Opposites Do Not Attract… Unless You Are a Magnet

A popular saying about relationships is that “opposites attract”.  But, is this really true?  Do people really want to be with someone who is totally opposite of them?  Do people prefer friends who are opposite of them?  Do people prefer to marry someone opposite to them?  Or is the converse popular saying true: “Birds of a feather flock together?”  In this paper, I will attempt to show that, in general, the statement and sentiment that “opposites attract” is false and that in successful, happy relationships there are usually strong similarities and common respect for the others’ cherished attributes.  These issues are important to society as we all have the choice to decide who we will spend our time with, who we will associate with, or who we marry.

Charles-Augustin de Coulomb
 with a magnet attraction diagram

The popular idea of opposites attracting could possibly be traced to publications from Coulomb, a French physics in the 17^th century.  Coulombs’ publications form the foundations of Coulomb's law which deal with electrical charges and magnetism.  His publications show that like, or similar, charges repel each other, while opposite charges attract each other (1788).  This law is informally explored by many of us while experimenting with magnets.  Flat magnets have two polar opposite sides: one positively charged and one negatively charged.  As one moves two magnets together, there is an invisible attracting or repulsing force depending on the polarization of the ends that are moved.  If a positive end is placed near to a positive end, they will repulse each other, while if a positive charge end is placed near a negative charge end the magnets will be attracted to each other, or in other words the “opposites attract”.  While “opposites attract” may be a very reliable and valid physics principle, to apply it to interpersonal relationships is generally inaccurate.

"Aristotle with a Bust of Homer"
Rembrandt van Rijn
Oil on Canvas 153

Aristotle (384 BC - 32 BC) noted in his Rhetoric and Nichomachean Ethics that people often love those who are like unto themselves (Aristotle, 1934).  Since then there have been several studies that have set out to determine what attracts individuals to relationships with others (DeArmond & Crawford, 2011; Kiesler, 1996; Nangle, Erdley, Zeff, Stanchfield, & Gold, 2004).  There has been found in such studies great evidence that people are attracted to others of similar social status, behavior, humor, personality traits, and beliefs.  Studies have shown evidence that children are well liked by their peers who are similar to them in social status and behavioral style, while dissimilar children are disliked by peers who do not share such similarities (Akers, Jones, & Coyl, 1998; Nangle, Erdley, & Gold, 1996). Additionally, Hymel and Woody (1991) show evidence that children prefer others with a similar sense of humor. Studies also show that college students generally prefer roommates with similar personality traits (Carli, Ganley, & Pierce-Otay, 1991; Deutsch, Sullivan, Sage, & Basile, 1991) and prefer strangers that share similarities to them (Hodges & Byrne, 1972; Reagor & Clore, 1970; Lombardo, Steigleder, & Feinberg, 1975), particularly if they share a common negative view (Bosson, Johnson, Niederhoffer, & Swann, 2006; Weaver & Bosson, 2011).   Studies show evidence that couples in general prefer (Buston, & Emlen, 2003) and are similar to each other rather than being dissimilar or opposite (Botwin, Buss, & Shackelford, 1997; Chen, Luo, Yue, Xu, & Zhaoyang, 2009, Gonzaga, Campos, & Bradbury, 2007; Klohnen, & Mendelsohn, 1998; Luo, & Klohen, 2005; McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001) particularly in weighty matters such as religious practices (Call & Heaton, 1997; Heaton & Pratt, 1990; Strycharz, 2004).  It has even been shown that those who are depressed prefer other depressed companions to non-depressed companions (Locke & Horowitz, 1990).  These evidences indicate that the saying “opposites attract” when applied to interpersonal attraction and preference is flawed.  While there may be incidental cases of apparent opposites attracting, in general, this theory is untrue.

Similarity preferences can be seen in simple things such as an individuals tend to have more same-sex friends than opposite-sex friends.  Another example is that we tend to spend time with people of similar ideas such as entertainment and interests. 

An Example Confirmation Bias

One may ask, “If the saying that opposites attract is false, then how and why did it come into being?”  The answer could lie in how we perceive people and attributes.  Imagine you are an important business man and you receive frequent phone calls, which have an equal chance of ringing during your whole work day.  When the phone rings you generally answer it.  However, occasionally while you are on the phone with someone, you receive a second phone call that you must either ignore or put your current conversation on hold to answer.  You complain to your secretary and hypothesize that you spend more time juggling several conversations at once than you do talking to just one person. You conclude it is more likely that someone will call you while you are already in a conversation on your phone than not.  In reality, this is not true; you receive more phone calls while you are not already on your phone.  However, rarely if ever do you think to yourself at these times, “Someone called me when I am not talking to anyone else on the phone, and this is evidence that my hypothesis is incorrect”.  In contrast, when you are already on the phone with someone else and you receive another incoming phone call, you often say to yourself, “This is evidence that my hypothesis is correct.”

