Saturday, January 04, 2003 Conservative and liberal networks
Does this stuff about campus republicans ring true for you guys? Any ideas how liberals can build networks? I've been thinking about similar issues ever since I wrote an article for The Nation on liberal campus publications (which hopefully should come out this month!):
Recently, there's been sort of a clamor for, you know, liberals in the "liberal media". Much has been thrown about in an attempt to figure out how to get liberals into the same sort of paradigmatic roles that so many conservatives are in now, from talk radio to print to television. I mean, honestly, even accused liberal Dan Rather, face of one of the most watched news programs in America, isn't as creepingly liberal as, say, a Fox News anchor is conservative.
The first thing is - a network of liberals. Not a TV network, but a real-life network. Fully-fledged think tanks, "Young Democrat" organizations, full ideological connection in a variety of mediums outside of the media. Going to one of those liberal-elite academies of the East Coast, I find myself constantly marveled at how organized the eight College Republicans are compared to the vast majority of not-angry people. They have a small PAC for local candidates, ins with the local Republican Party, and even a national organization that gets them such lovable crazies as David Horowitz and this "ex-gay" guy a year or so ago. By contrast, the College Democrats, though well-organized, have none of the outside companionship that the Republicans do - even in the newspaper, there's a well-coordinated effort to have conservative columnists (actually, it's affirmative action, but don't tell them that), and it works. We hear about this terrible, terrible discrimination against conservatives that's entirely anecdotal, and sparing at that. But it still dominates discourse to an untold degree.
I guess I should have been more clear about the point I was making regarding North Korea and Iraq. While I agree with Krugman that the current Bush policy is leading North Korea directly into developing nuclear weapons, my main concern is that North Korea, which seems to me a far more serious security issue than the Iraqi one, is being largely ignored by the Bush administration, while, for the past several months, the possibility of war with Iraq has been thrown around by administration officials.
I thought, perhaps naively, that all the money that is currently being poured into homeland defense and the like would alert us to more serious threats like the current one in North Korea. While Saddam has proven himself to be a somewhat shrewd leader, particularly when threatened with U.S. military action, the situation in North Korea seems far more precarious. One thing I fear is a nuclear weapon in the control of a truly unpredictable and possibly unstable dictator. Iraq, from what I've read, seems farther from creating nuclear weapons, and also seems to have a slightly more rational leader at the helm. Sure, he's violent and completely self-interested. When you get right down to it, many leaders are. But, he is at least cooperating with the United States. Where should our priorities lie?
"But for all its belligerence, the Bush administration seems willing to confront only regimes that are militarily weak."
What's wrong, in theory, with this strategy? I don't understand why countless liberal columnists want a more macho Bush who will take on nuclear powers and maximize US casualties. Also interesting that Krugman lauds Clinton's plans for a military invasion. Odds are, if Bush sent more troops to the region, Krugman would be crying and screaming about the warmongerers on the Potomac. But regardless, I think Bush is right to hold back. Conventional warfare against a (potential) nuclear power would be reckless and suicidal. I'd rather our president worry about the safety of his armed forces than the status of his masculinity as perceived by Krugman and co.
So war against North Korea is out. Right now the best option, to me, seems to be the one endorsed by Ted Galen Carpenter and Charles Krauthammer: the US should threaten to encourage Japan and South Korea to go nuclear. In the best case scenario, China gets blackmailed into putting political pressure on North Korea, and the problem gets resolved diplomatically. At worst, Japan and South Korea have the ability to deter North Korea, and the US moves out of the region. America loses a good deal of influence in the Far East, but that seems preferable to overextending herself and sweating bullets every time Dear Leader bares his teeth.
Hello everyone, apologies for not posting earlier. The posts and the presentation of the blog are excellent. Good job everyone. Since I haven't seen much discussion of the topic here at FreeDartmouth yet, I thought I'd repeat some interesting comments by Paul Krugman in the NYT:
So here's how it probably looks from Pyongyang:
The Bush administration says you're evil. It won't offer you aid, even if you cancel your nuclear program, because that would be rewarding evil. It won't even promise not to attack you, because it believes it has a mission to destroy evil regimes, whether or not they actually pose any threat to the U.S. But for all its belligerence, the Bush administration seems willing to confront only regimes that are militarily weak.
