Politics and Ethics

Meet American culture: The widespread belief that politicians LIE. They lie through their teeth, with grins on their faces, as they give money to charities, as they get elected, as they give speeches, as they lead us to war, and tell us our planet isn't being destroyed by our actions. Politicians lie. Clearly the American populace wonders at the ethics of a politician. Yet we let these men and women lead us... Perhaps that is in acknowledgement of the fact that all people lie (or so we assume, since we ourselves do).

Seneca gave up his views on vegetarianism, and animal rights, in order to pursue his political dreams. He, a man who gave up his own views, was a tutor to Nero! The speechwriter of George W. Bush was a vegan (was, as in he quit). 

Is a good future more important, does it suit better than respecting animals? Animals, by utilitarianism, aren't capable of feeling pain the same way humans do--physical yes, mental no (or so it has been argued). By contractarianism animals don't yield the same respect. Essentially animals are respected because of indirect duties, for a large part. Are our indirect duties to humanity more important than ourselves? 

No. If we each selfishly followed our own paths---that is not humane at all! If I murder this man, it may not be humane, but it suits my needs better. If I kill and eat this orphaned infant it will provide me nourishment, and maybe I believe it will provide a spiritual benefit enabling me to reach my goals more efficiently, so it's OK. The infant has nobody to care about it to be harmed by a utilitarian perspective, I'm good with it----but it does conflict to duties to humanity. If someone followed that selfish (and grotesque) path ---there is no humanity in that person, by Western standards. 

What else will a  person who can eat an infant without guilt do? If you can go against your principles of ethics for a job--what else might be a reason? If Seneca abandoned his vegetarianism for a political position--what else might a man abandon in favor of something material? 

I'm not quite sure that I want to know! 

~Jessica 

a.k.a. "Simplice"

Vegetarianism

The film we watched entitled "Peaceable Kingdom" was in some ways very heart-wrenching. It showed the life of cows, pigs, and chickens (for the most part these three); and their mistreatment in food-producing industries. Watching the animals engage in human interaction is certainly enough to encourage vegetarianism. 

Well, okay, I have to admit that I found nothing sentimental about chickens. They do not seem to be terribly intelligent, and they'll peck each other to death over territory. My sympathy is low; yet aren't humans so terribly familiar to such behavior? At any rate, chickens received low levels of sympathy from me, as did pigs. It is highly likely that my emotional responses depended on how attractive I found the creature in question. 

Cows however yielded a great deal of sympathy from me. The story of Snickers showing love toward his adopter struck home. Why have we decided that dogs and cats (in America) are not to be eaten, yet cows are? Cows are holy in India, the producer of life. Here we put them down when they develop illnesses that we encouraged (the udder swelling and getting infected after too many years of producing too much milk), slaughter baby calves who can't even walk because they were shut up in cages. 

Cows are downright spoiled in India, compared to America. We have institutionalized cruelty to animals. Lab rats, cows, pigs, chickens, and much much more! Vegetarian or not, cruelty to animals is not conducive to healthy human emotions (I believe, at any rate. Cruelty to animals has been a sign of criminal escalation, in many [though not all] cases.) 

Free-range meat, here we come. Oh but wait! If America went back to free-range meat only, well--there would be a LOT of rainforests in other countries we'd have to wipe out to feed our overpopulated, over-citified nation. It would mean more cowboys, which would please my uncle, but people would probably starve. Clearly, if humans value animals and do not wish to be cruel, should we then not change our system to be less inhumane? 

After all: What is the difference between dogs and cows? Why is cruelty to one considered wrong, but the other considered accepted and done on a daily basis en mass?

Knight of Utilitarianism

Over the weekend I managed to, finally (actually not finally, I don't classify him as a superhero so was willing to wait for it to come onto video), managed to watch The Dark Knight. Heath Ledger, played a villain so sadistic that I can understand quite easily how he was driven to sleeping poorly, and losing health over the role! His role was convincing, more so than any previous rendition of a Batman villain (to my opinion). However the point here isn't to rave, it is to monologue upon a situation he put Batman in, hopefully I'm not spoiling the movie!

Our brave not-super-hero, had to choose between the woman he loved and the attorney who was going to save Gotham city. They were on the phone to each other, tied to barrels of gasoline rigged with explosives. 

Who was Batman to choose to save? (Because unlike Spiderman in a similar situation he could not save both.) Saving who he loved might reward him with the greatest good; his heart would be at east. Yet by doing so he condemns the city to more pain, and himself more pain as it is his chosen duty to defend the streets of Gotham. In the longterm he might face eternal heartache over his lost love but many people had the potential for increased happiness. 

Saving the attorney would keep many criminals in jails, would keep the organized crime syndicates of Gotham City on the run. Saving the attorney would save thousands. Batman made his choice. He didn't know the long-term effects. None of us ever could know the future. 

In a similar situation saving the attorney might indeed serve the greater good. Killing Hitler and the ten regular people he is in a room with might be better than killing a single regular person. Utilitarianism seems to offer clear cut answers, especially in these drastic situations. These situations aren't terribly common, and seem to go against the innate sense of wrong, that is commonly referred to as 'common sense'. 

