Monday, September 1, 2014

Laboring Over the Argument of Whether We Need Right-to-Work Laws

In honor of Labor Day, I figured that some contemplation on the job market would be in order. For a recession that officially ended nearly five years ago, it's amazing how sluggish job growth has been. It would be great if they could implement some policies that actually work so we can get our economy back on track. A few months back, the good people over at the American Enterprise Institute came up with a few policy alternatives that would do the trick. One such policy alternative was to get more states to accept right-to-work laws. In spite of its name, a right-to-work law (or RTW for short) does not guarantee every citizen employment. The function of such a statute is to prohibit mandatory union membership and dues as a prerequisite to enter into a given profession. This, according to proponents, secures the rights of employees to choose whether or not they would like to join a union. For the longest time, I thought that RTW was a good way to stop unions from forcing employees to monetarily support the Democratic Party. I was then introduced to viewing the right-to-work law in a different light: a right-to-work law essentially acts as a government regulation of contract agreements telling employers how to run business. I'm no fan of unions abusing their power, and I am certainly open to an alternative policy. As of now, there are 24 states that have implemented right-to-work laws, and most people support it. However, is the implementation of a right-to-work law the way to go?

From a deontological standpoint, I have to wonder whether further government intervention to try to resolve the issues of the initial government intervention of passing restrictive labors laws back in the New Deal era is a wise decision here. Union security agreements are not as simple as "no union association" or "mandatory collective bargaining"; there are gradations. Take a "fair share provision" as an example, which don't mandate union membership but require a "fair share fee" to cover collective bargaining costs (This might sound fair, but for those who are worried that this would fund union political activities, let's remember that money is a fungible resource). Whether you have mandatory collective bargaining or RTW, they are both examples of the government interfering in the freedom of contract because they limit the types of contracts in which the parties may enter. Since I am a fan of economic freedom, I think that eliminating exclusive representation (i.e., monopoly unionism) without passing RTW laws is the best route.

As a consequentialist libertarian and a pragmatist, I have to realize that the American political establishment is not ready for a completely liberalized freedom of contract. As such, I have to ask whether RTW laws are preferable to the status quo of exclusive representation. The last thing we need is some form of public policy paralysis simply because we don't get everything we want. The extent to which RTW laws improve economic growth can be difficult to determine because states with RTW tend to have stronger pro-business laws in effect, thereby making the effects of RTW more difficult to isolate. Even so, some have given it a go.

One of the most recent reports on the subject was written by the Heritage Foundation (Sherk and Kloster, 2014), in which they found that RTW laws reduce union aggressiveness while promoting economic growth. Competitive Enterprise Institute (Vedder and Rose, 2014) also conducted a recent study. What CEI found was that a) people are migrating from non-RTW states to RTW-states, and b) economic growth is greater in RTW states than non-RTW states. The Mackinac Institute had similar findings (Hicks and LaFaive, 2013). In all fairness, I might as well cite a think-tank that begs to differ. The Economic Policy Institute, which is unabashedly pro-union, conducted studies that concluded that RTW has no positive economic effects and only works to diminish the wages of union workers (Lafer, 2011; Gould and Shierholz, 2011). The EPI's findings make sense when one considers the Left's theory that unionism makes for a strong worker class. I might have to favor the findings of the Congressional Research Services (Colins, 2012). What did the CRS find? Although wages were lower in RTW states, historical research shows that very little actually has to do with RTW laws (CRS, p. 12). Although aggregate employment has modestly increased, it is unclear if that is attributable to RTW laws or not (p. 11). If we're looking at RTW laws from their effects, the only thing we can conclude is that the research on RTW is inconclusive.

Opting for a completely liberalized freedom of contract is too much to request in a country whose unions have a good amount of power and political clout, which is why, at least for now, I would take that option off the table. If I had to choose between forced unionism and RTW laws, I would have to opt for RTW laws. Yes, it's true that the economic effects are more ambiguous. However, RTW laws have weakened the monopolistic grasp of unions, although globalization and the decline of the manufacturing sector also contributed to the decline of unions (Vedder et al., 2012). I would posit that union membership has been on the decline in the private sector because they do not provide members with an incentive to voluntarily join or remain members. It's why unions need to change their way of business if they want to survive in this century. Without going too much off-topic, what I would like to reluctantly conclude with is that although RTW laws are far from ideal, they are second-best, Pareto-optimal laws.