The incentives for North Korea are clear. There's no point in playing nice — it will bring neither aid nor security. It needn't worry about American efforts to isolate it economically — North Korea hardly has any trade except with China, and China isn't cooperating. The best self-preservation strategy for Mr. Kim is to be dangerous. So while America is busy with Iraq, the North Koreans should cook up some plutonium and build themselves some bombs.
Disturbing, no? Republicans are supposed to be better at dealing with war and potential defense crises, right? Sounds to me like someone has a singleminded vendetta against Saddam, and little interest in real concerns regarding national and international security. Someone care to prove me wrong? Enough for now, but I will (hopefully) soon respond to Jon's characteristically well-reasoned but unfortunately misguided comments on fathers' rights.
Check out this story: Portland had no problem with police looking through people's garbarge without a warrant, so some reporters decided to turn the tables and look in the trash of the mayor, police chief, and DA (and to publish the contents!)
Posted by Timothy,
5:38 AM
-
Friday, January 03, 2003 A sectarian democracy is effectively a contradiction in terms.
Posted by Jonathan,
11:34 PM
-
Israeli Democracy Under Threat?
Slate reports that Israel's election commission has banned two Arab Israeli politicians from seeking office. Many Israeli papers are upset that a commission even has that power. The Slate article does not say, but I assume that the Arab politicians were disqualified because they have supported violence in some way. But what do you all think of the provision that you must support the existence of Israel as a specifically Jewish state in order to seek office? Many Leftist Jewish intellectuals in Israeli support turning Israel into a secular state, a state of all its peoples. Is it fair that they (apparently) can't run for office? What kind of adherence to constitutional principles can a democracy demand of potential representatives? How much are these judgments of basic democratic principles universal and how much are they informed by shared understandings of different political communities?
Leaders of the Israeli Arab community claimed they were being disenfranchised after Israel's Central Elections Committee voted earlier this week to bar two Arab lawmakers serving in the current parliament from contesting the Jan. 28 Knesset elections. The 41-member committee ignored the recommendation of Chairman Mishael Cheshin, a Supreme Court judge, and voted to disqualify Ahmed Tibi and Azmi Bishara. The decision was possible because, according to the Jerusalem Post, the law governing the Knesset "expressly disqualifies the candidacies of parties and individuals who negate Israel's right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state; engage in racist incitement; or support an enemy state or terror organization's armed struggle against the state." Cheshin felt the two Arab MKs should be given "the benefit of the doubt." The committee also disregarded Cheshin's counsel and allowed the candidacy of Baruch Marzel, a former head of the late Meir Kahane's outlawed Kach movement, who once advocated the expulsion of Arabs from Israel. All three cases will be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Republican remorse? Turns out the pundits who mocked the Republicans for their courageous "purge" of racism actually fell short of the mark. Instead of distancing themselves from Lott after the token gesture (while losing the leadership is more than a token gesture, if it is a gesture made to assuage fears of systemic racism in the party, it's pretty vacuous) of booting him as Majority Leader, the Republicans are going to give him a Committee Chair. Will the wonders never cease?
While I am probably closer to Mr. Plumer in terms of my opinion of abortion (I would not allow the murder of my unborn child, personally, and I am slightly aghast at court precedent that denies the father a say in whether or not his child will be aborted), as I admitted that my distinction of humanity is arbitrary (although not chosen completely without reason) I must assent to the status quo. I personally cannot morally countenance abortion unless the mother's life is at risk, but as I am as yet unconvinced of the universality of this morality, I would personally decline a decision effecting others. That said, as far as stem cell research is concerned, I have no qualms. This is not because I am weighing life against multiple lives (research on the cells of one fetus saving millions of adult lives), but rather because I am aware of the practicalities of stem cell research. The stem cell lines in question are obtained from "leftover" fetuses that are going to be thrown in the garbage. They are biological slag from fertility clinics. Leaving aside, then, whether it would be moral for fertility clincs to produce more than one embryo for implant at once and throw away the unused ones, one must come to the conclusion that if the cells are there and are going to be destroyed rather than used otherwise, one may as well use the cells. It isn't as if OKing stem cell research need result in the production of embryos just for research; the supply created as fertility clinic byproducts is sufficient.
