Elliot, our new kitty, didn't quite understand the idea of holding still for pictures. But I did manage to snap a few:
Now I just need to add an audio file of him purring, as it's quite loud and vigorous. He's just unbearably cute!
I love this line: "Miss Manners can think of no respectable social activity in which some people are clothed and others are not."
If you want to know what prompted that remark, you'll have to go read the column.
Miss Manners' latest column concerns the contextual nature of etiquette standards of vulgarity. After examining the various arguments put forth in favor of vulgarity, she writes:
Miss Manners is willing to grant that standards about what constitutes vulgarity are relative and subjective. She knows that repetition wears away the shock, so that allowing vulgarity to take its own course eventually renders it unexceptional. And she yields to no one in her opposition to censorship and the abridgment of rights.
Nevertheless, she cannot help noticing that not everything natural is good. Earthquakes, for example. And she fails to see the benefit to anyone if natural human functions, even ones that produce beneficial results -- she is much too delicate to name them -- are on public view.
That some like to observe or be observed does not strike her as a reason for arranging for the disinclined to do so when they are going about their normal business. And that some things may be delightful in one context and shocking in another is not a contradiction that should trouble anyone with a modicum of sophistication.
Vulgarity is one of those lapses of manners that do not arise from accident or ignorance. Whether it is showing off or showing too much, it is done to provoke others to envy or disgust. So while allowing it to become commonplace helps dull the reaction, it forces down the standards with which everyone else has to live.
Now we get to the tricky part. How do you shield some people without suppressing others?
By custom. The mannerly principle of not deliberately provoking others, which is the foundation of civilized living, supplies a sense of etiquette about what is permissible where. If you attend orgies, you cannot complain of indecency; if you stumble upon the same activities in the grocery store aisles, you should. The vulgar have their venues and should not expect to be allowed to set the tone everywhere.
Jimmy Wales recently said the following on the Atlantis mailing list: "I think Diana is essentially right about everything." Wow, what an endorsement! If I was a movie, I'd definitely put that on my poster. (Actually, Jimmy was referring to Compare and Contrast post about ARI versus TOC op-eds below. But that's just a minor detail.)
I am surprised at the lack of comments on that post, although I know that many good and honest people who still support TOC in some fashion largely agree with my criticisms of TOC's cultural activism. So perhaps they have little to say at present. I hope they soon realize that such insipid, weak, misleading, and outright wrong op-eds are not merely an ineffective waste of funds, but actively harmful to the goal of wider recognition of Objectivist ideas in the culture. I hope they soon realize that after five pathetic years of TOC's focus on cultural activism, the damage must be apparent to someone as smart and knowledgeable as David Kelley. I hope they soon realize that no improvement is possible given the subjectivism implicit in the founding philosophy of TOC.
If I were David Kelley, I'd rather shut down the organization than publish another op-ed like The Human Spirit of Christmas. Instead, he mails out copies of that op-ed to sponsors as proof of TOC's good works. Thus TOC continues along its chosen path. It's deplorable, but not surprising.
At present, my only real regret about leaving TOC is that I will no longer be able to hang out with friends at the Summer Seminar. Since I can keep up contact in other ways, that is an insignificant price to pay for my freedom and independence from such an organization.
Of course, I have other kinds of regrets, like that I spent many years at IOS/TOC largely coasting on my background knowledge of Objectivism, that I absorbed certain common erroneous interpretations of Objectivism, that I partially adopted the standard causal and unserious attitude towards Objectivism, that I pretty much uncritically accepted the Brandens' accounts of Ayn Rand's actions and person, that I cut myself off from contact with various smart and friendly ARI-affiliated scholars, that I supported the organization morally and financially, that I recommended TOC to others, and so on. But those aren't actually regrets about leaving TOC, but instead regrets about the length and depth of my stay.
Given my deeply moral objections to the underlying philosophy and actions of The Objectivist Center, my departure was obligatory. Since the moral is the practical, that decision has already benfitted me in a number of ways. And since reason and emotion are harmonious, I am glad to be gone.
If you ever think that you have a terrible job, just think of this of this poor bloke:
It should cheer you up right away.