Friday, August 29, 2014

Parsha Shoftim: "Faith in G-d" Is Not Supposed to Translate Into Passivity or Complacency

Just have faith in G-d. G-d knows what's best for you. G-d wouldn't give you a test you couldn't handle. This is G-d's will. There are many Christians, and even some Jews, who fall for this paradigm. When something bad happens, G-d is testing you and you just have to "keep the faith." I find this annoying for enough reasons, some of which I will elucidate upon in this blog entry. For those who hold this theological view, we come across what can arguably be a prooftext in this week's Torah portion:

תמים תהיה עם הי אלהיך.
You shall be wholehearted [perfect in faith] with G-d. -Deuteronomy 18:13

The word תמים can be tricky to translate. It can mean wholehearted, blameless, or perfect. It can even mean "simple." Since it is not clear, let's look at some rabbinic commentary to clear up the context of the verse. According to Rashi, this means that you should follow G-d with complete trust, without feeling a need to know what will happen. Sforno and Nachmanides follow suit by saying that Israel should have complete faith in G-d, and given the previous verse, relying on soothsayers and sorcery is subsequently idiotic (Deuteronomy 18:12). Here it is: Deuteronomy 18:13, the supposed license to passively accept what happens around us, good or bad, as G-d's will.

Let's not even get into the notion that the idea of passivity and submission does not fit within the greater context of Judaism. Take a look at the beginning of this week's Torah portion at Deuteronomy 16:18. There is a reason why the Torah portion is called Shoftim. We have judges to make rulings. We are told the ever-famous צדק צדק תרדף, or "Justice, justice you shall pursue" (ibid., 16:20). We are not meant to sit back and accept what happens to us. Otherwise, what would be the point of having humanly courts to adjudicate wrongs committed? As the prophet Isaiah said (1:17), "Learn to do good, seek justice, aid the oppressed. Uphold the rights of the orphan, defend the cause of the widow." As R. Abraham Joshua Heschel points out, צדק צדק תרדף means that we must actively pursuit justice, and we need to do so by just means (Simcha Bunem) because the ends don't justify the means.

Judaism is not the opiate of the masses. We are meant to be agents of justice in this world. If the Talmud (Moed Katan 29a) is correct in saying that "the righteous have no rest, neither in this world nor the next," then what does it mean to be תמים? What Rashi is saying in his commentary on Deuteronomy 18:13 is to accept the present as it is. The juxtaposition with the verses about soothsaying, sorcery, and prognosticating makes much more sense now. Why do people feel the need to go to a psychic or a soothsayer? Answer: they are anxious about the uncertainty that the future begins. These supposedly psychic individuals bring false hope into peoples' lives by thinking these individuals have some divinity or clairvoyance to accurately predict the future. Neither the commentary nor the verse says that you have to like everything that happens to you or that it's ideal. I don't think Abraham was completely okay with having to leave the homeland he knew his entire life, nor was he too thrilled about having to sacrifice his son. In our own time, we don't even have to happily accept our travails or rough patches. We are meant to function in spite of the uncertainties that are bound to exist.

This is what is meant to be תמים. Faith is not blind acceptance, but rather the ability to develop a sense of equanimity. This does not mean that we aren't going to have our off-days or have emotional angst (quite the opposite, actually). This doesn't mean we have to like everything that happens. This doesn't mean we should stop actively pursuing a better future or stop caring. It means that we develop a certain internal calm amidst the craziness of life. If we are to be whole, it means that we accept what is going around us and emotionally making the best of it. Looking at ourselves and being wholehearted, it also means to stand before G-d with both your faults and virtues because we have to realize that no one is perfect. Ultimately, this doesn't mean that we shouldn't think about the future, but rather that we should do it with the calmness of knowing who we are and our current situation. By working towards that equanimity can we develop a true sense of wholeheartedness with G-d.

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

How Badly Does Wind Power Blow, and Should the Government Subsidize It?

A few days ago, the Department of Energy praised wind power in a couple of recently released reports. The Department of Energy (DoE) not only found that wind power meets 4.5 percent of the electricity demands in this country, but that wind energy prices are at an all-time low. Considering that wind power is a clean fuel source, we should be celebrating the DoE findings. Not only that, but it should give us reason to renew the production tax credit (PTC) used to subsidize the wind power industry, although the IRS loosened the deadline by saying that anyone who incurred at least five percent of construction costs by the end of last year can still qualify for the PTC. I have to wonder whether the DoE's findings are noteworthy or if it is just a bunch of hot air.

