Good evening, friends.
I realize that over the past few weeks, the quality and quantity of my articles/posts/opinions on this blog has decreased substantially. I'm sorry about that. I've flat-out sucked at writing, and I really don't have time to write any better. However, today I was inspired to fix my blog, for various Lantern-related reasons.
First, I just have to say that Ohio State's student newspaper is probably the most horrible thing I have ever attempted to read on a casual, disjointed basis. I don't really pick up the Lantern intentionally, but when others do and leave it in class, I tend to flip through it.
Over the past week, individual journalists have suggested that Wal-Mart is trying to impose its values upon America by not selling the morning-after pill; they have surmised that the removal of tattoos via the "laser" is a remarkably new concept, and they have whined about intelligent design and evolution. For these reasons, I can't really tolerate the Lantern. Additionally, their sports journalists are frequently wrong, except for this one guy who made fun of the Vikings' sex parties. That guy was on point.
I have now decided to increase the quality of my posts, mainly by picking actual topics to write about, instead of just making previews of how something will go, which is a waste of everyone's time. I think that an increase in the quality will also be accompanied by an increase in my human capital, which is something that any good economist should be pretty jacked up about.
The contrite nature of this post aside, it's time to come up with something creative. Let's go with a safe bet: the complete disillusionment that everyone has with the Olympics.
I've racked my brain trying to figure out why I should care about the Olympics. I watched some of the opening ceremonies- and I had eagerly awaited Alberto Tomba ski-jumping over a group of Italians, brazenly throwing the Olympic torch into the cauldron without regard for his life, and cementing his place as the most awesome Winter Olympian ever. Unfortunately, the lighting of the flame was somewhere around terrible, leaving me to believe that I wouldn't be watching much of this Olympics either.
Nevertheless, I pressed onward, forcing myself to watch some of the luge, some ice dancing, some speed skating, and whatever else NBC decided I would like to watch. And then it hit me, like a glorious epiphany that occurs at most once in a lifetime. NBC is to blame for all of this.
Yes, NBC, the network that has managed to mess up every sport they've ever had except for the NBA, which they declined to retain, is the cause of all of our Olympic problems. For one thing, NBC owns the rights to Bob Costas's soul, which means that at any time Costas may be forced to give some sort of special interest piece on an athlete we've never heard of, nor care about. What's worse is that NBC has taken to building up American athletes who proceed to not win medals, something that is inexcusable when you're showing events on tape delay. This statement is true: NBC has decided not to show anything live, and we're all left to watch events we already know the results to. In short, we've killed the excitement behind the Olympics.
Does America have any stars? I guess, although we tend to run our stars into the ground. Michelle Kwan? Almost selfish for wanting one more chance at glory. Bode Miller? Disappointing drunk. Apolo Ohno? Needs to win more. Even the snowboarder who screwed up her final trick, costing her gold, is being thrown to the wolves, as if people were just biting their nails waiting to see who would win in women's snowboarding. Hey, at least she won silver.
I think there are some good stories at the Olympics. They just happen to reside in other countries. A 19-year Austrian won ski-jumping gold; Australia wants Brazil to get kicked out of the 4-man bobsled. But if Americans don't win gold, NBC doesn't care. We'll get special interest stories about our seventh-place finishers, and we'll go criticize Bode Miller some more. After all, that's what the Olympics are all about.
How we will remember Torino? We'll probably have Bob Costas remember it for us; for we won't have any basis for remembering it ourselves.
First, I just have to say that Ohio State's student newspaper is probably the most horrible thing I have ever attempted to read on a casual, disjointed basis. I don't really pick up the Lantern intentionally, but when others do and leave it in class, I tend to flip through it.
Over the past week, individual journalists have suggested that Wal-Mart is trying to impose its values upon America by not selling the morning-after pill; they have surmised that the removal of tattoos via the "laser" is a remarkably new concept, and they have whined about intelligent design and evolution. For these reasons, I can't really tolerate the Lantern. Additionally, their sports journalists are frequently wrong, except for this one guy who made fun of the Vikings' sex parties. That guy was on point.
I have now decided to increase the quality of my posts, mainly by picking actual topics to write about, instead of just making previews of how something will go, which is a waste of everyone's time. I think that an increase in the quality will also be accompanied by an increase in my human capital, which is something that any good economist should be pretty jacked up about.