In my recent public statement about The Objectivist Center (TOC), I cited Tim Richmond's 2002 op-ed "One Nation Under ?" as an example of TOC's embarrassing and dismaying cultural activism. Just the opening paragraph is appalling:
A California court's recent subtraction of "one nation, under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance distorts the ethical foundation of church and state separation. Yes, individual rights require safeguards against intrusive government, but the court's striking of a simple utterance begs the question... which rights are being safeguarded? And for whose benefit?
Most school-age children cannot critically examine the context of the Pledge of Allegiance at an adult level. Critics of "one nation, under God" may point to this youthful naivete in their claims that potentially offensive language ought to be removed from schools. But the world-at-large does not operate that way. Individuals cannot evade the spectrum of ideas. Learning requires a proximity to ideas - even those that may offend - starting in childhood.
The political Left has properly condemned governmental support of religious ideas--but at the same time, it demands that taxpayers support secular ideas, via National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, among myriad smaller agencies. If the Right's attempt to impose religion by force is destructive of intellectual freedom, the Left's demand that taxpayers support their ideas is openly contemptuous of the intellect. Liberals do not care whether you or I in fact agree with or approve of the ideas and images our tax dollars support--be they the latest collection of paint splotches or a Madonna smeared with elephant dung--just as long as we hand over our taxes. Thus, our minds have been rendered irrelevant, our agreement or disagreement pointless, as long as we serve as cash cows for the "artist" or "intellectual" to exploit.
Gibson and many Christians believe that human beings are born with original sin and worthy of nothing but death and damnation. But because of his love for us, God sent Christ to take upon himself our sins. "The Passion" graphically depicts Jesus's cruel torture and crucifixion -- penalties that we all deserve. To avoid hell, we must accept Christ's sacrifice.
In our secular society, many individuals who reject this theology still accept the moral message of Christianity. But the problems with this message -- as well as a way to a better moral vision -- can be found by examining three themes that are central in Gibson's film: sin, sacrifice and suffering.
When charges of anti-Semitism, denied by the producers, surrounded the film before its opening, there was outrage from many circles. But when the principals behind the film tell us openly that its message is that not only Jews but all men are implicated in the death of Jesus, the voices of moral outrage fall silent...
So, let us ask some questions no one is asking. Why is it immoral to ascribe guilt to all Jews, but not immoral to ascribe guilt to all mankind? How can anyone know, without first considering our specific choices and actions, that you or I are guilty? How can you or I be responsible for the death of a man killed some two thousand years ago? To make any sense of the accusation, one must recognize that one is here dealing with, albeit in a more sophisticated form, the same collectivist mentality as the racist's. For the anti-Semite, to be Jewish is to be evil. For the devout Christian, to be human is to be evil.
At the highest level of rapture, love can be neither universal nor halfway. It is a wonderfully singular, filling experience; a release of sorts, in that thoughts left invisible for lack of an audience suddenly find a mirror-image in another soul. It restores our benevolent sense of the world, the sense that no matter what else may occur there is a base of goodness in life. In a world recently torn asunder by violence and ugliness we struggle to define, the soul mate is a foundation for our happiest outlook.
I have nary a drop of sympathy for Naomi Wolf's alleged victimization at the hands (or rather, hand) of Harold Bloom. To me, the idea that a woman (even a graduate student) cannot maturely handle the unwanted sexual advance of a man (even a professor) is not just absurd, but deeply insulting to all of womankind. So I just can't muster up much to say about the issue. But thankfully, Robert Campbell has a number of posts on the subject. Just start with Part 1 and keep clicking.
Read more...Last weekend, I left the 70-degree sunshine of Sedalia for the 30-degree snowflakes of Pittsburgh. There, I presented a short version of my paper on false excuses at the University of Pittsburgh/Carnegie Mellon Graduate Philosophy Conference. Despite the weather, I had a great time. The graduate students at the conference were all very friendly, helpful, and sharp. My fellow Boulder graduate student Michelle Maiese gave a very interesting and good paper on philosophy of mind. My commentator, Greg Salmieri, offered excellent and entirely just criticism of the piecemeal and consequentialist approach to honesty found in that paper. (I'll have more to say on that soon.) So I'm happy to report that the conference was very worthwhile!