At any rate Batman made his choice. I wonder what would have occurred had he made a different choice. Would pain and suffering be averted equivalent to what it saved? Was there no valid choice---did the Joker plan so well that no choice Batman could have made a choice resulting in happiness? 

~Jessica

Environmental Utilitarianism?

I decided when I sat down to write, to pick a topic and put a bit of effort into understanding it in light of of utilitarianism. Within twenty seconds (literally) I'd looked at my shirt, of cotton (which the growing methods can be quite harmful to the environment) and voila! 

How does the environment relate to utilitarianism? Unlike animals the planet is not considered to be alive, by science, so it cannot feel pain. Does the damage to the environment then not matter, since it cannot feel anything? 

Clearly this has some similarities to baby Theresa. Baby Theresa could not feel any pain. Yet damage to her caused emotional pain in others. Damage to her would also prevent happiness in other babies, thus continuing their pain. 

The planet is a very similar case. While damaging the planet does not cause it pain, it does cause humans and animals alike pain in the long-term. Leveling a forest and putting homes and shopping malls in decreases the amount of oxygen in the air---less trees to deal with the carbon dioxide living animals breathe out. It may not hurt a human in the short term to level a forest, but in the long term it does! 

Damaging the environment doesn't just affect the person who acted against the planet. It actually affects every last creature on this planet, from bacteria to humans, from dogs to cats, from mollusks to cnidarians, from the birds in the sky to the deepest-dwelling oceanic creatures, those albinos of the deep. 

Damaging the planet counts against every one of us. It might take more than three strikes to destroy our planet (hmm, let's count---Industrial revolution, cars, textile factories, toxic waste, landfills...oops we're waaaay past three) but the science is telling us that we just may be headed that direction, faster than we'd like to admit. 

The principle of utility is clearly suggesting something: it may increase our happiness if we took a look at how our actions affect our planet, and thus us.

Personal Ethics

In our last class we played a game, sort of. A game frequently has the purpose of amusement, however this was more of an activity in which we listed our values and then got to see how other students ranked their values. 

Despite things I disliked much more being on the list I put driving the speed limit as my lowest priority ethically. This is because, in some ways, I feel that driving the speed limit has fewer ethical issues surrounding it. Yet, that is not really true. 

We have speed limits in order to protect drivers on the road. Obeying speed limits is a safety issue. What human has the right to randomly take away the safety of another just to get to their destination a little faster? Also, there is the issue of fuel economy and protecting our environment by driving speeds that best conserve fuel, and so consume less fuel, taking more time to release the same amount of fossil fuel emissions into the environment (there is of course, a catalytic converter in newer cars for that purpose, but is it 100% effective?). Another reason people encourage driving the speed limit is simply because it is law. 

Laws are not always correct. Furthermore most laws tell us what not to do, are prohibitory, not tell us what to do. Don't speed. Don't use fireworks that meet these specifications. Don't kill. Don't steal. Don't extort/blackmail. Fewer laws tell us to do something (and those that pop into my head at the moment are : Do pay taxes). These laws can be flawed. Just because something is a law does not mean it should, ethically, be absolutely obeyed. It is not at the top of the thinking pyramid. Law and Order is not the ultimate means of thinking rationally. (I cannot recall from high school which philosopher I am drawing off of. Oops.)

Ultimately my problem with saying to "drive at speed limit" is the highway system. In America if you drive at the speed the highways declare you're going to run into problems so many times. When traffic is backed up driving at the speed limit would not be safe---you'd be just ramming your vehicle into others, as there would be nowhere to go. More to the point of the argument, and less literally, if you drive at only 55 mph on most highways you are actually dangerous to all of the other drivers who are speeding. It is not safe. Laws are made to protect---if following the law is more dangerous than not...which should we do? 

I normally follow speed limits. I drive at 20 mph in school zones. I drive at the speed limit in cities. On the highways I drive at the speed of traffic. Safety is most important in this, not obeying the law, as far as I have determined for  myself. Now if everybody could be convinced to drive at the speed limit, then I'd oblige. It would be safe, and I would even be safer---no risk of being pulled over by a grouchy cop. 

--Jessica

"All Evil is Ignorance"

Plato wrote that very quote, "All evil is ignorance," yet the meaning can be deemed unclear through the use of meta-ethics. What is the meaning of ignorance? Harder yet, what is the meaning of evil?

Is evil that stereotypical thing, out to destroy the world? Is it Satan, formerly the angel Lucifer, who knows of God yet turned against him out of jealousy? Is evil living in an immoral means, and if so what is the complete definition of immoral? 

Presuming that ignorance means a lack of knowledge, and merely that (not a lack of understanding). And presuming that evil means....not eating vegetables when they are served to you?

Clearly not. Young children have quite the reputation for not eating vegetables. Furthermore food allergies exist, a valid reason to not do something, but it would still be evil to not eat them. But the reason would not be ignorance. It would be more pressing concerns, or in thecase of children a nonchalance toward the evil. I don't eat all the vegetables presented to me;  cauliflower, asparagus, and mushrooms are not on my list of food that I'm willing to eat. The reason is not that I am unaware that I should be grateful for food, so ignorance is not a valid argument for reason. 