We, as humans, pay more attention to unusual events and stimuli while giving less attention to usual or perceived mundane events and stimuli. This Phenomenon is called Availability Heuristic (Tversky, & Kahneman, 1973).  We also give selective attention to the evidence that supports our ideas and hypotheses while ignoring contrary evidence.  This phenomenon is called confirmation bias (Dawson, 2000; Gurmankin et al. 2002; Gambrill, 2005; Klayman, 1995; Nickerson, 1998).

In relation to attraction, when we see two friends or a romantic couple with strikingly different characteristics from each other, we often pay more attention to them than to others with no apparent striking differences, even if they are in the minority.  As we examine dissimilar groups and see a striking difference, we seldom think of all the similarities which they have to each other.  Instead, we focus only on their differences, thus providing excellent conditions for a confirmation bias, as we choose to ignore much of the contrary evidence. 

There are many today who believe that opposites attract. However, these significant studies show that people generally are attracted to others of similar social status, behavior, humor, personality traits, and beliefs. The theory that opposites attract is inconsistent with these scientific studies, and must be dismissed as a myth.

References

Akers, J. F., Jones, R. M., & Coyl, D. D. (1998). Adolescent friendship pairs: Similarities in identity status development, behaviors, attitudes, and intentions. Journal of Adolescent Research, 13, 178–201. doi: 10.1177/0743554898132005

Aristotle (1934). Rhetoric. Nichomachean ethics. Rackman transl. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.

Asher, S. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1986). Identifying children who are rejected by their peers. Developmental Psychology, 22, 444–449.

Bosson, J. K., Johnson, A. B., Niederhoffer, K., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2006). Interpersonal chemistry through negativity: Bonding by sharing negative attitudes about others. Personal Relationships, 13, 135-150. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00109.x

Botwin, M. D., Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Personality and mate preferences: Five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 65(1), 107-136. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00531.x

Buston, P.M., & Emlen, S.T. (2003). Cognitive processes underlying human mate choice: The relationship between self-perception and mate preference in Western society. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 10(15). doi: 10.1073/pnas.1533220100

Call, V.R.A., & Heaton, T.B. (1997). Religious influence on marital stability. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 382-392. doi: 10.2307/1387856

Carli, L. L., Ganley, R., & Pierce-Otay, A. (1991). Similarity and satisfaction in roommate relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 419–426. doi:10.1177/0146167291174010     

Chen, H., Luo, S., Yue, G., Xu, D., & Zhaoyang, R. (2009). Do birds of a feather flock together in China?. Personal Relationships, 16(2), 167-186. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01217

Coulomb, C.A. (1788). Histoire de l'Academie royale des sciences. Paris: Académie Royale des Sciences.

Dawson, N.V. (2000). Physician judgments of uncertainty. In Decision Making in Health Care: Theory, Psychology, and Applications (ed. G. B. Chapman and F. A. Sonnenberg), pp. 211-252. Cambridge University Press: New York.

DeArmond, S., & Crawford, E.C. (2011). Organization personality perceptions and attraction: The role of social identity consciousness. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19(4) 405-414. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2011.00568.x

Deutsch, F., Sullivan, L., Sage, C., & Basile, N. (1991). The relations among talking, liking, and similarity between friends. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 406–411. doi: 10.1177/0146167291174008

Gambrill, E. (2005). Critical thinking in clinical practice: Improving the quality of judgments and decisions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Gonzaga, G. C., Campos, B., & Bradbury, T. (2007). Similarity, convergence, and relationship satisfaction in dating and married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 34-48. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.34

Gurmankin, A.D., Baron, J., Hershey, J.C., & Ubel, P.A. (2002). The role of physicians' recommendations in medical treatment decisions. Medical Decision Making 22, 262-271. doi: 10.1177/0272989X0202200314

Heaton, T.B., & Pratt, E.L. (1990) The effects of religious homogamy on marital satisfaction and stability. Journal of Family Issues, 11, 191-207. doi: 10.1177/019251390011002005

Hodges, L. A., & Byrne, D. (1972). Verbal dogmatism as a potentiator of intolerance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 312–317. doi:10.1037/h0032315

Hymel, S., & Woody, E. (1991, April). Friends versus non-friends; Perceptions of similarity across self, teacher, and peers. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, Washington.

Kiesler, D. J. (1996). Contemporary interpersonal theory and research. New York: Wiley.

Klayman, J. (1995). Varieties of confirmation bias. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 32, 358-418. doi: 10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60315-1

Locke, K. D., & Horowitz, L. M. (1990). Satisfaction in interpersonal interactions as a function of similarity in level of dysphoria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 823–831. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.5.823

Lombardo, J. P., Steigleder, M., & Feinberg, R. (1975). Internality-externality: The perception of negatively valued personality characteristics and interpersonal attraction. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 6(2), 89-95.