The contrite nature of this post aside, it's time to come up with something creative. Let's go with a safe bet: the complete disillusionment that everyone has with the Olympics.
I've racked my brain trying to figure out why I should care about the Olympics. I watched some of the opening ceremonies- and I had eagerly awaited Alberto Tomba ski-jumping over a group of Italians, brazenly throwing the Olympic torch into the cauldron without regard for his life, and cementing his place as the most awesome Winter Olympian ever. Unfortunately, the lighting of the flame was somewhere around terrible, leaving me to believe that I wouldn't be watching much of this Olympics either.
Nevertheless, I pressed onward, forcing myself to watch some of the luge, some ice dancing, some speed skating, and whatever else NBC decided I would like to watch. And then it hit me, like a glorious epiphany that occurs at most once in a lifetime. NBC is to blame for all of this.
Yes, NBC, the network that has managed to mess up every sport they've ever had except for the NBA, which they declined to retain, is the cause of all of our Olympic problems. For one thing, NBC owns the rights to Bob Costas's soul, which means that at any time Costas may be forced to give some sort of special interest piece on an athlete we've never heard of, nor care about. What's worse is that NBC has taken to building up American athletes who proceed to not win medals, something that is inexcusable when you're showing events on tape delay. This statement is true: NBC has decided not to show anything live, and we're all left to watch events we already know the results to. In short, we've killed the excitement behind the Olympics.
Does America have any stars? I guess, although we tend to run our stars into the ground. Michelle Kwan? Almost selfish for wanting one more chance at glory. Bode Miller? Disappointing drunk. Apolo Ohno? Needs to win more. Even the snowboarder who screwed up her final trick, costing her gold, is being thrown to the wolves, as if people were just biting their nails waiting to see who would win in women's snowboarding. Hey, at least she won silver.
I think there are some good stories at the Olympics. They just happen to reside in other countries. A 19-year Austrian won ski-jumping gold; Australia wants Brazil to get kicked out of the 4-man bobsled. But if Americans don't win gold, NBC doesn't care. We'll get special interest stories about our seventh-place finishers, and we'll go criticize Bode Miller some more. After all, that's what the Olympics are all about.
How we will remember Torino? We'll probably have Bob Costas remember it for us; for we won't have any basis for remembering it ourselves.
posted by mike at 6:10 PM
18 Comments:
Could the tape delay have something to do with the time difference between the States and Italy? NBC would probably still tape delay, but a much shorter one. I don't know of any corporation that will buy a commercial for a sporting event aired at 4 AM. What choice does NBC have?
Intelligent Design is a crock.
Wal-Mart should have to carry the morning-after pill.
And, the removal of tattoos by laser beams is purty 1337.
Wal-Mart should not have to carry anything it doesn't want to sell.
Uh-no.
We are talking about pharmacies within Wal-Marts. A pharmacist has an ethical obligation to serve individual, community, and societal needs. Of course, economic concerns have to come into play. Obviously, Wal-Mart is not going to lose money selling the morning-after pill.
A moral conviction is not a valid reason for a pharmacist/corporation to trounce its ethical obligation to the community and society.
Imagine if a town's Wal-Mart had the only pharmacy in that town. Now, imagine that Wal-Mart decided not to sell antibiotics because of some moral conviction. Wal-Mart would be breaking its ethical obligation, and I would expect the government to pass laws forcing Wal-Mart to sell antibiotics. That's what we've seen with the morning-after pill in Massachusetts and Illinois.
I thought Wal-Mart's main argument for why they didn't want to carry the pill was that it wasn't profitable. If it isn't obvious to Wal-Mart that they can make a profit selling this pill, I don't see how it can be obvious to anyone else. You would think Wal-Mart would know what was and what wasn't profitable for their own particular conglomerate.
I also urge you to find an example of a community that depends only on Wal-Mart to serve their pharmaceutical needs, without any reasonable substitute (within a half-hour away). I happen to think it can't be done. So I don't buy into this "lone-wolf pharmacist, imposing moral values" stuff. If there's not an actual example of these "only-choice" Wal-Marts, then using them as examples is pointless.
If Wal-Mart has motives other than profit for not selling the drug, then they're lying, which is not nice. They'll be forced to sell the drug everywhere. If not, they shouldn't be forced to sell the drug. The government can sell the drug itself, as a public service.
