In last class, we discussed the rather disturbing response which many Americans had to Osama Bin Laden's death. I think that it is worth analysing exactly why this response was so alarming.
The Americans I spoke to about this when it happened said that they were celebrating Bin Laden's death, in particular, not the removal of a potential threat to their safety or the safety of those they cared about. While I could understand celebrating the removal of such a threat (although Bin Laden was no longer all that significant of a threat), and could, to some extent, find it unobjectionable, these people were celebrating something totally different. Their giddy moods were due not to the lifting of a weight on their minds, but to the idea of 'justice' happening to someone that they hated. Some of the common phrases I heard at this time were along the lines of 'he deserved it' 'thank God we got our revenge,' and so on. This displays a rather barbaric endorsement of revenge mentality which I think we must dispose of in order to live ideally moral lives. While it is perfectly natural for many people to feel a desire for, or gratification from, the satisfaction of revenge, I do not think that acting upon these feelings is ethically acceptable in a situation where 'revenge' means the death of a sentient being. It is also unacceptable in many other contexts (perhaps all contexts), but this is perhaps one of the most blatant examples.
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Response: Humour and Palatability
In response to Raanan's post "Comedy" (April 30, 2012):
I think that humour and comedy frequently do help to convey important messages. The main benefit, I think, to using humour in this way is that it makes potentially controversial issues less threatening. The work of Terry Pratchett, for example, presents many of the problems of modern society in a funny, fictional context. Reading about the dangers of censoring the press in a story about a fictional world populated with vampires, wizards, and werewolves is far more appealing to many people than reading about the same subject in a bleak, non-fictional treatise, or even in a dark, dystopian-future novel type setting. I think that this same principal often applies to music; musicians can often address serious issues without accruing nearly as much opposition as politicians addressing the same issues. This does not make their messages any less important or well-thought-out; it simply makes them seemingly less threatening to political systems than more officially conveyed messages.
I think that humour and comedy frequently do help to convey important messages. The main benefit, I think, to using humour in this way is that it makes potentially controversial issues less threatening. The work of Terry Pratchett, for example, presents many of the problems of modern society in a funny, fictional context. Reading about the dangers of censoring the press in a story about a fictional world populated with vampires, wizards, and werewolves is far more appealing to many people than reading about the same subject in a bleak, non-fictional treatise, or even in a dark, dystopian-future novel type setting. I think that this same principal often applies to music; musicians can often address serious issues without accruing nearly as much opposition as politicians addressing the same issues. This does not make their messages any less important or well-thought-out; it simply makes them seemingly less threatening to political systems than more officially conveyed messages.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Q&A 9, Second Answer
The basic form of my question is: What is the best balance between redistributive taxation and allowing people to keep the results of mixing their labour?
I think that a steep slope of taxation, which eventually flatlines at a very high rate, would probably be the best system. This way, even the rich have some financial motivation to continue working, albeit far less than they do in the current American economy. Furthermore, this high rate of taxation for the rich, medium rate for the middle class, low rate for the lower class, and nonexistent rate for the very poor would allow the government to apportion a relatively large amount of money to welfare (or a similar system designed to provide all citizens with at least a decent standard of living). Such a society could also gradually improve the standards of living for those using the welfare-or-something-similar system, as with the advance of technology and society, more resources would become freely available.
I think that a steep slope of taxation, which eventually flatlines at a very high rate, would probably be the best system. This way, even the rich have some financial motivation to continue working, albeit far less than they do in the current American economy. Furthermore, this high rate of taxation for the rich, medium rate for the middle class, low rate for the lower class, and nonexistent rate for the very poor would allow the government to apportion a relatively large amount of money to welfare (or a similar system designed to provide all citizens with at least a decent standard of living). Such a society could also gradually improve the standards of living for those using the welfare-or-something-similar system, as with the advance of technology and society, more resources would become freely available.
Q&A 9, First Answer
The basic form of my question is: Should nations refrain from contributing to climate change, or work to reverse it at the cost of contributing to it temporarily?