Also, we have a new kitty as of yesterday! Elliot is a five month old longhair with big black and white patches. (I'll post pictures soon.) He's insanely cute, quite playful, and very cuddly. (In fact, he's purring very loudly and climbing all over my lap and my laptop as I type!) Unfortunately, he is also defective, as he has a rather serious congenital heart defect that will surely kill him at some point. (His murmur is so pronounced that it can be easily felt when holding him... so long as he's not purring.) But in the meantime, he's just the kitty I wanted... and I'm happy to give him a good home.
All things considered, Elliot is adjusting well to the dogs and vice versa. The dogs are a bit too interested in this new little snack and he's justifiably a bit wary of them. Oliver, our 3 year old cat, is quite another story. He's been in hiding on top of the bookshelves downstairs, as he's completely terrified and distraught every time he catches sight of this evil interloper. (It's quite funny to see since Elliot is half his size.) In contrast, Elliot pays basically no attention to Oliver's poor manners. I'm sure Oliver will come around in the next few days... at least I hope so!
A few days ago, I accidentally deleted an e-mail from someone named "Travis Pullen" before even reading it while quickly perusing my mail in PINE. (The subject indicated that it was about an essay of mine on capitalism.) So Travis, if you are reading this, please re-send your message.
Read more...I just heard about this astonishing story on the "Political Grapevine" section of Special Report with Brit Hume. Apparently, Britain's Labor Home Secretary is attempting (via the courts) to force people wrongfully imprisoned for crimes they did not commit to pay for the costs of their incarceration. So the more of your life that was taken from you, the more you owe the government for the privilege of eating prison food and sleeping in prison beds. Of course, you were likely financially ruined by the trial and appeals... and you weren't exactly raking in the dough in prison. But pay up, brother!
Here's one man's story:
Robert Brown was just a 19-year-old from Glasgow when he was jailed for life for murdering a woman called Annie Walsh in Manchester in 1977. He served 25 years before he was finally freed in 2002, when the courts ruled him innocent of the crime.
He is now facing a bill of around £80,000 for the living expenses he cost the state. For Brown, it is the final straw. An interim payment he was given pending his full compensation offer is exhausted; his mother recently died; his relationship with his girlfriend has fallen apart and he is facing eviction from his home following a mix-up over benefits.
"I feel like ending my life," he says. "I've tried to maintain my dignity, but the state has treated me with nothing but contempt – now they are asking me for money for my bed and board in jail.
"I never contemplated suicide once while I was in prison, but it's different on the outside. I have received no counselling or support. Society is treating me like something you'd wipe off the bottom of your shoes, but I'm an innocent man and a victim of a terrible injustice.
"It's horrific. I've been out of jail for 14 months and in that time the state has put me through a war of attrition that it never needed to conduct. I feel my life is disintegrating around me.
"Making me pay for my bed and board is abhorrent. I was arrested, fitted up and held hostage for 25 years and now they are going to charge me for being kept as their prisoner against my will.
Have you ever wondered about the true meaning of the Batman theme song? Well, wonder no more! This analysis plunges into the depths of meaning and symbolism. It's quite batty, actually.
Read more...A few months ago, Paul sent me this great link to the Law & Order Coloring Book. If you need a good laugh, I just can't recommend it highly enough.
Also, this Random Law & Order Plot Generator pretty much sums up why the original series is no longer worth watching. Well, I admit that the boring characters are another reason; Lenny Briscoe and Jack McCoy ought to have been killed off years ago. But still, the naturalistic and predictable "ripped from the headlines" plots do suck.
This page from Divorce Magazine offers almost every conceivable statistic on divorce imaginable. It's quite amazing, although not exactly enlightening.
A running joke in our household is that Paul and I no longer love each other, that our sham of a marriage has become totally unbearable, and that divorce is just around the corner. It's all rather funny, although if either of us did really want a divorce, we might have trouble convincing the other of our seriousness. Ironically, perhaps the best indication of trouble in our marriage would be the end of threats of divorce. Heh.
Update: Paul (who is sitting on the couch next to me) just read this post and then asked "What do you mean you don't love me? I'm very sad. I'm going to have to call my mommy." HEH.
Every once in a while, I hear that Objectivism endorses materialism in metaphysics. For example, I recently ran across this 2003 comment by Greg Swann:
Like Ayn Rand, I am a materialist, and like Ayn Rand, this creates a real problem for me with respect to will, volition, free moral agency. Rand got around it by waving her hand and raving about axioms. Most thoughtful Objectivists get around it by saying "compatibilism", which to me looks like hand-waving wrapped in a fig leaf.