By the way, since I mentioned before that I am incensed about the precedent for males to be denied a say in the abortion of their children, does anyone have an opinion on that? I find the feminist arguments unconvincing, and mostly a case of trying to have cake and eat it, too. Crying about the necessities borne by women in the paradigm of sexual reproduction does not constitute a convincing argument; complaints to nature are not complaints I need answer. The fact is, someone has to carry the baby. I don't think that arguing that the mother automatically deserves more say in the baby's fate because she physically carries it is a fair line of argument. It is the whimsy of nature that this is so, and it could be the other way around; arguing with biology is probably not going to yield results. I am not saying that the situation is always such that the woman ought not have more or complete say in the decision. For instance, if the situation is such that the father is unavailable or unwilling to support the mother through the trials and tribulations of pregnancy or to support the child afterwards, I could see giving the decision solely to the mother. However, assuming it is my child, and I have decided that I will not only support the mother through the pregnancy but would go so far as to take sole responsibility for the child afterwards, I think I should have some say before a being consisting of one half my chromosomal material is destroyed. I would be forced by law (ineffectively enforced as it may be, that is not relevant to the abstract argument) to take responsibility if it were born against my wishes, after all. The argument would be that I need pay the piper as the child is half my responsibility; I was at least half involved in the sex that created it. Considering this, though, why should the mother be able to shirk her half of the responsibility merely due to the fact that it is unfair that she suffer the burden of carrying the baby to term, its effect on her career, etc.? This is when the argument is raised that I, as the father, not having to carry the baby and not having it effect my career, should not have a say. Do you all see the problem? This is the complaint to nature of which I spoke, and I am sorry that women have to shoulder this additional inconvenience, but as I stated, it's the responsibility assumed in the sexual act. Mothers should bare it in the same way that I would have to claim my share of the responsibility, by law, when the time came. That the mother may suffer nine months of physical inconvenience as part of her responsibility, and that this is unfair in relation to the virtually nonexistent physical burden shouldered by the father, as I have now stated three times, is a bout of whining that goes unheard by an unconcerned Mother Nature (no pun intended).
Posted by Jonathan,
6:32 PM
-
re: persons vs. humans
Just because I’m not 100% sure that a fetus is human means nothing. I’m not 100% sure that Japanese people are human (for all I know, they could be Replicants, ala Blade Runner), but I still treat them as human beings. Likewise fetuses. The point was, as Mr. Eisenman noted, we will probably always remain unable to determine what exactly constitutes human life. So I’m going to believe that life begins at conception, to be safe. Many pro-choicers believe that the moral consequences of abortion can be avoided if we simply view the fetus as not quite human. I should note that slavery and the Holocaust were justified using similar reasoning. And yes, I place mass abortion on equal footing those atrocities. 40 million deaths and counting. Josef Stalin would sh*t himself.
Mr. Waligore, you argue that because I hold the above, I cannot allow abortion for any reason whatsoever. Spurious, simply spurious! Let me offer the following example. Imagine that you and I are riding in a gondola, when suddenly the floor gives way and we fall out. I am hanging on only by my fingertips, and you are hanging onto my foot. Now, I haven’t been to the gym in quite some time so I can’t pull both of us up. If I let you hang on, we’ll both fall 260,000 feet to our death (it’s a really high gondola). If I kick you free, then I can pull myself up. Now, sir, I accord you all the rights of a full human being, even though I can’t be 100% sure that you aren’t a Replicant. But in this case, sorry, I’m kicking you off. Did I commit murder? From a moral standpoint, it seems so (if we can separate morality from the law-- a good question in itself). Was I justified? I personally think so. That doesn’t mean I’m ready to treat all humans instrumentally. I think even as you dropped to your death you would agree that just because I kicked you off doesn‘t necessarily mean I support murder of all sorts. Likewise, just because I would abort a baby to save the mother’s life doesn’t automatically mean I endorse kicking fetuses around and eating the leftovers.