I think that they should attempt to strike a balance. Some ways of contributing to climate change, like lack of recycling, littering, or use of unnecessary products (makeup, etc.) which are bad for the environment have nothing to do with researching environmentally friendly alternatives to environmentally negative practices. As such, a nation could enact laws to discourage this type of behaviour, like fines for littering or cash incentives for recycling. However, they should not focus on preventing climate change at the expense of stopping technological progress in areas which can potentially help the environment. At this point, climate change has gone too far to simply stop. Unless humanity takes an active role in actually reversing the effects of climate change, global warming will continue regardless of humanity's contribution to it. Furthermore, most people will likely object far less to developing environmentally friendly technologies than to ceasing their use of technology. Therefore, I do think that nations should focus their resources on developing ways to help the environment, but also implement measures to help prevent further contribution to climate change as long as doing so does not set back this research.
I think that they should attempt to strike a balance. Some ways of contributing to climate change, like lack of recycling, littering, or use of unnecessary products (makeup, etc.) which are bad for the environment have nothing to do with researching environmentally friendly alternatives to environmentally negative practices. As such, a nation could enact laws to discourage this type of behaviour, like fines for littering or cash incentives for recycling. However, they should not focus on preventing climate change at the expense of stopping technological progress in areas which can potentially help the environment. At this point, climate change has gone too far to simply stop. Unless humanity takes an active role in actually reversing the effects of climate change, global warming will continue regardless of humanity's contribution to it. Furthermore, most people will likely object far less to developing environmentally friendly technologies than to ceasing their use of technology. Therefore, I do think that nations should focus their resources on developing ways to help the environment, but also implement measures to help prevent further contribution to climate change as long as doing so does not set back this research.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Means and Ends
The dispute over whether the ends justify the means is both well-known and contentious. However, a less-known issue is the flip-side of this - whether the means justify the ends. An example of this concept would be a person deciding to live an unhealthy life, consuming non-nutritious foods and taking many risks, and then dying early as a consequence. While most people seem to accept that this particular scenario relies simply on personal choice, the issue can also apply to much bigger questions. One of these which has particular relevance today is whether humans should expend their energy and resources trying to develop means of transportation which cause less pollution than most current cars, or whether they should simply continue to utilise cars which run on fossil fuels, as in the short run this is easier. I think that, like that of the better-known 'ends-justifying-means' dispute, the answer to this issue is not clear-cut. In some cases, the means do justify even bad ends. In others, the resultant ends are far too terrible to justify even the most pleasant of means.
Q&A 8, Second Answer
My question is: Does Barnett accurately characterise the point of a rehabilitative justice system?
I do not think so. The system Barnett describes as rehabilitative is, ultimately, a failed system; furthermore, the methods of rehabilitation he describes are not by any means ideal or effective. He suggests that a rehabilitative system works on the concept that punishing criminals will cause them to recognise the immoral nature of their crimes, thus preventing them from engaging in criminal behaviour in the future. However, an ideal and effective rehabilitative justice system would not punish criminals, but would instead provide them with therapy and other non-hostile ways to recuperate from whatever harm prompted them to act criminally in the first place. In the end, such a system would reintegrate former criminals into society in circumstances substantially better than those in which they lived prior to committing their crimes, and hopefully dissuade them from acting criminally in the future.
I do not think so. The system Barnett describes as rehabilitative is, ultimately, a failed system; furthermore, the methods of rehabilitation he describes are not by any means ideal or effective. He suggests that a rehabilitative system works on the concept that punishing criminals will cause them to recognise the immoral nature of their crimes, thus preventing them from engaging in criminal behaviour in the future. However, an ideal and effective rehabilitative justice system would not punish criminals, but would instead provide them with therapy and other non-hostile ways to recuperate from whatever harm prompted them to act criminally in the first place. In the end, such a system would reintegrate former criminals into society in circumstances substantially better than those in which they lived prior to committing their crimes, and hopefully dissuade them from acting criminally in the future.
Q&A 8, First Answer
The basic form of my question is: Apart from the ticking-bomb scenario, are there any cases in which torture is even close to morally justifiable?