And consciousness is a natural attribute of certain living entities, their natural power, their specific mode of action--not an unaccountable element in a mechanistic universe, to be explained away somehow in terms of inanimate matter, nor a mystic miracle incompatible with physical reality, to be attributed to some occult source in another dimension.
An eccentric philosophy professor gave a one question final exam after a semester dealing with a broad array of topics.
The class was already seated and ready to go when the professor picked up his chair, plopped it on his desk and wrote on the board: "Using everything we have learned this semester, prove that this chair does not exist."
Fingers flew, erasers erased, notebooks were filled in furious fashion. Some students wrote over 30 pages in one hour attempting to refute the existence of the chair. One member of the class however, was up and finished in less than a minute.
Weeks later when the grades were posted, the student who finished in one minute got an A.
The rest of the group wondered how he could have gotten an A when he had barely written anything at all.
This is what he wrote:
"What chair?"
Update for Stumblers: Don't miss NoodleFood's latest offerings or just its other humorous posts!
A fellow graduate student at Boulder forwarded this story about a criminal teaching ethics to the grad list:
LONDON (Reuters) - A scientist dubbed the "Safeway poisoner" and jailed for trying to poison his wife has been employed by a British university to lecture students on ethics, the institution said on Thursday.
Paul Agutter served seven years of a 12-year sentence for attempted murder after he laced his wife's gin and tonic with deadly nightshade in 1994 and then tried to cover his tracks by spiking drinks in a Safeway supermarket.
The University of Manchester said it followed "due process" in hiring Agutter to teach adult education classes, including a one-day course on "Therapeutic Cloning: Ethics and Science."
Medical ethics lecturer Piers Benn told Reuters criminal convictions and teaching ethics were not necessarily mutually exclusive.
"Normally people who get into moral philosophy do so because they care about making the world a better place or putting things right," said Benn, of Imperial College London.
"But I can't see any logical contradiction between being able to think about ethical questions and being able to do rather criminal acts."
Manchester University said it had not decided whether an April course on evolution taught by Agutter would go ahead.
Well, it looks like I was right about the moral character of the woman charged with murder for refusing a c-section and thereby allowing her near-term fetus to die. Earlier, I wrote that "the woman's choice indicates significant character defects, defects which will likely strongly impact the quality of her parenting."
As it turns out, the woman has a prior conviction for an incident in 2000 in which she "she punched her daughter several times in the face after the toddler picked up a candy bar and began eating it" in the supermarket. According to witnesses, the woman screamed, "You ate the candy bar and now I can't buy my cigarettes." (She got five years probation for simple assault, reckless endangerment and endangering the welfare of a child. That child and another now live with their father's parents.)
In good news, the surviving twin has already been adopted. Unfortunately but not surprisingly, that twin tested positive for cocaine and alcohol.
This woman is the poster child for short-range, irrational egoism. And what a revolting spectacle that is!
Paul may feign geeky manliness over on Geekpress, but he secretly sends me URLs like this one to the PowerPuff Girls Portrait Studio. (Yes, he watches the PPG as much as I do!)
So I made myself a PowerPuff Diana on a Good Day:
And a PowerPuff Diana on a Bad Day:
So why are Americans so fat? It's because we're so stupid. Really, that's the basic premise behind the FDA's push for "better" labeling that wouldn't require us to multiply the number of servings by the calories per serving. Sheesh, how else would we ever know that gulping a 20 ounce Coke in one sitting is unhealthy?
Read more...Eugene blogs on a rather disturbing case in which a nine-months-pregnant woman allowed one of her twins to die rather than have a c-section, because the scar would "ruin her life." That stillborn twin died in utero a few days later, just two days before the birth. The woman is being charged with murder.
Eugene writes:
A really tough issue: On the one hand, I'm skittish about any legal requirement that someone get surgery, even to save her child's life. On the other hand, parents do rightly have a legal obligation to take care of their children, and it may well be that this obligation does extend even to going under the knife. Thought experiment: Should the law be able to force a parent -- on pain of a murder conviction -- to donate bone marrow to save a child's life? Should it be able to do so, but only on pain of conviction of a lesser offense, such as involuntary manslaughter or child neglect?
