The 'Reynolds' Ten Point Test.

The Reynolds defence, is a ten point guideline set out by judge Lord Nichols during a court case in which Albert Reynolds, former Prime Minister of Ireland, accused the Times newspaper of libel.

Lord Nichols stated that courts should apply the following ten point test, to see if a press story passes the 'right to know test'.

This is now used as a vital tool for journalists to avoid legal action being taken against them.

1. The seriousness of the allegation
2. The nature of the subject matter, and whether or not it is in the public interest
3. The source of the information
4. The status of the information
5. The steps taken to verify this information
6. The urgency of the matter
7. Whether a comment was sought from the person being defamed
8. Whether or not the article gives an idea of the person being defamed's side of the story
9. The tone of the article
10. The circumstances and the timing of the publication.

Adam Smith and Jonathan Swift

In what had to be my favourite seminar of the year, we discussed the economics of Adam Smith, but more importantly: CANNIBALISM, in the form of Dr Jonathan Swift's ' A Modest Proposal for preventing the children of poor people in Ireland, from being a burden on their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the publick.' I will split this Blog into two sections: Economics and CANNIBALISM.

Economics

At the time that Adam Smith was writing (1776), the term economics was not really in use. He would have been seen as more of a social philosopher. Many may see him as the founder of economics as we know it today. He believed in a 'Laizze Faire' economy. Laizze faire is French for 'let do' and it refers to a lack of government interference in trade, allowing a free market, and only taxing fairly and when strictly necessary. The term capitalism was not in use at this time, although what Smith was referring to was a sense of capitalism it was referred to as a 'system of perfect liberty'.

Before Smith came along, people generally believed in a system of mercantilism, the idea that it is Gods will that one country may be richer than another. this was a medieval way of thinking and Smith wanted to modernise this. His writing was clear and concise, much like that of his friend John Locke and other enlightenment writers. His essays were not necessarily aimed specialists in the way that I find modern economics is. He mentions that the idea of self interest is not a bad thing. With people working to look after their own finances and their own land, they would surely be better off, this would also benefit society as a whole. We discussed the idea that with free, successful worldwide trade, war would almost certainly be averted.

Smith mentions the importance of the relationship between the state and the 'town'. He sees that means of production should be set up in towns, the towns then produce things, which both the town and the state can profit from. He's promoting the idea of a production line, which in turn, introduces luxuries into towns, benefiting the economy further.

A key part of his economics is the idea of the 'hidden hand of the market'. This is a metaphysical idea suggesting that the market has the ability to change and correct itself and sort people into the fields of work that they are good at. He notes that maximum hours, for the minimum wage will not benefit anybody, and would surely see that slavery is on the whole inefficient.

CANNIBALISM!

A Modest Proposal

Jonathan Swift was an Irish, politically active writer, writing before Adam Smith. 'A Modest Proposal' was published in 1729, at a time of famine and depression in Ireland. His basic ideas are as follows:

• There are too many people in Ireland
• There is not enough food in Ireland for all of these people, many people have taken to begging on the streets
• Due to the large catholic population in Ireland, there are lots of children.
• Parents who are unable to support their children should therefore, raise their children for one year, and them sell them as livestock, to wealthy landowners, who can use the meat for a high class banquet, or several family meals.

Swift stated that the advantages that this would bring to Ireland would include:

• A reduction in the population
• An improvement to the economy, as poor people would be providing 'goods' and being paid well for them.
• It would 'greatly lessen the number of papists', who he believes are 'the principal breeders of the nation as well as our greatest enemies'
• 'A new dish introduced to the tables of all gentlemen of fortune in the kingdom'
• This new food would bring extra custom to 'Taverns'
• An reduction in the amount of domestic abuse, due to Husbands becoming 'as fond of their wives during pregnancy, as they are now of their mares in foal, their cows in calf, or their sow when they are ready to farrow.'

Why didn't I think of this fantastic idea?

Unfortunately for the fortunes of Ireland, Swift was not being entirely serious. He was using irony to ridicule the governments poor handling of the problems that Ireland was facing, as well as writers (much like Adam Smith) who used hard economic, empirical reasoning to try and solve social problems. He is also making a mockery of the obvious exploitation that the poor were facing at the hands of the wealthy, and commenting on the complete mess that Ireland was in.