I do not think so, provided that the definition of the ticking-bomb scenario is sufficiently broad. By such a definition, not every ticking-bomb scenario necessarily includes a literal bomb. The term simply refers to any situation in which 1. An event will, without intervention, inevitably occur. 2. The event, if it occurs, will cause serious injury or death to a very large number of people. 3. We can stop this event from occurring if we obtain the necessary information. Apart from such a situation, I cannot think of any time when torture would be remotely morally justifiable.
I do not think so, provided that the definition of the ticking-bomb scenario is sufficiently broad. By such a definition, not every ticking-bomb scenario necessarily includes a literal bomb. The term simply refers to any situation in which 1. An event will, without intervention, inevitably occur. 2. The event, if it occurs, will cause serious injury or death to a very large number of people. 3. We can stop this event from occurring if we obtain the necessary information. Apart from such a situation, I cannot think of any time when torture would be remotely morally justifiable.
Response: Appeal of Revenge
In response to Brian's post "Rehabilitation as a Radical Solution" (April 29, 2012):
I think that the appeal of a retributive justice system is its fulfilment of people's wishes for revenge. Regardless of its irrationality, the desire for revenge is a very deeply felt emotion in many, perhaps most, people. A retributive justice system provides people with a way to satisfy this wish without transgressing the bounds of the law, and therefore without risking either personal harm or a guilty conscience. Many people instinctively feel as though those who commit a crime or other harm against someone without justification deserve to have the same thing happen to them. Of course, this leads to an endless cycle of revenge, which in medieval times often went on for generations in the form of blood feuds. A retributive justice system regulates this somewhat, but still satisfies enough of people's wish for retribution that they do not feel wronged as much as they might in a society with a rehabilitative justice system.
I think that the appeal of a retributive justice system is its fulfilment of people's wishes for revenge. Regardless of its irrationality, the desire for revenge is a very deeply felt emotion in many, perhaps most, people. A retributive justice system provides people with a way to satisfy this wish without transgressing the bounds of the law, and therefore without risking either personal harm or a guilty conscience. Many people instinctively feel as though those who commit a crime or other harm against someone without justification deserve to have the same thing happen to them. Of course, this leads to an endless cycle of revenge, which in medieval times often went on for generations in the form of blood feuds. A retributive justice system regulates this somewhat, but still satisfies enough of people's wish for retribution that they do not feel wronged as much as they might in a society with a rehabilitative justice system.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Response: Appeal of Rebelling
In response to Brian's post "Prohibition Anyways" (April 22, 2012):
In addition to the difficulty of actually enforcing drug banning, I think that it may in fact increase people's desires to use the banned drugs. Most people who use drugs begin doing so during adolescence or young adulthood, when they have just moved away from their parents and are enjoying their new sense of independence. As such, they seek out ways to rebel against not only their parents, but society and the law as a whole.
If drug use were legal (although regulated), it would lose some of this appeal. As a result, the rate of new drug users might actually drop.
In addition to the difficulty of actually enforcing drug banning, I think that it may in fact increase people's desires to use the banned drugs. Most people who use drugs begin doing so during adolescence or young adulthood, when they have just moved away from their parents and are enjoying their new sense of independence. As such, they seek out ways to rebel against not only their parents, but society and the law as a whole.
If drug use were legal (although regulated), it would lose some of this appeal. As a result, the rate of new drug users might actually drop.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Q&A 7, Second Answer
The basic form of my question is: What attitude should parents have towards their children?
We have already discussed the immorality of parents viewing their children as possessions, as resources to help them in their old age, and as people whose futures they can determine as they please (duplicates of themselves, etc.). How, then, should parents view their children? I think that they should view them as separate, independent entities, just as they view other adults - they should simply recognise that children have certain needs that adults do not, and thus act as teachers, some type of caretakers, and (ideally) friends. The first two attitudes should only last as long as they need to; once the child attains a level of maturity whereat they are able to make fully conscious decisions (possibly indicated by legal adulthood; certainly no later) then their actions are no longer the parents' responsibility to regulate or guide. Hopefully, parents and adult children can still maintain friendships, but if their personalities are simply not compatible, or if one party or another has an old grievance against another which makes it impossible to keep up a healthy relationship, then neither party has an obligation to continue the friendship.