The question of whether we should subsidize wind power is important because we are reaching a point where we need to invest in alternative energy sources. Oil and coal are non-renewable, high-polluting energy sources that will eventually run out. Natural gas is great, but will only be a medium-term solution. Increased nuclear power production is stifled by political infeasibility. Since something like wind power won't cause a Chernobyl, wind power causes less fear-mongering than nuclear power. Wind power seems like a viable alternative, but I have to wonder if it would work on a larger scale.

In order to fully understand wind power, we need to understand its disadvantages as much as its advantages, and that's without getting into negligible disadvantages such as noise disturbances, wildlife disruption, or whether windmills are eyesores. While wind power does not require any fuel costs, it is still very much a capital-intensive endeavor. As the DoE points out, wind power still needs to be able to compete with conventional energy sources on a cost basis. Since wind power costs 70-140 percent more than oil, coal, natural gas, or nuclear power, it makes me wonder just how much more expensive wind power would be if the government did not subsidize wind power. Even the Left-leaning Warren Buffett admitted a few months ago that wind power doesn't make sense without the PTC. Energy subsidies, and subsidies in general, are economically problematic. How much is due to the fact that the customer legitimately values wind power, and how much is due to the economic distortions of the PTC? We also have to realize that artificially decreasing prices in the short-run doesn't do anyone favors because the expected rate of return decreases, which will end up driving prices in the long-run (Lesser, 2013).

As the Cato Institute shows (ibid) shows, wind-generated electricity was least available when its demand was at its highest. Wind power is an intermittent, unpredictable power source. When considering the subsidy on a per-kilowatt hour basis, wind power gets a lot more money than coal or oil. Looking at the EIA's government projections for energy consumption, the combined percentage for renewable energy is less than 10 percent by 2040. If wind power does not have the capacity to provide for the consumption of American energy demand, then we should also have to question its efficacy.

The government already screws up with ethanol subsidies. Why should we continue to fund a failure with the PTC? This is not to say that we should not pursue wind power or we should dismantle windmills. Much like those over at Harvard's School of Engineering have realized, we should realize that wind power has its limits (Adams and Keith, 2013). Wind power should be a part of the portfolio of American energy production, but don't count on it being a huge part of that portfolio. If you still think that wind power will be the wave of the future, that's your prerogative. I just wouldn't hold my breath.

Monday, August 25, 2014

Does Ferguson Reflect a Trend Towards Police Militarization?

For about the past couple of weeks, there has been civil unrest in the city of Ferguson, MO over the shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed, African-American male who was shot six times by a police officer. I don't want to get into the racial aspect, get into the particulars of the charges filed against the police officer, or ask why the result was rioting and looting, even though there are about 400 justifiable homicides committed by police every year. What I have found most interesting about the situation is the reaction of the local government: bringing in the National Guard, mandating curfews, arresting journalists, heavily-armed SWAT teams roaming the streets. The Founding Fathers are probably rolling in their graves right now because this was the sort of thing they wanted to prevent from happening. Without exaggeration, it sounds like the description of a totalitarian county. Not that I'm a fan of Amnesty of International (AI) because of its anti-Israel bias, but maybe it should say something if things are bad enough where even Amnesty International felt that the Ferguson unrest merited a dispatching of AI delegates in America for the first time in its history. This leads to an important question: Is Ferguson an example of how militarized our local police forces have become, or is Ferguson merely an outlier that the media has hyper-sensationalized for the purposes of attracting more viewers that has no bearing on civil liberties?

"Protect and serve." That is what most people expect from their police force: to be a force of good, to catch the bad guys, and to make sure that crime is kept at a minimum. For much of American history, local police forces did not have such advanced equipment as where they can pull off 50,000 SWAT raids per annum. John Oliver's video below (start at 6:59) humorously illustrates how Ferguson is an example of increased militarization of local police forces. Just how bad has police militarization become?