Luo, S., & Klohnen, E. C. (2005). Assortative mating and marital quality in newlyweds: A couple-centered approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 304-326. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.2.304

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415

Nangle, D. W., Erdley, C. A., & Gold, J. A. (1996). A reflection on the popularity construct: The importance of who likes or dislikes a child. Behavior Therapy, 27, 337–352. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(96)80021-9

Nangle, D. W., Erdley, C. A., Zeff, K. R., Stanchfield, L. L., & Gold, J. A. (2004). Opposites do not attract: Social status and behavioral-style concordances and discordances among children and the peers who like or dislike them. Journal Of Abnormal Child Psychology: An Official Publication Of The International Society For Research In Child And Adolescent Psychopathology, 32(4), 425-434. doi:10.1023/B:JACP.0000030295.43586.32

Nickerson, R.S. (1998). Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175-220. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175

Reagor, P. A., & Clore, G. L. (1970). Attraction, test anxiety, and similarity–dissimilarity of test performance. Psychonomic Science, 18, 219–220.

Strycharz, S.J. (2004). The relationship of spirituality and marital satisfaction among Roman Catholic couples. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 64, 4115.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A Heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207–232.

Weaver, J. R., & Bosson, J. K. (2011). I feel like I know you: Sharing negative attitudes of others promotes feelings of familiarity. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(4), 481-491. doi:10.1177/0146167211398364

After reviewing these pictures I formally recant my above statements and conclusions. Perhaps opposites do attract.  

Occam’s Razor and Global Climate Change

William of Occam

            Occam’s Razor is an epistemology  based on the philosophies of William of Ockham. Occam was a friar and a philosopher from Oakham, a small village in Surrey, England. William is best known for his philosophic problem-solving style, which has come to be known as Occam’s razor. This methodology applies when choosing between competing ideas or theories that explain a phenomenon with similar explanatory power.  In such cases, William's philosophy states the theory with the fewest assumptions is the more reliable, and favorable, theory.

            This methodology is logical because it favors facts a day parchment over assumptions and convolution.  Thus aids in weeding out possible confirmation bias and unfounded postulations. If one finds themselves making a lot of assumptions to justify a belief, it is an indicator their belief is unscientific, and illogical. This does not mean it is wrong, but only that it is less reliable in the scientific world view.

            Children tend to see the world through black and white goggles, often seeing good and evil, right and wrong, truth and falsehood, as cut-and-dry concepts. Children are seemingly constrained by sharp deep lines that separate our perceptions of reality and truth. As children grow older, these lines often blur and the previous sharp contrast of black and white explode into a million shades of grey; rarely, if ever, do we deal with absolutes.

Flat Earth Society Map

            As I perceive the debate on global climate change there are big questions that need to be answered. How do we know what to believe? What is black, and what is white? Will we ever come to unanimity in belief? This is very unlikely to happen on any subject. Today there are those who dispute just about any scientific theory. The Flat Earth Society is a good example of this. The Flat Earth Society believes that the earth is not a globe but rather a flat circular disc. This movement has intellectual and educated people in it. I use this example because it helps demonstrate that even well established and seemingly logical ideas have critics and skeptics.

            We do not and cannot know with full certainty that anthropogenic climate change is occurring nor can we know for certain that the world is spherical. As we learn from the reasoning of French philosopher Rene Descartes, if we take skepticism to the extreme we cannot believe anything in this world except that we ourselves think and are thus existent. When it comes down to it, all that we believe can be doubted.

Greg Craven

             Thus as we examine the information and ideas in relation to anthropogenic climate change, we should not require absolute proof or seek for an uncontended consensus but rather we should adopt the mantra of Greg Craven that,

 “[We] don’t need to determine who is right to make a decent bet.”

             This situation provides a need for critical thinking and analysis skills such as the principle of Occam’s razor. I wish to apply Occam’s razor to the driving question in the global climate debate discussion: Why is the earth getting warmer? I will attempt to briefly examine the most popular claims from both sides of the discussion. Then, both sides will be examined with the question, “Which side assumes less?”

            We will start by explaining the Warmers’ position. The position is fairly universal among Warmers and the default position in the scientific community.

            Through direct temperature measurements from the mid 1860’s until 2000, there has been a rise in the global average temperature by 0.8 degrees Celsius (1.44 Fahrenheit). These recent measurements correlate well, in most regards, with that of proxy measurements used to determine past temperatures.

            This rise in temperature is attributed to the increase in concentration of Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gasses are gasses which can absorb and radiate infrared waves. The most efficacious greenhouse gasses are water vapor (60 – 70 % of total greenhouse gas effects), carbon dioxide (9 – 26 %), methane (4-9%), and ozone (3-7%). These greenhouse gasses absorb and radiate infrared light coming from the earth back towards the earth causing a blanket-like effect. This causes the earth to retain more of the heat received from the sun and thus raises the temperature of the earth. The greenhouse effect is the Warmers’ explanation why the earth is getting warmer.