I can't believe you think Wal-mart isn't selling the pill because it isn't profitable. Let's see what they had to say:
"At this time Wal-Mart has made the business decision not to sell Preven."
I think "business decision" is synonymous with "decision."
If it's not profitable then I wonder why the drug remains available at K-Mart, Rite Aid, Walgreens and other similar large outlets. Those companies are in the business of making money, and I don't think they are stupid. I do think Wal-Mart is making a moral decision.
I'm not sure whether or not the "lone-wolf pharmacist" scenario exists. However, if more pharmacists decided not carry the pill because they had a moral conviction against it, a person might have to travel out of county or state to get the pill. The pill must be taken very quickly after having sex. Furthermore, not everyone has access to a car.
Wal-mart has a responsibility to the community to sell the pill. James T. DeVita, the president-elect of the Massachusetts pharmacy board, said:
"How do you determine the needs of the community? You determine it by the prescriptions that are presented."
I will accept your ethical argument for Wal-Mart selling this drug. I have been thoroughly convinced that you are right, though I have a fundamental argument with the government telling an individual business what to sell.
However, I can't really accept any other arguments against Wal-Mart. For example, if people didn't have access to a car, they wouldn't be able to get to either a physician or a Wal-Mart. If people could make it to a physician, you would think they would be able to make it to a pharmacy that sold the drug. Additionally, many pharmacies make home deliveries for those who can't make it out, such as the elderly.
I also think that most "business decisions" are made regarding "profit." As I said previously, if Wal-Mart is lying, they are lying, but I tend to believe that people are telling the truth until proven otherwise. Wal-Mart has a responsibility to its shareholders as well as the community. It's quite possible that Wal-Mart has a different profit margin on this contraceptive than other businesses do. After all, that's why different businesses sell different goods at different prices. For example, K-Mart sells Little Caesar's pizza, while Wal-Mart doesn't. Some Wal-Marts have Subways and McDonald's, while others don't. There's not some sort of across-the-board profit rule for any good, and drug companies are generally monopolistic in nature.
However, I don't have any sort of moral attachment to this issue. It's purely economic.
Also, I have found your birthday present. You will get it eventually.
If Wal-Mart was losing money on the pill, I would expect them to state this explicitly. Instead, they gave a vague line abou a "business decision." They can't be lying about something they didn't say. Also, they had the ONLY pharmacies in the STATE of Massachusetts that didn't sell the pill. I doubt their profit margin is that different.
Pharmacies are, for the most part, the sole location for people to legally purchase drugs. I simply ask that Wal-Mart pharmacies sell, at a profit, the drugs prescribed by doctors.
Likewise, doctors should be legally obligated to prescribe the pill if a reasonable request is made by a patient to do so.
The pill should probably be over-the-counter anyways (doctors tend to go fishing on the weekends).
Wal-Mart has already stated that they don't feel the pill is "commonly prescribed," which is tantamount to "not profitable."
For example:
"Company spokeswoman Mona Williams said the Bentonville, Ark.-based company had not stocked the pills in the past, except where required by law, because there seemed to be less customer demand than for other medication."
Just because the drug has less customer demand than other drugs does not mean that it is not profitable. All they have to do is put the drug on a shelf, and when someone presents a prescription, they sell it for more than they paid for it. Every other pharmacy in Massachusetts does this. If anyone can make a profit, Wal-Mart can. The Wal-Mart PR machine is doing it's job -- it's making you think this isn't a moral decision.
Perhaps Wal-Mart does not stock the pill because they don't want their "pro-life" customers to boycott Wal-Mart in the future. That would be a legitimate business decision. And that's a decision that the legislature should not allow Wal-Mart to make.
You know, I agree that the government should leave Wal-Mart the fuck alone most of the time. But we are talking about pharmacies which are a business/public health service duality. I'd rather see the government ensure that pharmacies provide for their communities (w/o fucking their profitability up) rather than having the government provide such services.
If I believed that the pill killed a human being, I would not sell it at my business, profits be damned.
Just to further the non-sports discussion on this sports blog...
Grant, I think you're a bit off, for a number of reasons.
1) "Codes of Ethics" can't trump moral choices. Ultimately, if ethics and morals are conflicting, then there's a contradiction. They, by their very nature, be working together. So, if there's a disagreement between the two, then odds are good that something is "off". Personally, I'd vote against the "Code of Ethics".