If you need somewhere to start, the Cato Institute has a National Police Misconduct Reporting Project, and also has been tracking botched paramilitary police raids since 1985. Even prominent conservatives have wondered (e.g., Mark Steyn, Heritage Foundation) if police forces have gotten out of hand these days, if that says anything. What really started the militarization was when Congress passed the 1033 program back in 1997, which allows for the Department of Defense to freely transfer excess DoD property to local and state police. The amount of military equipment that the police have stockpiled as a result has been alarming. 9-11 didn't help either because the "war on terrorism" allowed for state governments to receive at least $34B in federal government grants to purchase military equipment to fight the "war on terror." So on top of fighting a war on terror, you also have police fighting a war on drugs while encouraging a "tough on crime" mentality? Should it be a surprise that police have increasingly developed the mentality of a solider or a warrior? Should it be a surprised that the ACLU found in its study on excessive police militarization that 80 percent of SWAT raids are conducted merely for search warrants, or that vast majority of raids do not have weapons when the police think there are? Should we need more militarization when the rate of police fatalities and assaults have been on the decline since before 1997?

People are realizing what libertarians have been saying for many years: the police have become way too militarized, especially in a country that is supposed to respect civil liberties. Granted, it's nice to see that every city in America does not have such a police force and that even this rioting in Ferguson is not as bad as the rioting of the 1960s. However, I'm sure for those who appreciate their liberty and civil rights, one of the last things we would want to see is the unrest in Ferguson become the norm in American policing.

What can be done to reverse this perturbing trend? First, stop the federal funding that allows for this to take place because federal subsidies artificially increase supply of military goods, thereby distorting the market. In his 2012 report, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) points out the wasteful spending that is done in the name of national security. As for the equipment that they already have, we should work on taking away some of the equipment to offset the excess supply that was created in the first place. We can constraint the law enforcement's usage of SWAT raids, require police officers to wear body cameras, or increase the transparency of data collection on SWAT raids to keep local police accountable. Even with removal of equipment, the police culture will have to change. Instead of being an isolated force, police officers should work on being a part of the communities they serve. We can also eliminate techniques like stop-and-frisk or even stop the War on Drugs altogether. As the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy shows, there are better ways to police than with reactionary police enforcement. A few bad apples, overt militarization, and inferior policing techniques should not prevent necessary policing reform that will help protect and serve our citizenry, not intimidate them.

Friday, August 22, 2014

Why Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Doesn't Get the Job Done

Approximately one week ago was the sixtieth anniversary of the IRS enacting a generous tax exemptions and benefits that allowed for employer-sponsored health insurance to thrive. What the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 did was exempt certain health-care uses of income from being considered taxable for purposes of collecting income and payroll taxes. This tax exclusion really took practice as an exemption starting back in the World War II era to avoid wartime wage controls. What a surprise: the government creates one problem with an onerous law, only to create another [arguably bigger] problem with another onerous law, which has now become the nation's largest tax break. What's sad is that the problem behind employer-sponsored health insurance is nothing new. The Cato Institute has been harping on this at least since 1999, and the Richmond Federal Reserve Bank pointed out back in 2004 how it distorts the health care market. Even the New York Times has recently pointed out the ridiculousness behind the concept. Why is it that I have such a problem with the government providing tax breaks for employer-based health insurance? Sure, it comes with advantages like encouraging workers to take health insurance, reducing health care costs for those who have employer-based insurance, and quite possibly could give a small boost to the GDP (although the latter does not take efficiency gains into account). It sounds like there are less taxes being paid and is a financial win-win, but is it really?

The so-called free money has to come from somewhere, and in this case, it's the workers' wages. This gives employers control over a significant amount of workers' earnings. If the government had taken $12,000 per annum in taxes to provide workers with health insurance, that would be called a tax increase. But when government drives a wedge between workers and a significant amount of their earnings, it suddenly becomes a tax "cut."  What's worse is that the unintended consequence is that the worker feels as if they were spending someone else's more money. Since people tend to spend more liberally when it comes to other people's money (even if it's merely the perception thereof), they consume more health care than they need. What happens when you artificially increase demand like that? Health care costs skyrocket, which is why this tax exclusion is arguably one of the primary drivers of health care costs (Gruber, 2010).

This tax exclusion can hardly be considered fair. The only ones who receive benefit are the ones who are lucky enough to have access. Everyone else has to pay out-of-pocket with after-tax dollars, which is an even more sizable percent of one's earnings. It's also inequitable because the ones who need the tax benefits the least gain the most. There's also the consideration that employer-based health insurance is tied to one's current employment. If you get laid off, fired, or decide to quit, your health insurance would go along with your job. And don't get me started on the negative effects on entrepreneurship (Fairlie et al., 2010) or other market distortions.

