#NextBond

Posted in Bayesian Reasoning, Culture | Leave a comment

Bill Gates’s Summer Syllabus

Posted in Culture | Leave a comment

Is there such a thing as an immoral promise?

Or is an immoral or wicked promise not a real “promise” qua promise at all? In either case, we need to have some reliable method of determining right from wrong, yet most (if not all) theories of promissory obligation fail to distinguish between morally ‘good’ and morally ‘bad’ promises in any systematic manner. Even consequentialist theories are deficient in this regard, since utilitarians are no better at predicting the probabilistic consequences of promise-keeping or promise-breaking than the rest of us are. (Update: we have posted a revised draft of our most recent paper Immoral Promises on SSRN. Our paper was previously titled “illegal promises,” but we have decided (for now) to focus on promises that are malum in se or inherently wrong or wicked.)

Posted in Ethics, Law, Paradoxes, Philosophy | Leave a comment

5-minute flick

Most movies nowadays are just way too long. (Does Captain America, for example, really need to be 2 hours and 27 minutes long?) Here, by contrast, is a wonderful five-minute film (via digg). Tell us what you think …

Posted in Art, Culture | Leave a comment

Imports map

https://i0.wp.com/i.imgur.com/myEkyM1.png

This map (via reddit; h/t Cliff Pickover) shows the origin of each country’s leading import source, or from where each country imports the most.

Posted in Economics, Maps | Leave a comment

Next Lecture: Contracts & Fraud

Part 1 — Contracts (Lessons 3 & 4)

“The Social Network” (the film version of our assigned book “Accidental Billionaires”) depicts an ill-fated promise. After the Winklevoss twins introduce themselves to fellow classmate Mark Zuckerberg, they pitch him their idea for a social network website: the Harvard Connection. In the movie version of these events, Mark tells them “I’m in” without hesitation, and then, in the very next scene(!), we see Mark and his best friend Eduardo Saverin negotiate an informal partnership agreement with the purpose of launching a new rival website (which Mark would eventually christen “thefacebook”). Assuming the veracity of the movie version of these critical events, here is the key question for today’s class: are either of these oral agreements legally binding?

Part 2 — Fraud (Lesson 5)

“Fifty-two emails between Mark, the Winklevosses, and Divya, a half-dozen phone calls—and always, the kid had seemed as thrilled and excited about the project as he had been during that first dinner meeting.”–Ben Mezrich, The Accidental Billionaires, Ch. 12.

In the second half of our next lecture, we are going to re-enact a pre-trial “motion hearing” in the real-life law case of ConnectU versus Facebook (Case No. 04-11923), so we will need several student volunteers for this activity: two co-counsel to represent the Plaintiff (ConnectU, the firm owned by the Winklevoss twins), and two co-counsel who will represent the Defendant (Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg’s firm). In brief, the attorneys for Facebook will present at least two reasons why the Court should dismiss the Plaintiff’s “fraudulent misrepresentation” claim from the Complaint. For their part, the attorneys for ConnectU will provide at least two reasons why the Court should not dismiss the fraud claim. Generally speaking, fraud occurs when one party intentionally deceives another party. So, here is the main question we will discuss in class: even if the informal agreement between Zuckerberg and the Winklevoss twins was not a legally-binding contract, did Zuckerberg commit fraud by allegedly pretending to work on the Harvard Connection website when, in fact, he was really working on his own website?

“The Social Network”

Postscript: In preparation for our next class, we have asked our students to write up a sample contract or “agreement in principle” between Mark Zuckerberg and the Winklevoss twins before coming to class. Our goal in creating this assignment is to put our students in the same position that Mark Zuckerberg, Eduardo Saverin, and the Winklevoss twins found themselves in the fall of 2003.

Posted in Ethics, Law | Leave a comment

Indeterminate chess rules

In the course of writing up our paper on “immoral promises,” we searched for and read the essay “Wicked Promises” by J.E.J. Altham, and in the process of obtaining Altham’s essay, we stumbled upon a short paper by Ian Hacking titled “Rules, scepticism, proof, Wittgenstein.” (Both essays appear in the book Exercises in Analysis, edited by Prof. Hacking. By the way, neither essay is available online. We actually had to go to a library and hunt for a physical copy of this obscure book!) Professor Hacking discusses the problem of indeterminate rules in his essay, a problem that is central to our field (law). To illustrate this problem, Hacking presents the following example of an indeterminate rule from the world of chess–a game may be drawn if the same position on the board occurs thrice–and then asks, what happens if the same position occurs thrice, but with black’s rooks interchanged? In the words of Hacking, two interpretations are possible: “One party says that the game is not drawn, because two positions in the course of the game are identical only if numerically identical pieces are on the same squares. *** The other party says that the game is drawn, because chess is a matter of structure on the board, not the history of the game. One rook is as good as another.” So, how should we decide which interpretation is the correct one?

Glinski’s hexagonal chess.

Posted in Games, Paradoxes, Philosophy, Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Is an immoral promise a paradox or a contradiction?

Have you ever made an “immoral promise,” i.e. have you ever promised to do something wrongful, like tell a lie or steal? (By the way, how does one decide when something is wrongful?) Is such a promise even logically possible; specifically, is an immoral promise a paradox or a contradiction? Here is an excerpt from our work in progress “Immoral Promises“:

… when the promisor makes an immoral promise, is the promisor under a moral obligation to keep his word? From a logical perspective, there are four possibilities: I. No: no promises are morally binding. II. No: only moral promises are morally binding. III. Yes: all promises, even illegal ones, are morally binding. IV. Yes: only illegal/immoral promises are morally binding.

We can safely ignore option IV, since it is not only paradoxical but also nonsensical. This leaves us options I, II, and III for consideration. Of these remaining logical possibilities, option II appears to be the one that is most likely to be true, but is it? For this option to be true we must have some reliable method of distinguishing between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ promises, moral and immoral ones.

Posted in Ethics, Paradoxes, Philosophy, Questions Rarely Asked | 2 Comments

Metamorphosis

In honor of Cuban Independence Day (20 de mayo).

Posted in Art, Culture | Leave a comment

The Sith buy out the Jedi

In the fictional world of Star Wars, the Jedi are the good guys; the Sith, the bad guys. The evil Sith use the dark side of the Force to destroy the Jedi Order and to rule the galaxy for themselves. In the academic publishing world, the professors who used to run the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), an open-access repository of research papers, are the Jedi, while the suits that run Elsevier, the world’s largest publisher of academic journals, are the Sith. Like the Mafia of lore, who would sell “protection” to small business owners, Elsevier and other academic publishers make money by charging universities hefty fees for access to the research that the universities themselves produce! Now, Elsevier has announced that it is buying the SSRN platform. In other words, the Jedi have just sold out to the Sith … Does this mean that Elsevier is now moving towards an open-access model, or does this mean that we need to create a new open-access platform for social science research, like RePEc in economics or PhilPapers in philosophy?

Posted in Academia, Current Affairs | Leave a comment