We have already discussed the immorality of parents viewing their children as possessions, as resources to help them in their old age, and as people whose futures they can determine as they please (duplicates of themselves, etc.). How, then, should parents view their children? I think that they should view them as separate, independent entities, just as they view other adults - they should simply recognise that children have certain needs that adults do not, and thus act as teachers, some type of caretakers, and (ideally) friends. The first two attitudes should only last as long as they need to; once the child attains a level of maturity whereat they are able to make fully conscious decisions (possibly indicated by legal adulthood; certainly no later) then their actions are no longer the parents' responsibility to regulate or guide. Hopefully, parents and adult children can still maintain friendships, but if their personalities are simply not compatible, or if one party or another has an old grievance against another which makes it impossible to keep up a healthy relationship, then neither party has an obligation to continue the friendship.
Q&A 7, First Answer
The basic form of my question is: Would it be ethical to create multiple clones of the same person and raise them in different environments?
I see no reason for it not to be ethical. Certainly people could use the idea unethically; for example (as Brandon brought up in one of his posts) parents could try to 'replace' a deceased child with a clone of that child, which would almost certainly result in some kind of psychological mistreatment of the clone child. However, if the people around the clones treat them as unique individuals, with no socially significant similarity to the other genetically identical clones, I do not think that there would be any problem. The only possible issue with this might be that, if most of humanity eventually became clones of just a few people, genetic variation would become almost nonexistent, probably resulting in problems with any non-cloned children that people might choose to have.
I see no reason for it not to be ethical. Certainly people could use the idea unethically; for example (as Brandon brought up in one of his posts) parents could try to 'replace' a deceased child with a clone of that child, which would almost certainly result in some kind of psychological mistreatment of the clone child. However, if the people around the clones treat them as unique individuals, with no socially significant similarity to the other genetically identical clones, I do not think that there would be any problem. The only possible issue with this might be that, if most of humanity eventually became clones of just a few people, genetic variation would become almost nonexistent, probably resulting in problems with any non-cloned children that people might choose to have.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Response: Disproportionate Effects
In response to Brandon's post "Levin: Genius of the Times" (April 14, 2012):
First, a disclaimer; this is not all that closely related to Brandon's post. I simply found a particular point in it interesting, and wished to elaborate upon it. This post also relates, slightly, to a previous post I made.
The idea that otherwise relatively insignificant actions can have large effects on people due to other, unknown circumstances is actually quite well-documented, although usually in positive rather than negative cases. For example, there have been some instances of people deciding against killing themselves because they heard a particular song on the radio. As such, it seems logical that similarly minor events can have equally major effects in the opposite direction. Also, even when a single negative action is not enough to harm a person to a major extent, the cumulative effect of many minor negative actions can easily add up to major consequences - in fact, many (perhaps even most) cases of non-chemical depression or suicide are due to a series of negative occurrences happening to one unfortunate person. While of course it is impossible to know a person's exact circumstances, and so in most cases one's attempting to be exceptionally nice will be essentially irrelevant, the sometimes disproportionate effects of minor actions may be enough to encourage one to increase one's positive behaviour and decrease negative behaviour.
First, a disclaimer; this is not all that closely related to Brandon's post. I simply found a particular point in it interesting, and wished to elaborate upon it. This post also relates, slightly, to a previous post I made.
The idea that otherwise relatively insignificant actions can have large effects on people due to other, unknown circumstances is actually quite well-documented, although usually in positive rather than negative cases. For example, there have been some instances of people deciding against killing themselves because they heard a particular song on the radio. As such, it seems logical that similarly minor events can have equally major effects in the opposite direction. Also, even when a single negative action is not enough to harm a person to a major extent, the cumulative effect of many minor negative actions can easily add up to major consequences - in fact, many (perhaps even most) cases of non-chemical depression or suicide are due to a series of negative occurrences happening to one unfortunate person. While of course it is impossible to know a person's exact circumstances, and so in most cases one's attempting to be exceptionally nice will be essentially irrelevant, the sometimes disproportionate effects of minor actions may be enough to encourage one to increase one's positive behaviour and decrease negative behaviour.