            Skeptics, here defined by myself for the purpose of this article, are those who disbelieve anthropogenic climate change. They have two main explanations as to why the globe is apparently warming:

Fred Singer

            The first response is simply that the world is not warming. Skeptics claim that the temperature records are subject to large errors and that the coverage for direct measurements has been patchy therefore producing inaccurate global temperatures. They cite the urban heat island effect as a cause. Fred Singer, a prominent skeptic, stated that it is difficult to believe anthropogenic climate change when some predictions of climate models for the future have been inaccurate:

“…until the observations and the models agree, or until one or the other is resolved, it's very difficult…to believe in the predictive power of the current models.”

            I believe that Occam’s razor would dictate that we favor the Warmers’ position. The skeptics’ position an acceptable theory, but it relies on assumed uncertain and unscientifically-founded errors. It does not seem to provide better alternative information or data to explain the apparent increase in temperature.

           While their claim of inaccuracy of direct measurements was generally valid, the scientists have conducted studies and have made corrections in relation to these criticisms to the best scientific knowledge we have. However, the results still indicate an increasing global temperature which cannot be explained by the heat island effect; further NASA studies have examined the heat island effect and found that is it not a significant factor in the direct measurements.

           As for the supposed failure in models, models are not perfect and cannot account for all the potential changes in the climate due to variations. It cannot completely project future conditions as the variables are not all known nor are models primarily intended to project future conditions thus errors are inevitable in the scientific process and more more often call for refining rather than abandonment.

            An additional issue when claiming the globe is not warming is the fact that proxy measurements generally agree with the direct measurements. Further we can see ice melting at an increased rate. Ice that has persisted for hundreds of years is melting, and thus sea levels are rising. These indicate an overall change in temperature of the globe.

            If we look at the carbon dioxide concentrations in regards to global temperature throughout history we see that there is a heavy correlation. We see this on our earth through direct and proxy measurements. We also see it in planets such as Venus which has a higher concentration of greenhouse gasses. Although Venus is much further from the sun than Mercury, it is much warmer. It takes more of a leap of faith to say that the apparent correlation of carbon concentrations, temperature, direct measurements, and proxy measurements is result from anomalies and inaccuracies than it is to say that the measurements are generally accurate. There seems to be more assumptions made by the Skeptics in this view than by the Warmers.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov

            A second skeptical view is that global warming is occurring but that it is natural and not caused by humans. Skeptic Khabibullo Abdusamatov claims:

“Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity.”

Tim Patterson

            Likewise, Tim Patterson testified to the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development stating,

“There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years...how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?”

            It is pointed out frequently that the earth goes through cycles; it has been hotter, and it has been cooler. As is shown by Patterson, there have been periods in history where there have been high greenhouse gasses concentrations in the air while having lower temperatures. Recently, many skeptics have pointed out that the earth has not significantly risen in temperature since 2002 despite the fact that CO2 emissions have continued to increase.

            Warmers would respond that while the models do not have 100% accuracy they have been shown to be very accurate over long term patterns. Short term predictions are very difficult to accurately make because of so many unknown variables. Anomalies in the pattern have been and are to be expected. However, as we look at the long-term results that the models predicted, they match current records.

            Due to the apparent accuracy of models we currently have I believe it would be more of an assumption to believe that the correlation between carbon dioxide and global temperature is a coincidence than to believe that the discrepancies in the short-term predictions are due to natural short-term variations and anomalies that were unaccounted for. I believe that Occam’s razor would again support the warmers’ position.

CO2 Hockey Stick Graph

            The last issue I would like to examine with Occam’s razor is the issue of scientific consensus. Why do most climatologists believe in anthropogenic climate change? Is it because they do not understand? Do they purposefully tout information they believe it untrue? Or is it that it makes sense to them, and thus the majority of people believe in it? I would say the simplest, less assuming answer would be the latter. Let us assume that the scientists trained in this area of expertise are honestly working their best to further humanity.

            Occam’s razor does not necessitate truth, but it does help make decisions for individuals. It has 

helped me to accept the tenants of anthropogenic climate change as I feel that it is less assuming than climate skepticism. I do not feel that I have determined what is right or wrong, but I do feel that with the information I have I can make a decent bet.

Works Cited

"BBC News - The Arguments Made by Climate Change Sceptics." BBC News - Home. Web. 14 July 2011. .

"Changes in Arctic Land Ice and Impacts on Sea Level - Barry." NOAA Arctic Theme Page - A Comprehensive Arctic Resource. Web. 14 July 2011. .

Craven, Greg. What's the Worst That Could Happen?: a Rational Response to the Climate Change Debate. New York: Perigee, 2009. Print.

Descartes, René, Elizabeth Sanderson Haldane, David Eugene Smith, William Hale White, René Descartes, René Descartes, René Descartes, and Benedictus De Spinoza. Rules for the Direction of the Mind. Discourse on the Method. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1955. Print.