Finally, I have the answer to the question that has long burned in our hearts: Were there dinosaurs on Noah's Ark? The wonderfully illustrated answer is most undoubtedly yes.
The logic is quite entertaining, particularly the claim that people after the Flood interacted with dinosaurs based on unspecified "scientific evidence" and references to the "behemoth" in Job 40:15-24.
Heh. (Thanks to Eric Barnhill for the link.)
About ten days ago, I was delighted to hear that a shortened version of my paper on false excuses was accepted for the 6th International University of Pittsburgh/Carnegie Mellon Graduate Philosophy Conference. I'm scheduled for 3:20pm on March 20th.
I just finished my final edits tonight based upon some helpful comments from reviewers. So I've posted the paper on the website. (In the course of my revisions, I was able to incorporate some bits from my Harry Potter paper on self-deception, which I also just finished revising.)
If you're interested in philosophy and near Pittsburgh, come on by!
For the past two weeks or so, I've been unable to use Adobe Acrobat Reader. It would freeze up on me, regardless of whether I attempted to open a file in a browser, in the system, or just launch the program. This was a rather serious problem, as all of my class readings this semester are in PDF format.
I tried reinstalling Acrobat Reader 6 -- twice. I googled for advice based upon the error message, but no luck at all. Adobe's help file was completely useless.
I tried installing Acrobat Reader 5 -- twice. That didn't work either. However, the error message was different and, as it turned out, far more informative. (It told me "temporary file could not be opened.") In some online miscellaneous notes about computer stuff, I found this:
Reader creates temp files which it is supposed to clean up after itself. it has a bug and sometimes creates 64000 temp files and then can't open since it has run out of numbers to assign to new tmp files. Problem was solved by going to CMD prompt in the temp directory (/Local Settings/Temp), then del acr*.tmp
Earlier today, I was directed toward this screed against Abe Lincoln by L. Neil Smith. Now, I certainly have concerns and questions about Lincoln's commitment to the founding principles of the United States. But the proper evaluation of the man is hardly glaringly obvious. In any case, I was pleased to then read this more sober and thoughtful commentary on Lincoln from Tibor Machan.
A few questions about the Civil War plague me:
A great comment from Ross Levatter from Atlantis II:
I saw the Mel Gibson movie last night. I have to say that what you've heard it true: it is both exceedingly violent and dramatically powerful.
Then, again, what would you expect, given the story: a man of the people, a leader with a growing following, taken by the state, brutally tortured, killed in a futile effort to stem the tide of a movement that would not be denied.
And the climactic scene, at his death, when he looks away to the heavens and says that line he's always remembered for, that line that has changed the lives of so many:
Freedom!
I loved Braveheart.
Resume padding is nothing new, but the high-tech ways people are circumventing checks are. For example:
Some applicants are providing employers with toll-free phone numbers, which are answered by operators of Web sites that not only offer phony academic degrees, but also "verify" a job seeker's education.
And, in an effort to put more credibility into embellishing their resume, some candidates are paying hackers to plug their names into a class list database of a university they claim to have attended.
The background search firm ADP Screening and Selection Services, in a 2003 study, found that more than 50 percent of the people on whom it conducted employment and education checks had submitted false information, compared with about 40 percent in 2002.
Stephen Moore has a nice article on the conviction of Martha up on NRO. On insider trading, he writes:
Now, advocates of insider-trading laws are probably irate at this proposition of mine to legalize insider trading, because insider trading "hurts the mom-and-pop investor." They also say that we need to enforce this law to maintain the integrity and the public confidence of the financial markets. Baloney. The market fell — it didn't rise — on the news of Martha Stewart's conviction. If investors believe that the SEC can throw you in jail for making trades that can be construed by a federal prosecutor as based on "insider information," this has a chilling effect on the financial markets and all stocks are hurt. That means all investors are also hurt.
Love her or hate her, Martha Stewart has been one of the most successful capitalists of this generation. She created hundreds of millions of dollars of new wealth and virtually a new industry that was, in effect, herself. She created thousands of jobs and was a successful entrepreneur who happened to make a lot of money while she was at it. The source of my uneasiness is that many in our society applaud her downfall precisely because of her enormous success. But success is a virtue in America, and when we start treating it as vice, we denigrate our capitalistic system. And then we have a much bigger problem in our society than whether people are trading on hot stock tips in the middle of the night.