After reading the piece, It is clear that even the title is sarcastic, 'A Modest Proposal'. Introducing the idea of cannibalism seems extreme, but it is as though he is commenting that only in Ireland, could society actually be improved with cannibalism. He also uses it as an incentive for people to stop domestic violence, although it was far more common in the 1700s than it is today, for a man to love his livestock more than he does his wife gives us a pretty bleak picture of what Ireland was like at the time. He states at one point that he believes people would be better dead than in their current position, I don't think there is anything ironic about what he is saying here, he is just explaining the extremity of the situation.

Swift seems to be opposing utilitarianism, the idea that we should behave in a way that promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number, this is something that Adam Smith would promote. Although Smith wrote after Swift it seems as though it is this sort of empirical writing that Swift is attacking. There had been many pamphlets similar to Swifts, attempting to solve Irelands problems, using logical, empirical, scientific ideas. Swift would argue that that these logical ideas have no place in relation to human concern, and he shows this perfectly with his absurd proposal.

David Hume.

David Hume (1711-1776) was a Scottish empiricist, he is regarded alongside John Locke as a key philosopher in empirical thinking. I have been looking into his most noteable essay, 'An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding' where he outlines his empirical philosophical ideas with regards to human thinking and where our ideas come from.

He begins by seperating ideas and impression. He believes that impressions come first, these are supposedly strong and vivid and come directly from sense experience, and these consist of things such as pain, love happiness and sadness. Ideas, he says follow on from and are made up from our impressions, complex ideas are made up from bundles of simple ideas. For example, as far as I am aware, i have never seen a gold mountain; however I have seen gold, and I have seen a mountain. I can put these two simple impressions together to create the complex idea of a gold mountain. This is easily criticised as the terms he uses seem somewhat vague and sketchy.

He later discusses his ideas about causation, which I find fascinating, but hard to realistically apply to real life. He states that necessity exists in the mind, not in objects, meaning that in reality nothing is necessary. A famous example is of the sun rising: just because it rose today, and yesterday, and every day in my experience, that is not to say it will tomorrow. When the white ball hits the red ball in a game of billiards, the red ball moves, Hume would say that this was not necessarily caused by the white ball. To live thinking like this would surely drive anyone insane, but this understandably relates to journalism. Everything must be done to ensure that what you are saying is truthful. Just because your trustworthy friend, or Wikipedia, or both claim something to be true, this does not make it true, we still need to find out with empirical certainty that something is true.

An idea that made me sympathise with Hume was his assertion that concepts such as heat and pain are only formed in word, or in our minds. To an extent this seems to make sense, as it is heard of for people to undergo hypnotism instead of anaesthetic before painful operations. This is similar to the way that people don't notice that they have suffered an injury, until they see physical damage, and then begin to feel the pain.

'Hume’s fork' is used, in a similar way to Ayers verification principle, to seperate relevant ideas from nonsense. One side of the fork contains relations of ideas, for example, a bachelor is an unmarried man. These can be proved with certainty. These are analytic, necessary knowable and apriori but tell us nothing new about the world. They are tautologies. On the other side of the fork sit 'matters of fact'. These are things that can be proved using our senses, for example, the bus is red, or it is raining outside. These are synthetic, contingent, aposteriori. Immanuel Kant would argue that synthetic apriori knowledge would give us true knowledge of the world, he believes the closest we have to this is intuition. The problem with Hume’s fork, much like the verification principle, is that it is neither a relation of ideas or a matter of fact, so it fails its own test.

I like to think that the basic idea that Hume is trying to assert, is that we should be slightly sceptical, and that there is no such thing as a rational belief. I think that he wanted us to see that certainty and maths are good, and gossip, small talk and assumptions are bad. I like to think that David Hume didn't walk around constantly amazed that he still existed, and that he didn't judge the man who thinks that he is a poached egg in the same way as people who think that they are human. He either exaggerates his point to make it clear and understandable, or he genuinely did lead a very strange and confusing lifestyle.