"Does CO2 Always Correlate with Temperature (and If Not, Why Not?)." Global Warming and Climate Change Skepticism Examined. Web. 15 July 2011. .

"ESA Portal - Greenhouse Effects... Also on Other Planets." ESA Communications Portal. Web. 15 July 2011. .

The Flat Earth Society. Web. 14 July 2011. .

"Global Warming." Global Warming. Web. 14 July 2011. .

Gray, Vincent. The Greenhouse Delusion: a Critique of "climate Change 2001" Brentwood: Multi-Science, 2002. Print.

Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, M. Sato, M. Imhoff, W. Lawrence, D. Easterling, T. Peterson, and T. Karl. "A Closer Look at United States and Global Surface Temperature Change." Journal of Geophysical Research 106.D20 (2001): 23947-3963. Print.

Harris, Tom. "Global Warming, Scientists, Al Gore Climate Change." Canada Free Press: Online Conservative Newspaper, News, Politics, Editorials. Web. 15 July 2011. .

Leff, Gordon. William of Ockham: the Metamorphosis of Scholastic Discourse. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1975. Print.

Media Construction of Global Warming. Ithaca, NY: Project Look Sharp, 2010. Print.

"Russian Academic Says CO2 Not to Blame for Global Warming." Russian Information Agency. Web. 14 July 2011.

"Temperature Change and Carbon Dioxide Change." National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Web. 15 July 2011. ."What's up with the Weather: the Debate: Dr. S. Fred Singer." PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. Web. 14 July 2011.

A Philosophical View of Speaker for the Dead

Introduction and Synopses

            Orson Scott Card is an author best known for his works in Science Fiction. His most recognized contributions to the Science Fiction genre are two books: Ender’s Game (1985) and its sequel Speaker for the Dead (1986), both of which won the Hugo and Nebula science fiction awards. Subsequently, he has written several sequels and prequels to these original works. The series currently has eleven books with a twelfth forthcoming. 

           Having read several of his books, primarily in relation to the Ender’s game Series. I noticed his books deeply embedded with explicit and implicit philosophical themes that range from genocide, protecting nature, to human behavior. I have decided to focus in on of Card's works and analyze the core philosophies and morals that are addressed directly and indirectly in Speaker for the Dead, Card’s second written book in the Ender’s Game Series. 

          The protagonist isAndrew Wiggin, commonly known as “Ender” or “Ender Wiggin”. The book takes place around 5270 AD, in an unknown part of the universe. A this point, humanity is continuing to expand into the universe colonizing habitable worlds.

Ender was born some 3,000 years ago on earth, before the colonization efforts had begun. Ender was recruited at the age of six to go to battle school; a military training base in outer space. In as few short years Ender, still a young child, played the leading role as a military strategist and commander in the defeat and xenocide, or extermination, of an apparent hostile alien race known by the humans as “Buggers”. Ender was viewed as a hero; a savior from the threat of the alien species.

 Shortly after the Buggers were eliminated, Ender and his sister Valentine, left the earth and the rest of humanity behind to go with the first colonization group to the Buggers home world. Ender travels at faster-than-light speeds and thus due to relativistic space travel by the time he gets to the Buggers home world all those that he knew back on earth were long dead while he had aged a relatively small amount. On this planet Ender found a message preserved for him from the Buggers. It turned out the Buggers were not the threat that everyone had assumed them to be. The Buggers had preserved an egg and psychically led Ender to it in hopes that he would take it another world and be able to perpetuate the Bugger race. 

The Bugger’s home world was not suitable to hatch the egg, so Ender once again took to the stars traveling at faster than light speeds searching for a suitable location. During this time, he wrote a book called The Hive Queen, an autobiography of the buggers' including the good the bad and the ugly.  He sent this to earth under the pseudonym “speaker for the dead” where it became classic literature. Since that time is has become a custom among some to have a “speaker” speak in behalf of the dead, telling their full story rather than the sanitized version that is so often spoken at funerals. Since the publication and acceptance of this book Speaker for the Dead, Ender became increasingly unpopular, he is viewed as the monster that had destroyed the only other sentient life that had been discovered.

Ender, now in his 30’s, identified as the planet Lusitania as the only known habitable planet for the buggers. Lusitania had already been colonized by humans for several years. However, Lusitania was already inhabited by Sentient creature called Pequeninos, commonly referred to as Piggies. As Ender, going by his given name of Andrew Wiggin, lands on the planet, he enters under the pretense of being a Speaker for the Dead. However, he secretly is there to introduce yet another sentient life form on the planet--the Buggers.
There are strong parallels to how humanity viewed the buggers 3,000 of years ago. The humans on Lusitania feared the piggies and many held animosity and even hostility towards them. While technologically the Piggies were several thousand years behind them, piggies learned quickly despite the human's best efforts to protect their technology. Further, the Piggies carry a virus that is lethal to most life including humans; which if they were to achieve space travel could effectively work as a terraforming agent for any plant they would inhabit.  To further strain the relationship, through a misunderstanding, the Piggies killed a few of the human residents on Lusitania. In response, humans on a neighboring world sent a strike force to Lusitania to eliminate all life on Lusitania including the Piggies, the humans, and the yet-undiscovered recuperating Buggers.