We need to see the real prices of health care instead of obfuscating them with government policies that keep health care costs high. This is why we need to treat health care like a good instead of categorizing it as "special interests that only the government can handle" or a charity case. We need to sever the connection between employment and health insurance. Health insurance needs to be portable from job to job if we want to remove the market rigidity and stop the rise in health care costs.

Here are a few suggestions: health care vouchers, cap the tax exclusion (see here, herehere, and here), create need-adjusted tax credits (Miller, p. 16), create more neutrality by allowing out-of-pocket health care expenses and individual insurance to be tax deductible, or eliminate the tax exclusion all together. I do worry about the potential of the increased tax revenues being used to fund single-payer system, but I would recommend a revenue-neutral offset. Just lower taxes to offset the elimination of the exclusion or by implementing a health savings account (also see here). Whatever the combination of policy reforms ends up being, we need to put an end to this World War II relic.

Thursday, August 21, 2014

Mo'ed Katan 9b: Choosing Words Wisely and Getting Past Negativity Bias

I haven't written on Talmudic passages in a while. Not only is it nice that I have picked up my Daf Yomi study again, but also that I have found something worthy of writing about. In yesterday's Daf Yomi portion, we come across an interesting passage in Mo'ed Katan 9b (translation based on Koren Talmud Bavli):

Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai's son approached Rabbi Yonatan ben Asmai and Rabbi Yehuda because Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai told his son to "go to them and they shall bless you." The rabbis said to the son: "May it be G-d's will that you should sow and not reap, that you should bring in and not take out, that you should take out and not bring in, that your house should be destroyed and your lodging place should be inhabited, that your table should become confused, and that you should not see a new year." Upon returning, the son told his father that not only did the rabbis not bless him, but they caused him great pain with his words. The son relayed the story to his father. 

Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai then goes on to explain why each supposed insult was an actual blessing. After reading this, I had to wonder why this whole ordeal needed to occur in the first place. It's analogous to someone who has to explain a joke they just told you. After said explanation, the joke loses its effect. The same happens here. The rabbis already caused insult with their words, regardless of intention. The fact that Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai had to explain the intricacies of the blessing says a lot about how we choose our words.

Apparently, these rabbis did not heed the advice given in Pirke Avot (1:11): Avtalyon says: "Wise scholars, measure your words carefully, lest you incur the debt of exile and be exiled to a place of foul waters, causing your disciples to drink and die, thereby desecrating the name of Heaven." This might seem like only an admonishment for Torah scholars when dealing with their disciples. Given the extent of Jewish speech ethics, it's not that difficult to argue that regardless of status or context of the relationship, one should be wise in terms of word selection because words have the power to create or destroy. Reading the end of the passage in Mo'ed Katan 9b, we see this point reaffirmed with another parable:

Rabbi Shimon ben Chalafta took leave of Rav. His father said to him: "Go to him so that he should bless you." The blessing Rav gave was "May it be G-d's will that you should not shame others and that you should not feel ashamed." Rabbi Shimon ben Chalafta came to his father, and upon relaying the encounter with Rav, he said that "mere words he said to me," i.e., he did not say anything of significance. 

In this case, Rabbi Shimon ben Chalafta did not realize he was being blessed, which is why his father had to cite Joel 2:26-27 to remind him just what a blessing he received. What are we to learn from these two cases about seemingly obscure blessings?

With Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai's son, he was incapable of seeing the blessing as a blessing because the blessing was poorly constructed. With Rabbi Shimon ben Chalafta, he dismissed what he was told as a blessing. I would argue that he was so ungrateful for what he had because it was clearer that the second parable was indeed a blessing. The problem was that Rabbi Shimon ben Chalafta couldn't see it as such. This often happens when you become accustomed to having something in your life and take it for granted, instead of being grateful for it. What both of these individuals suffer from is what psychologists call the negativity bias, which is to say that we have a greater propensity to see what is bad in the world than what is good in the world. 

Rabbi Shimon ben Chalafta needed to realize how being blessed to not feel ashamed or to shame others is an important trait in Judaism, especially when we are to treat other human beings decently because they are created in G-d's Image. The first case, the one with Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai's son, makes it seem like the son was in the right, but even in this case, he bears some of the blame. Why? Because he fell for the negativity bias. He also forgot what it says in Pirke Avot (1:6), the part about which you are supposed to judge people based on their merit. The men who blessed the son were reputable rabbis. Rather than automatically take it as an insult, he should have tried to interpret the blessing in a more positive light, which was the lesson his father was trying to teach his son. 