2) Ethical responsibility to sell the morning after pill??? If ID is a crock, then certainly that is. We're not talking about a drug that treats cancer, or, really, in any way "saves lives". It's one thing to say that an oasis owner has a moral responsibility to give water to thirsty desert wanderers, and not too far off to say that a pharmacy has a moral responsibility to sell life-saving prescribed medication. But, personally, I've never heard any use for the morning after pill than as a contraceptive... Which, if that's what you want, then there are other ways to get that. But, then again, maybe I just don't know about the many life-saving uses of the morning after pill... I'd be more than willing to back down on this particular point, assuming that there was one.
3) Another place where the analogy breaks down... We're talking about MASSACHUSETTS. Wal-Mart being the only pharmacy in town is pretty implausible.
4) Let's look at some things you say...
"Perhaps Wal-Mart does not stock the pill because they don't want their "pro-life" customers to boycott Wal-Mart in the future. That would be a legitimate business decision. And that's a decision that the legislature should not allow Wal-Mart to make."
I agree this is unlikely... But, why should the legislature step in and force Wal-Mart to (essentially) undergo a boycott? Of course, maybe the government should just force pro-lifers to keep shopping at Wal-Mart, too, to prevent the boycott. At this point, I think we've pretty obviously crossed the line to "tyrannical".
"If I believed that the pill killed a human being, I would not sell it at my business, profits be damned."
Wait... You just argued that ethical codes trump moral convictions. So, whether profits are damned or not, you've argued that the legislature not only can, but SHOULD force you to sell a pill that you believe kills human beings. There seems to be something entirely messed up about this reasoning.
Finally, a point about economics:
If the morning after pill is less profitable than others, then Wal-Mart is, in fact, LOSING money by stocking it. See, all the time, transportation, and storage space it could be using for more profitable things are not being used for them. So, their profits actually go DOWN...
Now, whether the morning after pill is profitable or not is a question I have no idea about the answer to. Which means, if Wal-Mart says it's not, it probably isn't... I tend to believe that, for better or worse, Wal-Mart is actually interested in maximizing profits. And, that means catering to the customers, as prolife or whatever as they may be.
I'll drop the whole economics issue because none of us know whether or not they are making money off the pill.
Ethical codes do trump moral choices in many situations. If, for example, I were a doctor who refused to do surgery on black people, then I would be breaking an ethical code. When people break such an ethical code, laws have to be passed.
Since when do pharmacists have to follow an ethical code only when the drug will prevent someone from dying? There's more to life than that. The difference between pregnancy and non-pregnancy is significant.
The legislature should dictate that all pharmacies carry the drug, not just Wal-Mart, if it is economically feasible.
Lastly, and most importantly, I will respond to this comment:
"Wait... You just argued that ethical codes trump moral convictions. So, whether profits are damned or not, you've argued that the legislature not only can, but SHOULD force you to sell a pill that you believe kills human beings. There seems to be something entirely messed up about this reasoning."
If I were to believe that the pill killed a human being, the legislature should force me to sell it because my beliefs would be totally unreasonable. I literally mean that my beliefs would have no reasonable basis, and that's why I don't believe that a collection of 40 - 150 cells is a human being in any logical manner. You are a human being; a blastocyst is not.
Ultimately, I think we just disagree on the "Code of Ethics" v. "Freedom of Conscience" issue. But, this goes even deeper.
You believe in tyranny and I don't.
How do I know this?
Because you believe that the government has the right... scratch that... MORAL RESPONSIBILITY (from your use of should) to enforce what it perceives to be "reasonable", and that individuals have no right whatsoever to refuse to bow to the government's mandate.
See, here's my problem with that...
We're all human. Humans are imperfect (including in their ability to reason). Humans make government policy, occasionally based on their reason. Therefore, government policy is also likely to be imperfect.
To argue that government policy is and always has been perfect would, of course, be downright silly.
So, we can carry on from the fact that government policy is imperfect.
Yet, people's consciences (which are informed from many sources including reason) are also imperfect.
So, which is to be preferred?
From a logical standpoint, you really can't put one over the other unless you can make an argume that government process tend to 1) increase imperfection or 2) decrease imperfection. Generally speaking, authoritarians (like yourself) tend to believe that the latter is true. Libertarians (like myself) tend to believe that the former is true. Let me use some examples.