This xenocidal act was philosophically justified by giving ultimate value to human benefit. Any non-human was ranked lower on the importance hierarch, which degrades the value of their ambitions, pleasures, pains, and thoughts. Non-humans were place on the Hierarchy of Foreignness, which essesnsially is a heuristic that can be used to justify ultimate self-interest, ethnocentrism, and non-human manipulation for human benefit. On his website Orson Scott Card discusses different classifications on the Hierarchy of Foreignness:

By definition a varelse is someone so alien and dangerous that you can't know them and can't reach an understanding with them; but that inability to know them makes it quite possible that they are potentially raman [on the same level as human] after all, but you have no way of discovering it… Once having admitted the possibility that, to defend your own community, you might have to obliterate another, do you then find yourself leaping to the conclusion that any degree of strangeness is enough to make aliens worthy of treatment as varelse?

The Piggies are seen as less-than-human and feared because of the sentience they have and the potential competition for resources, planets, and dominance. The humans thus feel justified in eliminating all the Piggies in an effort to make human life most pleasurable at the sacrifice of other “less valuable” life. This justification seeks to employ a method of Utilitarianism; that the most happiness in the long run would come from the elimination of the Piggies and all those on Lusitania. While this is a version of Utilitarianism,  it does not harmonize with classical views of Utilitarianism, as constructed by Jeremy Bentham or John Mill.

Jeremy Bentham’s view of Utilitarianism was revolutionary to philosophy. Bentham asserted life should not be measured by how well one reasons, but rather their ability to suffer or feel pleasure. While humans may be able to reason better than piggies or non-humans, that does not mean human's are more acutely aware of pain or pleasure. As Bentham explained in his book, Introduction to the Principle of Moral and Legislation:

The day has been, I am sad to say in many places it is not yet past, in which the greater part of the species, under the denomination of slaves, have been treated by the law exactly upon the same footing, as, in England for example, the inferior races of animals are still… The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognised that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog, is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?

            In the book Speaker for the Dead, humanity has not progressed as Bentham has seen or hoped for. Rather, humanity had digressed to inflicting pain on sentient being simply because they view them less-than-human whose pleasure or pain is less valuable than humans. They have reasoned and found it best to destroy an entire species for human primacy.

            Similarly, John Mill defended animal rights proclaiming:

It is "to most persons" in the Slave States of America not a tolerable doctrine that we may sacrifice any portion of the happiness of white men for the sake of a greater amount of happiness to black men. It would have been intolerable five centuries ago "to most persons" among the feudal nobility, to hear it asserted that the greatest pleasure or pain of a hundred serfs ought not to give way to the smallest of a nobleman… Nothing is more natural to human beings, nor, up to a certain point in cultivation, more universal, than to estimate the pleasures and pains of others as deserving of regard exactly in proportion to their likeness to ourselves. These superstitions of selfishness had the characteristics by which Dr. Whewell recognizes his moral rules; and his opinion on the rights of animals shows that in this case at least he is consistent. We are perfectly willing to stake the whole question on this one issue. Granted that any practice causes more pain to animals than it gives pleasure to man; is that practice moral or immoral? And if, exactly in proportion as human beings raise their heads out of the slough of selfishness, they do not with one voice answer "immoral," let the morality of the principle of utility be for ever condemned.

           Jeremy Bentham developed the felicific calculus to be able to calculate how to achieve the most pleasure and least pleasure for all involved.  A leading argument against equality asserts there is significant uncertainty in the levels of pain or pleasure a non-human experiences. However, recent philosophy and science has shown that in most cases the majority of these assertions against equality are false. Peter Singer, an Australian philosopher and a prevalent voice on the animal rights issues, said the following in regards to sensational equality of animals and humans:

[E]very particle of factual evidence supports the contention that the higher mammalian vertebrates experience pain sensations at least as acute as our own. To say that they feel less because they are lower animals is an absurdity; it can easily be shown that many of their senses are far more acute than ours.

            As we examine Speaker for the Dead we see that it does not discusses animals with lower level reasoning and unintelligible communication but rather a highly rational species that learns, adapts, communicates and can express themselves equally as capable as humans.  The human's responses demonstrates a degradation of human philosophy reverting to the shared foundations to racism and illogical bias.

            One of Card’s predominate themes in this book is equality, honestly, and fairness; we need to question all out beliefs in honest light and see the world as it really is. As it says in Speaker for the Dead describing the philosophy of a speaker for the dead:

No human being, when you understand his desires, is worthless. No one's life is nothing. Even the most evil of men and women, if you understand their hearts, had some generous act that redeems them, at least a little, from their sins.