It's not easy getting over negativity bias. L-rd only knows that I succumb to it more than I care for. However, if we are to get past it and live a more fulfilling life, we need to learn how not to view things so negatively. It all starts with making a commitment of looking to view one's situation in a more positive light, which can be tricky at times. Are you willing to make that commitment to a more positive outlook? 

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Parsha Re'eh: Rejecting Moral Relativism While Navigating the Shades of Gray

Moral relativism is one of those charged phrases that get a lot of people going. "How can we talk about absolute morality when there are so many religions and philosophies out there? Is there an ethos we can all abide by?" And so forth. Yes, there are some disagreements about ethical situations or whether G-d even exists. Nevertheless, there are some basic moral truths that have developed throughout history, most notably surrounding the idea of the Golden Rule. Even if certain differences exist between groups of people, the Golden Rule exists in some form in every major world religion and the vast majority of philosophies out there. Do not murder. Do not steal. Rape and genocide are morally wrong. Without this minimalist sense of morality, it would not take long for society to descend into chaos. In this week's Torah portion, we see a condemnation of moral relativism:

לא תעשון ככל אשר אנחנו עשים פה היום איש כל הישר הי אלהיך נתן לך.
You shall not do after all that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his eyes. -Deuteronomy 12:8

If we didn't have a general sense of ethos or "right and wrong," it would ultimately be based on "might is right" because the subjective morality that would dictate policy would be those in power. Even if perceived and emphasized differently, societies across much of history have developed concepts of love, justice, peace, honor, and compassion. The values have existed; it simply has been a matter of emphasis and composition, which brings me to my next point. 

Even with these values that exist, how do we discern which values are right and when? The fact that a non-relativist sense of morality exists does not mean that morality or ethics exist within a black-or-white context. Far from it. Yes, Judaism has a set of values that are well-defined. At the same time, reality gets in the way, which could explain some of the nuance behind Jewish law and practice.

Our starting point has to come from a couple of Torah portions ago when it said that "you shall do what is right and good in the sight of G-d (Deuteronomy 6:18)." There are so many ethical situations that transpire in life that the Torah does not list them all. It's even for difficult for the corpus of Jewish law to capture every possible scenario, which is why having a guide such as a rabbi, friend, or other person of influence to help you (also known as mashpia) is important. That way, you don't succumb to personal tastes or subjectivity being your ultimate guide in life. Why is it nice to have someone more objective help you out? Because we find ourselves in situations in which our values can collide.

Here are but a few examples. Truth and peace are both important in Jewish morality. However, what do you do when they conflict? And if you don't think this can happen, it happened in the Torah. If you take a look at Genesis 18, G-d shows us that if one had to decide between the two, peace wins. If one has to choose between observing the Sabbath and saving an individual's life, one opts for the latter. Abraham had to choose between receiving the Divine presence and showing hospitality to three strangers. Which did he choose? Hospitality. Moses disobeyed a divine directive to show gratitude because G-d realized gratitude supersedes even obeying Him.

You don't even have to look at it through a Jewish lens to realize that there is no such thing as a character trait or value that is 100 percent desirable. Generosity is normally considered a good trait in Judaism. A Jew is supposed to give ten percent of income to help the poor. Generosity also comes in many other forms in Judaism. However, if your generosity impoverishes you or enables the recipient to continue with bad behavior, then generosity has been turned into a negative characteristic. I am a man who loves truth. Truth is important because reality helps us navigate life. If you use truth to knock down an individual, then it has become a deleterious weapon. Even commitment is normally a good thing. It helps individuals stick to a task or promise when times get tough. If it keeps you in a loveless or abusive marriage, or if the commitment is making you absolutely miserable, then commitment is counterproductive.

Just because there can be a conflict in values or just because a single value is not good in all cases does not mean that we should not have well-defined morals. It just means that life is complicated, much like Abraham discovered when he was about to sacrifice his son but realized that he literally had to choose between two opposing divine directives. We are meant to struggle with our conscience and act on our free will. This paradox, also known as the human experience, is what can make life simultaneously frustrating, joyous, confusing, and meaningful. It's why we should embrace our ability to deal with moral ambiguity while sticking by our morals and values.