Pretty bad case of imperfect individual conscience: Jeffrey Dahmer... serial killer... Death count: 17
Moderately bad case of imperfect government policy: President Bush's foreign policy Re: Iraq... Death count: >28,000 CIVILIANS, plus quite a bit >2,000 military deaths.
Of course, there are worse cases of "non-government" badness (the Mafia's hitmen, various terrorist organizations, etc.), but they are nothing compared to numbers killed by bad governments (Khmer Rouge, Maoist China, Stalinist Russia, Hitler's Germany).
So, empirically, I'd argue "Government policy is generally worse than individual conscience." There are a number of reasons for this, many of which are covered in Hayek's Road to Serfdom. Good book, highly recommended.
So, given this record, I (along with libertarians in general) argue that the government has only one type of law it can pass: Laws preventing people from doing direct, active harm to each other and each other's property. Of course, there are some complexities and clarifications to this that various libertarian thinkers debate about (the abortion debate is one of them, for example), but that's the basic idea.
So, given that standard, should government be allowed to force pharmacies to carry ECs?
Of course not. Not carrying ECs does not actively harm anyone, or anyone's property. So, it's a perfectly valid decision to make.
So, obviously, you must be using another standard... Which is also obvious from the fact that you're not a libertarian...
So, my question to you is: What is your standard? You clearly have one. So, what is it, and why does it lead to the implication that government policy should force pharmacists to sell ECs, even against their own consciences?
Now, in addition to my libertarian reasons, I have a number of religious reasons for my stance (as you could probably guess). Among them: I believe that Freedom of Conscience is a God-given human right, and that Hypocrisy is an offense against moral law. I also believe that ECs do actually kill human beings. Of course, I don't expect people without the same religious basis I come from to agree with me on these (especially the latter). But, I am sometimes surprised when people argue against things that I thought our culture accepted... Things like Freedom of Conscience, for example... I mean, sure, I expect people to look at me like I'm crazy when I say that life begins at conception, but when I say that you have a right to act out of moral conscience? I guess I'm just not used to that being so hotly contested... So, I'd like to know why... And an example about not performing surgery on black people isn't a reason. It's just an example. I could easily come up with a far more potent counter example. So, here it is (though terribly cliche): Nazi soldiers were under an ethical obligation to kill Jews in obedience to their commander in chief, so, if ethical codes are to be held above moral conscience, then the Nazi soldiers that slaughtered the Jews were not only not responsible for those deaths, but were, in fact, doing the RIGHT thing. Do you really not have a hard time swallowing that?
Or maybe you distinguish between "reasonable" government policy and "unreasonable" government policy. But, who is to be the judge?
Naturally, if you were we'd live in a far different world than if I were. So, who is the "judge of reason"? Last time I checked, Ayn Rand has retired... from life..., so she can't claim it, despite her own high opinions of herself... :-)
Fun conversation. Don't take the jabs too personally... :-)
I must say that this is the first time anyone has called me an authoritarian.
Your argument that "Government policy is generally worse than individual conscience" is pretty weak. You are just demonstrating that the government is more powerful than the individual. Still, I do agree that government regulation should be a last resort in any situation.
Now, here's the reason why I'm not a libertarian... libertarians are far too idealistic.
You say, "I (along with libertarians in general) argue that the government has only one type of law it can pass: Laws preventing people from doing direct, active harm to each other and each other's property."
Sure, that sounds good on paper, but let's take a look at the reality of our world:
Should we have a military draft? Yes, when it is necessary. Is it sometimes necessary? Yes, without a draft we would likely be defeated in a significant war. Do I want to be drafted? Hell no. That's just how things are.
Should we have welfare? Yes, the ability for humans to live decently is very important. Private charities would not have the ability to provide for all the poor in the United States. For one thing, there would be no manageable infrastructure. How is a private charity supposed to know if a person needs $350 to buy groceries for a family of 8?
Do we need the FDA? Of course, look at the horrible state of the food industry before the FDA. Who makes sure harmufl drugs don't come onto the market? It's the FDA.
Do we need the SEC? Yes, just take a look at monopolies. They are real, and there has to be regulation to prevent them.