For Card, a speaker for the dead is the ideal philosopher. A speaker for the dead is impartial, deals unbiasedly with the facts, and reveals the person in all honesty. They holding everyone equal as individuals and everyone with inherent worth.

Conclusion

This is a theme in many of his books and a primary theme of this one.  Who are we to judge if a species, if a person, or if an animal feels any differently about painful experiences, or joyful experiences than ourselves? We have been egocentric as a species, we prone to assume that we are the most important.  Egocentrism and selfishness is biologically bound to us individually, societally, and interspecifically. No one can feel the pain of others, and thus we deem that it worse for us to feel pain than for others. However, for the best society for everyone , for the greatest happiness for all, we need to follow the golden rule, perhaps best known from Jesus Christ when he said “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.”

Works Cited

Bentham, Jeremy, and Laurence J. Lafleur. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation ;.New York: Hafner Pub., 1948. Print.

Card, Orson Scott. Speaker for the Dead. New York, NY: TOR, 1986. Print.

Card, Orson Scott. "Student Research Area - OSC Answers Questions." Hatrack River - The Official Web Site of Orson Scott Card. Web. 18 July 2010. .

King James Bible. [Cambridge, England]: Chadwyck-Healey, 1996. Print.

Mill, John Stuart. Dr. Whewell on Moral Philosophy. [Charlottesville, VA]: InteLex, 200. Print.

Rollin, Bernard E. The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain, and Science. Oxford: . Oxford UP, 1989. Print.

Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. New York, NY: New York Review of, 1990. Print.

Utilitarianism and Gun Control

Utilitarianism is the belief that morals should be governed in quantitative happiness; that one’s actions should be governed by asking yourself the question “What will bring the greatest amount of happiness to greatest amount of people”.  It makes morals a mathematical formula rather than a subjective religious or belief system.

When talking about utilitarianism, there are two names which are attributed to its' rise: Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832)(above on the right) and John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873)(above on the left), both British philosophers. Bentham in particular was a staunch believer in quantifiable ethics wherein happiness is paramount. It is the foundation of the belief that the good of the community is simply the sum of the pleasures of the individuals' that comprise it.

Bentham identifies seven categories of calculation when considering a choice: Intensity, Duration, Certainty, Propinquity, Fecundity, Purity, and Extent. To quantify happiness we can divide a a total of 10 points between dichotomous options. Each point represents a degree of happiness relative to the other option(s).

To demonstrate and define each of these categories I will take a current event and go through these categories to see what ethical action would be correct in the eyes of these utilitarian’s. The issue that I will be discussing is whether or not guns should be more difficult to purchase. Should we increase the training expectations and prerequisites of buying a gun? Let us look at the criteria and the point breakdown.

Intensity

            Intensity can be simply defined as pleasure, generally in a very sensual immediate way. To determine this, you can ask “how strong is the pleasure?”

In regards to gun control, many people use guns as a form of recreation and receive pleasure from using them. Guns also gives you a feeling of independence with the ability to defend yourself if needs be. For a small population, guns also increase access to rare food through hunting.Increasing gun control would lower the percent of people that would have this pleasure while not using them would not net you any additional pleasure at all. 

In opposition, shooting or owning guns does not give everyone pleasure and for some may puts added weight on their lives which could diminish potential future pleasure. Owning a gun has been correlated with increased risk of violent death (not necessarily caused). Owning guns also increases the change for firearm accidents. Also, while much debate has centered around gun control and gun crime rates, by comparing 1st world countries, there is a correlation between gun ownership and crime. Theoretically effective gun control should decrease crime.  Also there would be negative pleasure for people if you were to be shot by a gun, if your animals were killed, if the gun was used to take away pleasure from other people. Guns have been a chief tool of pain in the 20^th and 21^st centuries. 

Keeping in mind we are looking at intensity, the potential happiness gained by owning a gun seems much lower than the potential decrease in happiness from owning guns (e.g. getting shot, higher crime). This category would most likely favor increasing gun control as there is more potential pain than there is pleasure to be gained.  Let us make the ratio 7/3 for gun control.

	Further Restrict Gun Control	No Further Gun Control
Intensity	7	3

Duration

            Duration can be defined as the length of the pleasure. So we ask ourselves, “how long will those pleasures last?”

            How long would the pleasure last of gaining more gun control than to not? The potential gain of further gun control could include peace of mind and security knowing that guns were under heavier moderation and potential depravities were less likely to occur, this would last indefinitely. It would also arguably firearm abuse and displeasure caused by them. Possibly the greatest factor is the displeasure that could be averted by the harms created by misappropriate use of firearms. The potential duration of such unhappiness is very lasting. 

          In opposition there is momentary pleasure revived from recreational gunmanship, there is also a long lasting potential safety and security of mind that owner’s, if restricted the number of participants would be reduced. All in all there is more happiness to be found, or unhappiness averted, in restricting gun control than in keeping it as it is. Let us make the ratio 8/2 in favor of gun control.