Subjectivity of Justice
If a legal system bans capital punishment, then it must not make exceptions, even for exceptional cases. No matter how heinous a crime someone commits, then they cannot legally be executed. The reason for this is that making even one exception to the law invalidates every case in which the law should apply; as there is no objective way to determine exceptions, breaking the law (and it would be breaking it) in order to fulfil a subjective ideal of justice is radically inappropriate. After all, if the legal system makes an exception once, why would they not do so again? It is easy to say that they will only make exceptions in cases where capital punishment is justified, but who exactly determines what constitutes justification? One could suggest a codified definition of exceptions, but in that case they would no longer be exceptions, they would simply be part of the law! As such, the law would not in fact be banning capital punishment, but merely making very specific circumstances in which it would apply.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Q&A 6, Second Answer
My question is: What types of racial profiling exist today?
Officially speaking, the United States does not sanction racial profiling. Of course, in practice, it occurs fairly often, usually in the context of law enforcement investigatory practices (such as 'randomly determined' security searches, or 'random' selection of speeders to pull over). Canada also does not officially sanction racial profiling, but has had similar cases of unofficial occurrence. Other countries have stricter policies banning racial profiling, and still others not only allow it, but encourage it. The practices regarding the subject vary considerably from nation to nation, depending on diversity of population, distribution of wealth between those with differing racial backgrounds, form of government, policies and social perceptions regarding race, and a large number of other factors.
Officially speaking, the United States does not sanction racial profiling. Of course, in practice, it occurs fairly often, usually in the context of law enforcement investigatory practices (such as 'randomly determined' security searches, or 'random' selection of speeders to pull over). Canada also does not officially sanction racial profiling, but has had similar cases of unofficial occurrence. Other countries have stricter policies banning racial profiling, and still others not only allow it, but encourage it. The practices regarding the subject vary considerably from nation to nation, depending on diversity of population, distribution of wealth between those with differing racial backgrounds, form of government, policies and social perceptions regarding race, and a large number of other factors.
Q&A 6, First Answer
The basic form of my question is: Why would people support the idea of racial profiling despite knowing that it does not work?
While I imagine that most supporters of racial profiling believe that it does work, there are also likely people who are aware of its inefficacy, yet who continue to support it. It is difficult to determine why they do this. The theory which springs most readily to mind is that they wish to use racial profiling to continue the oppression of minorities. However, any one person who is subject to racial profiling is unlikely to incur much more than minor, temporary irritation, feelings of injustice, or other relatively insignificant psychological trauma. How, then, could racial profiling reinforce isolation or oppression of minority groups?
There are two ways which I can think of at the moment. One is that, although the effects of each individual profiling may be negligible, they can have the combined effect of reinforcing feelings of separation, inferiority, or other oppression-contributing emotions in the profilee. The other, which is, I think, the more likely of the two is that racial profiling can send a message to the majority that the profiled minority is different from, and lesser than, the majority is.
While I imagine that most supporters of racial profiling believe that it does work, there are also likely people who are aware of its inefficacy, yet who continue to support it. It is difficult to determine why they do this. The theory which springs most readily to mind is that they wish to use racial profiling to continue the oppression of minorities. However, any one person who is subject to racial profiling is unlikely to incur much more than minor, temporary irritation, feelings of injustice, or other relatively insignificant psychological trauma. How, then, could racial profiling reinforce isolation or oppression of minority groups?
There are two ways which I can think of at the moment. One is that, although the effects of each individual profiling may be negligible, they can have the combined effect of reinforcing feelings of separation, inferiority, or other oppression-contributing emotions in the profilee. The other, which is, I think, the more likely of the two is that racial profiling can send a message to the majority that the profiled minority is different from, and lesser than, the majority is.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)