I can go on and on, but the point is that the government has to create laws that don't fit into your "laws preventing people from doing direct, active harm to each other and each other's property." Of course, you could interpret that phrase to cover anything, but then you wouldn't be a libertarian.
Liberty is about more than you make it out to be. People in the United States have a right to health services which rightfully fall under some government legislation. Health is a part of liberty, and the ability of people to legally obtain legal drugs should be guaranteed (again, assuming economic feasibility).
A person who runs a stoplight on religious grounds in no more right than a person who runs a stoplight because they are drunk. I don't care about the reasoning behind running the stoplight, I just know that both will be punished equally under reasonable law.
The Nazi guard who disobeys orders to kill Jews will be punished as well. I agree with the guard who disobeys orders because I believe that killing someone without resonable justification is wrong (a battle might be a resonable justification).
Disobeying the law in the first example is unreasonable. Disobeying the law in the second example is reasonable. All things must be reasoned.
I have given the reasoning why I believe that pharmacies should have to sell ECs. If a pharmacist disobeys the law, he should not be a pharmacist.
Unreasoned personal or religious convictions are not legitimate. You can't claim Freedom of Conscience because that allows anyone to do anything. You need to give a reasonable argument why you oppose ECs to have a legitimate stance from which to argue.
Just for the record:
Wal-Mart pharmacies to carry morning-after pill
I think you can better understand Wal-Mart's motives by reading that article.
I'm also pretty disappointed that nobody decided to defend freedom of conscience from my vicious attack :)
I'm back! I was kind of bogged down by finals and then not doing anything worthwhile during the first part of break, so I didn't get around to responding.
So, here we go!
"Government regulation should be a last resort in any situation."
Actually, that's a much stronger statement than the rest of your comments. Government regulation should be a LAST resort in ANY situation. To me, that rules out government regulation entirely, as there are ALWAYS other resorts in situations. For example, take a simple thing like... a war, for example. There is another resort than government regulation/intervention: letting the opposing army defeat us. Or how about theft? Why not just let people defend their own property and not have a state-run police force? The list goes on and on. Ultimately, I've found that basically no one who says "Government regulation should be a last resort" actually MEANS it.
Now, let's turn from what you say you believe to what you actually believe...
A military draft is "necessary" at times... But, why? Define necessary, sir. Certainly you don't mean "logically necessary", as there are other possibilities that do not defy logic... Like surrender, for example. This is easily within the realm of real possibility. So, I assume you mean some kind of instrumental necessity... So, necessary for what? And, now, justify, based PURELY IN REASON (your standard, not mine) why that thing is a good in itself.
"The ability for humans to live decently is very important. Private charities would not have the ability to provide for all the poor in the United States. etc. etc." 1) Establish, based purely in reason, that humans living decently is important. 2) Establish, based purely in reason, that it is logically impossible for private charities to ensure that they do live decently. All I have to say is "Good luck".
I assume by "horrible state of the food industry", you refer to Upton Sinclairs oh-so-unbiased book about the meat packing industry. Well, I'll have you know, there were ALREADY regulations in place at the state level at the time.
Why do we have to have a regulation to prevent monopolies? I'm not saying that they wouldn't exist without regulation, I'm just asking, why is it so important that we not have them? Where does this ethical principle come from? Purely from reason, I assume. But, how so? Please elaborate.
"The government has to create laws that don't fit into..." Once again, why? Is this some law bound up in the logical nature of the universe? Seeing as your are a person who bases everything you believe on pure reason, I assume so. I'm just not seeing why this is the case. I don't want to accuse you of a "DNF" (does not follow), so please explain how the logical nature of the universe requires that government creates such laws.
"Liberty is about more... People in the US have a right to health services which rightfully fall under some government legislation." WHAT? Where do you get THIS from? I've read the constitution a few times, and it's not in there. And, if health IS so vital a part of liberty, then why is economic feasibility a limiting factor? Things seem pretty mixed up in the logic of this argument. Please sort them out and clarify.
"A person who runs a stoplight on religious grounds in no more right than a person who runs a stoplight because they are drunk. I don't care about the reasoning behind running the stoplight, I just know that both will be punished equally under reasonable law."
