when a nurse is giving 300 intramuscular injections in a morning, an occasional needle might pierce a blood vessel, and administer an intravenous injection by mistake [10].  

        The AstraZenica vaccination is still safer than road travel.

References

[1] https://www.verywellhealth.com/thrombocyte-what-is-a-thrombocyte-797228

[2] https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/prac-recommendation/signal-assessment-report-embolic-thrombotic-events-smq-covid-19-vaccine-chadox1-s-recombinant-covid_en.pdf

[3] Pediatr Nephrol. 2018; 33(11): 2009–2025.

[4] The Lancet, Vol. 397, Issue 10283, pp.1441-1443, April 17, 2021.

[5]  https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/prac-recommendation/signal-assessment-report-embolic-thrombotic-events-smq-covid-19-vaccine-chadox1-s-recombinant-covid_en.pdf  

[6] DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc2105869

[7] https://jvi.asm.org/content/81/9/4866

[8] https://febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1873-3468.13649

[9] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4009923/

[10] https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/prac-recommendation/signal-assessment-report-embolic-thrombotic-events-smq-covid-19-vaccine-chadox1-s-recombinant-covid_en.pdf 

[11] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/922717/reported-road-casualties-annual-report-2019.pdf

(Please comment directly to cawstein@gmail.com)