I love satire... and as far as gay marriage goes, it doesn't get much better than Where Is My Gay Apocalypse?
Read more...Thursday, March 4th, was NoodleFood's two year blogiversary. (I completely forgot until this morning.) Although I'm not a daily blogger, that's still quite a long time. Wow. So...
Happy Blogiversary to Me!
Happy Blogiversary to Me!
Happy Blogiveeeeeeersary to Meeeeeeeeee!
Happy Blogiversary to Me!
Three great truths of religion:
I was rather shocked to read this announcement on Brian Leiter's blog today:
Colorado Philosophy in Transition: Shields Going, O'Connor Being Recruited
Distinguished scholar of ancient philosophy, and valued PGR Advisory Board member, Christopher Shields at the University of Colorado at Boulder has accepted the offer from Oxford. This move further solidifies Oxford's status as one of the two or three leading centers for the study of ancient philosophy in the English-speaking world.
Meanwhile, Colorado has made a senior offer to Timothy O'Connor (philosophy of mind and action, metaphysics, philosophy of religion) at Indiana University at Bloomington, who has established himself as perhaps the most important defender of a libertarian (more precisely, agent-causal) theory of free will in his generation of philosophers.
Earlier in this hiring season, Luc Bovens at Colorado accepted an offer from the London School of Economics, while Daniel Kaufman at Florida accepted a tenure-track offer from Colorado.
In very bad news, Martha Stewart has been convicted on all counts. Contrary to popular opinion, none of the charges were for insider trading, but instead one count of conspiracy, two counts of making false statements, and one count of obstruction of agency proceedings. Astonishingly, she faces between 16 months and 16 years of prison time. She has promised to appeal; I wish her all the best.
FoxNews reported a post-verdict conversation with Juror #8, Chappell Hartridge. He said that the "most damning testimony" was from Mariana Pasternak (Martha Stewart's best friend) who reported initially that Martha said "Isn't it good to have brokers who have brokers who tell you these things?" right around the trade in question. Under cross-examination, Pasternak pretty much recanted that testimony, saying that she wasn't sure whether Martha ever said that. It's not exactly reassuring that a recanted claim was given so much weight by the jury.
That same juror also said "Are we sending a message? Yes, victory for the little guy. And a message to the bigwigs and corporations to abide by the law."
Given that the prosecution couldn't make a case for insider trading or whatnot, what significant law is that supposed to be? (Not that I think insider trading laws are just, but that's another matter.)
It's all just revolting.
Update: Instapundit notes a comment from a reader: "So, am I correct in assuming she has been found guilty of covering up crimes the government couldn't prove she committed?" Glenn replies: "I haven't followed this case closely, but I think that's the gist of it." (Greta van Susteren just made this point on FoxNews: "She's been convicted of a cover-up of a non-crime.")
Paul and I never watched any incarnations of Survivor until this latest "Survivor All-Stars." The fact that all the players have played the game before alters the game theoretic dynamics in odd ways, so I really wish that I had seen some of the earlier seasons. In any case, the strategy is rather fascinating.
Last night, Sue left the game mid-episode in a fit of tears and rage over fat, gay, and naked Richard Hatch's actions the day before during a challenge involving navigating a course of narrow broads connected by platforms. Here's what happened:
Sue and Kathy are on the planks, Hatch is coming one platform away. Kathy offers for Sue to go in front of her, away from Richard. Sue says no, I want to go this way, I will wait for Richard to pass me. So Sue and Kathy are together on one platform, Richard is coming towards them. He meets Sue face to face, Kathy has her back to them. The plank is skinny, so he puts his hands on Sue's shoulders and says "Come on baby I know you want some" and MIGHT have rubbed his nether regions against her hips. Sue says "That's gross," and moves on. Sue could have backed up one step, and Richard could have walked right past her. But she chose to block the plank to the platform and he had to squeeze past her.
What a whiner. After a GAY man rubs his hoo-ha up against you (tasteless though it might be), you do NOT collapse into a puddle of humiliation, then abandon your team in the middle of a game.