I see. Motivation counts for nothing in your ethical system. At least that much is clear. Right thing for wrong reason = right thing for right reason. Bad thing for noble reason = bad thing for ignoble reason. So, care to spell out more of your ethical system? All I have now is anecdotal, unreasoned assertions (government HAS to do this, government HAS to do that, personal ethics CAN'T trump professional ethics, etc.)... With a claim for a purely reasonable basis. Please share that basis. See, the problem is I have NO idea where you're coming from. So, go from the ground up. Since all of your beliefs are reasoned, you have to have arrived at them this way, and you should be able to spell them out in a logical, syllogistic fashion.
The Nazi guard will be punished... Yes... but, rightfully? That's the real question. You say that he's doing the right thing because you believe that "killing someone without reasonable justification is wrong"... But, what qualifies as reasonable justification? You just argued a few posts ago that a pharmacist is NOT allowed to violate their professional code because of personal ethical problems with it. So, why is a soldier granted that right?
You throw the word "reasonable" and "unreasonable" around and argue that "all things must be reasoned"... But, what does that mean to you? Does it mean that you just have to put some thought into it? Does it mean that you have to have a self-evident axiomatic basis for it? What does it mean? Those are the two that I can think of, and it's clear that you don't have the first view. After all, if I were a pharmacist I WOULD think about it. "ECs essentially terminate a pregnancy just as it begins. Because fetuses are human, this is murder. Murder is evil. Therefore, selling ECs is aiding in murder and therefore enabling evil. Therefore, I will not do it." This is clearly not good enough for you as some of the premises are "unreasoned" (technically, all of them are). So, you MUST mean that we have to go back to self-evident axioms. Things that, by their very nature, MUST be true. But, I'm not seeing how your conclusions are coming from self-evident axioms. So, spell out the steps for me.
"Unreasoned personal or religious convictions are not legitimate." Actually, a couple years ago, I set about a great task. I decided I was going to start from self-evident axioms and reason from there. Then I realized. You can't actually GET ANYWHERE through that method. Ultimately, we accept ALL KINDS of things based purely on faith. For example, I believe that the laptop that I'm typing on does actually exist. That it is MORE than just a figment of my imagination. Can I prove this? Of course not. Because, ultimately, every experience I have is filtered through my mind. So, it is logically possible that my mind is actually the source of all my experiences, and that, in reality, I'm just in a "dream world", maybe even The Matrix, for that matter. But, I choose to believe, without any fundamentally reasonable basis, that this laptop does actually exist in a real, physical world that I also inhabit.
Ultimately, reason is NOT a BASIS for beliefs. If it were, we'd be forced to only believe very few things and throw our hands up in the air and declare an end to knowledge at that point.
But, never fear, reason DOES have a purpose. It exists to help us filter things which CANNOT be true. Reason can PROVE very little. But, there is much that it can DISPROVE through the process of contradiction. It can also show conclusions from assumed premises. But, these premises must be assumed in the first place.
This is the conclusion I've come to. And I trust that, in time, you will come to the same conclusion yourself as you further self-examine your own premises and test them against your own standard: Are they reasoned?
And, since you were so looking forward to it... In Defense of Freedom of Conscience.
I'm going to take a more radical stance than I actually believe (I tend to believe that Freedom of Conscience should be allowed to operate within the "Do no direct, active harm to another or his/her property"), just for fun.
Let's allow total Freedom of Conscience. That is THE standard.
Let us look at the major benefit of this system: If everyone acted with total Freedom of Conscience no one would need be guilty of hypocrisy. And, seeing as hypocrisy is, by definition, a contradiction, it is pretty easy to label as "bad". Thus, we have just introduced a system in which one of the easiest things to label as bad has been totally eliminated. Meanwhile, in any system which violates or limits Freedom of Conscience, hypocrisy (a logically "bad" thing) is a necessary outcome. Thus, a system with total Freedom of Conscience is better than one where Freedom of Conscience is compromised. QED.
Okay, that's a bit sloppy, I know. And, actually, it makes me curious about the whole hypocrisy thing... So, if you'll excuse some philosophical musing...
BEGIN PHILOSOPHICAL MUSING
I claim that "hypocrisy" is a contradiction, and therefore bad. But, how can I claim this? Hypocrisy by definition is when you claim to believe one thing and then act on another. This opens up two possibilities: 1) the claim is dishonest. 2) your actions are out of your control. So, saying that hypocrisy is bad is like saying that it is bad to be dishonest and that it is bad to have your actions be out of your control. So, let's examine each of these in turn.