	Further Restrict Gun Control	No Further Gun Control
Intensity	7	3
Duration	8	2

Certainty

            Certainty can be defined by the question: how likely is it that the act will bring about the anticipated pleasure?

            This is a big issue for the anti-gun control argument as although antidotal evidence is available and cited in favor of gun control the certainty that this will happen is not very strong, furthermore it is argued that even if guns were restricted the depravities would still occur through different mediums, thus making gun control somewhat pointless. On the same hand there is great certainty that recreational gunmanship for everyone gives pleasure every time and that the peace of mind knowing you are have the means to defend yourself is a certain thing.

            On the pro-gun control side argument the point is that you can still have guns, you just must “jump through some extra hoops”, and this with certainty will give us all a greater peace of mind as we know that many of those that would abuse guns are deterred by this process.

            All in all we can say that there is more certain pleasure in gun control than the certainty of displeasure. Let us make the ratio 3/7 for certainty against further gun control.

	Further Restrict Gun Control	No Further Gun Control
Intensity	7	3
Duration	8	2
Certainty	3	7

Propinquity

            Propinquity is a measure of how soon the pleasure can be enjoyed, the further away the pleasure the less power it has.

            As gun control is based largely on aversion of potential future unhappiness whereas those not wishing to have further gun control are enjoying their benefit now, I believe this category would be in favor of those not in favor of further gun control. They are currently enjoying their happiness while those in favor of gun control would gain only incremental happiness as gun control was eventually legislated and enforced. Let us make the ratio for this category 2/8 in against further gun control.

	Further Restrict Gun Control	No Further Gun Control
Intensity	7	3
Duration	8	2
Certainty	3	7
Propinquity	2	8

Fecundity

            Fecundity can be defined by the likelihood that the pleasures or pains that it causes will be followed by similar pleasures or pains. If the chain effects of the action will likely be good than this that is positive for fecundity, where if they are negative than it’s negative.

            If this was law was passed it could potentially lead to a less violent society, it could lead to further weapon restriction legislation possibly leading to the abolition of deadly weapons in society, thus reducing death, both intentional and accidental. It would make it easier to track gun crimes, and thus better deter such crimes, particularly passion crimes. It could lead to a more peaceful society with less mortal confrontations.

            Another possibility is that this would allow criminals and those with ill intent to better prey on the people causing for an increase in predatorily crimes such as robbery, rape, or murder.

            For the greater amount of people there would be more potential fecundity happiness if gun control was heightened. Let us make the ratio for fecundity 8/2 in favor of gun control.  

	Further Restrict Gun Control	No Further Gun Control
Intensity	7	3
Duration	8	2
Certainty	3	7
Propinquity	2	8
Fecundity	9	2

Purity

            Purity is a factor for the probability that the event will not be accompanied by unhappiness. An act that causes only pleasure is far better than one that causes some happiness mixed with pain. How pure is the emotion?

            The probability that gun control will bring you pure happiness is low; there will likely be those incidents and people that will suffer because of the choice. The same is true about the antithesis.

 I would postulate that the better happiness mix would exist in the pro-gun control emotions. Let us make the ratio 6/5 in favor of gun control.

	Further Restrict Gun Control	No Further Gun Control
Intensity	7	3
Duration	8	2
Certainty	3	7
Propinquity	2	8
Fecundity	9	2
Purity	6	5

Extent

            The question here is “how many people will it affect?” where in more is better.

            For pro-gun control this is a very good category as the choice to increase gun control is aimed to better society as a whole. If further gun control was enforced there would be very few people that it would immediately affect negatively and only a few in the future. Increasing gun control would affect everyone in society in a positive way immediately as it makes gun misuse less probable. Let us make the ratio 8/2 in favor of gun control.

Conclusion

	Further Restrict Gun Control	No Further Gun Control
Intensity	7	3
Duration	8	2
Certainty	3	7
Propinquity	2	8
Fecundity	9	2
Purity	6	5
Extent	8	2
TOTAL	43	27

          

           According to these thoughts about the gun control debate I believe the utilitarian morality would support a move towards further gun control.

            In conclusion I wish to share a personal story.  While I was living in Las Vegas I was in the house of a young man in his 20’s.  He told me that he had recently gone to a pawn shop that sold guns. He desired to buy a gun so the clerk give him some paperwork to fill out. When filing to buy a firearm in Nevada, it is required to ask if the person is a registered felon, if they are schizophrenic or suffer from mental conditions, if they have a violent history, and other such question. My friend instead of checking the ‘no’ boxes accidently checked all the ‘yes’ boxes.  They did not check his application and sold him the firearm on the spot.  Two weeks later they called him and asked him to return the gun. Although this is antidotal, it serves as an indication of how gun control legislation and mindset needs to be reformed in the United States.