I don't care if she had an attack of PTSD because the weenie-wagging caused her to question her femininity due to a gay man dry-humping her, or whether she had flashbacks of some asshole flashing his crank at her out of a Peterbuilt cab in some truck stop in Bumfuck, Idaho.
By making such a big deal about it, she totally insults every female in the world who is REALLY raped and brutalized. All I could think about as she was crying on the beach were the thousands of women in Bosnia, Chechnya, Rwanda and elsewhere that don't just get a brush with a dick, but suffer gang rapes and then are frequently murdered afterwards. There's a world of difference between tasteless behavior and actual physical harm.
Fuck you, Sue. Take your scam somewhere else.
In my Environmental Philosophy class, we've been discussing Tom Regan's arguments for animal rights and Peter Singer's arguments for animal liberation. These two philosophers appeal to quite different philosophical mechanisms to justify sweeping legal protections for animals: intrinsic value for Regan and hedonistic utilitarianism for Singer. (As a result of this difference, Regan's protections for animals are far more sweeping than Singer's.)
Nonetheless, one argument common to them both Regan and Singer is that if legal rights or moral obligations attempt to single out humans by appealing to intelligence, capacity to reason, or whatnot, then such rights/obligations will either be too narrow (by excluding retarded people, babies, and so on) or too broad (by including higher primates, dolphins, fetuses). For reasons which I won't delve into here, I think this basic line of attack is wrong. (I'm likely to write my final paper for class on the subject though, so I'll surely say more on the topic later. From an Objectivist perspective, one major frustration of all these debates is that their strong tendency to float disconnected from the reality of the basic purpose of legal rights/moral obligations.)
For both Regan and Singer, a major relevant fact for determining our moral and legal obligations to other creatures is whether they have a capacity to suffer. This is particularly true for Singer, who (as a utilitarian) is concerned with pleasures and pains. But it is also true for Regan, whose concern is that conscious creatures are "the experiencing subjects of a life." For both, the physical pain we cause animals in the course of confinement, slaughter, and so on is critical.
So I wonder what Singer and Regan would say about this poor little girl who is utterly unable to feel physical pain. Both would likely say that we still have obligations towards her. For Singer, she can still experience happiness. Yet the harms this small child routinely does herself demonstrates the great value of pain to human and animal life. Although particular pains are certainly experienced as unquestioningly bad, our capacity to feel pain provides an enormous protection against injury. So achieving the utilitarian goal of minimizing or eliminating pain would actually be quite harmful to creatures. For Regan, the girl is still the subject of a life in myriad other ways. Yet the fact that she cannot feel pain does alter our moral obligations to her, even if she still has the exact same intrinsic worth as normal children. Her dentist, for example, need not have given her novocaine before pulling out all her teeth. So intrinsic worth cannot straightforwardly demonstrate the content of our moral obligations.
I'm not saying that the girl who can feel no pain is a counter-example to either Singer or Regan. Yet she raises questions about their account of the foundations of moral obligations and legal rights... questions which the advocate of rationality-based rights does not face.
Not being a leftist, I've never paid much attention to Ralph Nader. But a few days ago I read this fascinating article by Radley Balko on Nader's public shakedowns of university students to fund his pet causes. (Thankfully, Boulder doesn't have any PIRG-type fees from what I can see.) And then this morning, I read this TNR article on his freaky conspiratorialism and dishonesty. I always thought the guy was wrong, but now he seems like a complete loon.
Read more...
I'm Diana Hsieh, a philosopher specializing in practical ethics. I received my Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Colorado at Boulder in 2009.
Paul Hsieh is a physician specializing in orthopedic and emergency radiology. He blogs about science, technology, and random humorous items at GeekPress. He's a co-founder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM) and regularly writes for its blog, We Stand FIRM. He has published a slew of op-eds and essays on health care policy. You can e-mail Paul at paul@paulhsieh.com, and follow him on Twitter @PaulHsieh.
Greg Perkins is a software architect working in the R&D labs at Hewlett-Packard, Boise. His degree is in mathematics and computer science. Greg hosts The Objectivism Seminar. Aside from work and philosophy, he plays jazz saxophone professionally with groups such as The Sidemen and Onomatopoeia. You can e-mail Greg at greg@eCosmos.com, and follow him on Twitter @gregperk.
Back to TOP
Tweet
Share
Stumble
Reddit
Bit.ly