Is it bad to be dishonest? Looking from a logical standpoint, that is... So, does dishonesty create some kind of contradiction? Not necessarily. Ultimately, there is no contradiction in saying you believe something that you do not, in fact, believe. But, the case we are talking about in Freedom of Conscience is not one of dishonesty. We are speaking of one where you are required to violate your ACTUAL beliefs. So, though this route opens up a type of hypocrisy that is not necessarily "bad", it is irrelevant for our current purposes.
Is it bad for your actions to not be under your own control? Here, there is a contradiction. Ultimately, one is always in control of one's own actions. One simply isn't in control of the consequences of one's own actions. So, yes, it is "bad" (that is, a contradiction) for your actions to not be under your own control. But, this also misses the point somewhat. Seeing as we must be in control of our own actions by logical necessity, this means that restrictions of Freedom of Conscience do not necessarily result in hypocrisy as previously defined.
So, what does it result in?
It results in you deciding that something else (avoiding punishment) is more important than following your Conscience. Now, is this bad? Let us examine the idea of Conscience.
Conscience is the moral sense of man. That is, it is where our sense of right and wrong is stored (though it may not be the original source. The original source may be feelings, philosophy, religion, etc.). Now, the question is, is it bad to, as an individual, decide that something else is more important than his own sense of right and wrong? Here we have a contradiction. Ultimately, we must appeal to the sense of right and wrong to decide if this is bad. Thus, everything must necessarily be placed under the sense of right and wrong.
Thus, deciding that something else is more important in making decisions than one's own conscience must be morally wrong. QED
END PHILOSOPHICAL MUSING
Now, to get down to a more personal, practical level. I believe that I should always try to do the right thing as I see it, and that everyone else should do the same. Now, sometimes this means that I have to set aside my preferences and follow laws (because I believe that most laws do carry some moral weight besides just being something that I can be punished for breaking). Here, there has to be discernment between what I believe to be a law of morality and what is just a preference. But, sometimes I may have to set aside the law in favor of my own conscience (though, honestly, I've never actually had to do that thus far in my life). And, when I do that, I will have to accept the punishment. I do NOT have to accept that the punishment is right. I just have to accept that the punishment is a real consequence of me following my conscience.
Also, I expect other people to follow their consciences. May this lead them to do things that I think are quite immoral? Perhaps. Thus, we have persuasion with which we can try to convince people to "change their minds".
Will Consciences conflict? Undoubtedly. Then, we just see what happens. Does the result prove who is right? No. But, at least everyone was doing what they believed was the right thing, even if it led to their own death.
So, there you have it, an extremely long, and probably not particularly interesting post. I hope that there's at least some enjoyment and/or thought that comes out of it.
I'll make this brief. You want me to reason out, for example, why it is important for human beings to live decently. Anything on that scope is hard to articulate because I believe that our ethical systems are based upon our biological dispositions. It's organic, but it is something that nearly everyone accepts. I hope you accept that said example is close to our ethical axiom. I think the axiom is close to "we wish to continue living unharmed in the best way we see fit." I think this is also relevant to the way other animals live their lives. Regardless, once we have the axiom, the lines of argument isn't too hard to see. I will not try to justify the axiom itself because it's an axiom. You have to start somewhere.
Some of your other objections are quite valid, and we could argue about them. But, I think you would still be making reasonable arguments even if they are based on a hard-to-articulate ethical system with biological roots.
I object when you say, "I also believe that ECs do actually kill human beings. Of course, I don't expect people without the same religious basis I come from to agree with me on these."
When you say that, you are totally throwing reason out the window. In other areas, you DO make reasonable arguments, they are just hard-to-articulate in the overall scope of things, as I have mentioned. When you talk about ECs, you just chalk it up to your religious beliefs. Unless you can reasonably justify your religious beliefs, what you say is invalid. Having "faith" that your laptop is in front of you and faith that ECs kill a human being are not the same type of faith. I don't have time to go into that, but I've discussed it somewhat on my website. I'll put the link at the end.
I know that I haven't answered all your questions, and I'm sorry about that. I hope I don't come off as a jackass; I just have strong beliefs.
Website:
http://www.louisville.edu/~gajohn03/atheism.html
Post a Comment
<< Home