Plato may indeed have had a point, that evil could be committed out of an ignorant mind, and only that way. Yet 'evil' is far too ambiguous of a word. It is straight out of a children's story--the evil stepmother wanting to harm the sweet princess, and the good prince riding in to the rescue at the last possible moment (as all good heroes must: see course Heroes 101). 

Philosophers clearly must consult meta-ethics before making statements. That way there are less arguments to made against them, when their works are a thousand years old!

Logic

Last night my roommate was working on some problems in logic, for one of her math classes. (Math, shudder.) She called me over to have a look at them, and I had an answer for her, beyond my standard 'I hate math so whatever you want to be true is'.  p-->(q-->r), if p is you work, q is you get paid and r is you go to the movies, is a different form of those same facts true? No: going to the movies doesn't necessarily mean you got paid. There are a multiple possibilities; being treated on a date, being a kid and your parents paying for it, being independently wealthy, or even it being a movie being played in the park as a fundraiser, if you just bring a canned food item. 

I don't think my answer quite satisfied it mathematically, and my roommate and I got to teasing each other over whose logic was 'superior'. (Superior of course meaning the most fun to argue.) The problem with logic is right in one of the fallacies, and it can plague every argument, even without us knowing. We as humans do not know everything, and sometimes what we learn gets tossed out in a few years. Another professor, for child development, was actually telling us on Thursday that they've tossed out the female gamete,the ovum (forgive me if my terms are incorrect)having only half of a paired set. Turns out the ovum actually has a full compliment of chromosomes until fertilization, at which point half of them are randomly ejected. That would be news to my high school biology class! 

Every argument we make, even those that we are almost positive on, which we have accepted as truth for centuries, could potentially be an "Argument from Ignorance". Everything could be second-guessed until pigs fly and the sky turns into an ocean of lava. Not likely to happen anytime soon. The fact remains: each of us can only use what logic others have shown us, and we agree to be true, and what logic we ourselves determine to rule our actions. To some extent we will always be ignorant.

I certainly was ignorant with that math problem. That's okay with me; I never expected to be able to answer it, and nor do I want to take half a dozen math classes so that I can learn that twisted form of logic. There are other things I can turn my mind to---things that aren't going to make my brain turn into soup in a skull. Don't tell Rachel this, but I think she can have the title of possessing the most superior logic when it comes to mathematical problems.

Trans-species Justice

A thought occurred to me: Rawl's view, as written in "A Theory of Justice", applies to fairness, as it is commonly termed, among human individuals regardless of race. It does not address nonhuman elements by any means. Yet there exist debates over animal rights. Where do animals fit into the scheme of justice as proposed by Rawl? 

Animals, whether they are capable of communication within the species, as elaborate of that of even a child, or even inter-species communication, are by their very nature not human. Similarities may exist, with or without said communication. Some level of emotion may be felt, social structures are present (Wolves for example), so too basic needs. Much of Western society would not give any credit to the statement that animals deserve the same basic rights as any human being. Surely politics could not be included---we cannot communicate with dogs, one of our closest animal companions (bar countries that see them as viable food sources) so we cannot speak to them and give them the pros and cons of voting for any particular candidate for any election. We would not give animals the same rights. 

Then how would a person who believes in reincarnation (typically not a mainstream Western religious feature) deal with valuing the rights of that same dog. That dog may once have been human, who did not quite live up to expectations on the way to enlightenment and escaping the reincarnation cycle. By debt of not having lived a better life did that being (dog) forfeit basic rights? Ignoring the political ramifications, does that dog deserve total freedom of person, the right to some basic level of autonomy and power---the right not to be eaten? 

Yet, even before this becomes an issue we are brought to the question---with all of these possibilities how does that play into the original position? Behind the veil of ignorance each mortal being (for presumably all are mortal, reincarnation or no) has to face the possibility that they may believe in reincarnation (whether it truly exists or not, belief is belief). Thus, technically speaking all creatures on earth might be given the freedoms of a human being. Or we must affirm that by not being human in the present life, freedoms are restricted, as in a caste.  

Clearly if the first were so, we must kill other potential-humans in order to eat, essential to life. That act would deny the basic rights of those who fall into the category of presently-nonhuman. If the second were so, that gives some precedent allowing caste and social classes to have an effect on our existence and our basic rights. It would allow for inequality. 

Perhaps there is a way to argue that the cases are not alike, and thus separate answers are allowable. Disputing the likeness, or even throwing out Rawl's theory seem the most likely to me. That or somehow we know divine truths, but not our situation in life, behind that veil of ignorance....

I don't really have an answer, to this, by the way. 

Welcome

Here I will post my thoughts in regards to philosophy, current readings and current events. I meant to use my old blogspot account, but it wouldn't let me create a google account for that one. Mildly aggravating of course---so since I can't get it, it shall never be deleted. I like this one better anyways- the name of it.

And so--welcome to the world of my mind. 

~Jessica