Likewise, I’m torn on stem-cell research. If it can lead to tangible benefits for the greater part of mankind, does that justify murder? I don‘t know, I have to think about it. Obviously these ethical dilemmas become a lot simpler from the pro-choice perspective, since stem cells aren‘t considered humans. From my perspective, it forces me to make a very difficult choice. But my choice is not determined from the outset, as you seem to imply.
Posted by Brad Plumer,
5:08 PM
-
offensiveness and race.
Jon, I did not think my post on race and offensiveness was a complete non-sequitur. Here I am, talking about arguments against eating baby flesh, and then I switch to talking about how we should ask if people are offended. I knew the latter argument would seem silly even contradictory following the former (devil's advocate) line, but I wanted to post it nonetheless because I had taken so long. I mean, if people can't take justifiable offense to talk of eating babies, what can they? I suppose debate is different, but i'm not sure. But Jon brought up a different link than I had thought of.
Jon argues that "We are deciding if eating a dead baby is morally wrong, not whether it is offensive. If I set up a table in Collis upon which sat a barrel of dog feces, this gesture would certainly be offensive to the Collis patrons. However, I question whether or not it is morally wrong in the same way that turning Jews into soap is morally wrong." Well yes, morally wrong and offensive ARE different categories. That was my point! Or to be more precise, somethings things are offensive without being morally wrong, and we should condemn some offensive things, even if they aren't strictly speaking 'morally wrong.' Jon, please correct if I am wrong in saying this as I seem to have been misreading your other points recently, but your position seemed to be that any offensive thing worth condemning should be condemned on he grounds that it is wrong, not that it is offensive to other people. But I'm arguing that while some things that are also offensive are best condemned as morally wrong (say Trent Lott), there are some offensive things not morally wrong that are worthy of condemnation. Trent Lott said at first: I'm sorry if anyone misinterpreted me and was offended, and offensive does seem like an excuse. My sugesstion was to put forth was a notion of justifiable offense: you understand why people are rightly offended. And sometimes that involved learning in conversation. Jon seems to say: "this isn't morally wrong, so don't talk about offense." In saying the concept of justified offense is still useful, I am also saying that concepts of morality develop in the inclusion of minority groups. So we shouldn't always assume that our current moral standards are complete and we have all the facts. As for the baby thing, I hope you can understand why someone would take offense at this, I you wouldn't talk about it in front of someone who just has a baby who died. Context matters, and I've justified this by saying it's like parliamentary debate and no greiving mothers are likely to read this. For example, Jon, making a photoshop picture elephant humping a donkey from behind may be extremely funny in private, but it wouldn't be wise to offend so many by putting that in print (even if it's not morally wrong-- well, the picture at least, you know what i mean!).
We can't say that simply because something is offensive, you shouldn't say it. But we can't say all offensive things can be reduced to 'morally wrong' for the reasons I've mentioned, and for many others. So I don't have answers, but I'm suggesting we need to think about what 'justifiable offense' means...
I have been saying this discussion is ridiculous about whether it is wrong for British Channel 4 to broadcast an artist eating the flesh of a stillborn baby and that it reminds me of parliamentary debate. You know, it's not the structure of the debate and the outlandish topics. It's that someone at Dartmouth once actually ran a case in a real debate round that went like this: you have a choice of killing either a baby or an old man, which do you do? We all thought it was ridiculous, and if Paul, Josh, Will or any of the debaters saw us debating whether it was OK to munch on rotting baby meat, they would laugh their heads off.
UPDATE: The Dartmouth Review now has a separate weblog called the Inner Office, which is devoted to non-Dartmouth matters. Andrew Grossman had this to say about our recent ridiculous back and forth on baby talk:
Devolution Free Dartmouth, the Free Press's weblog, has already floated to the shallow end of the pool with recent back-and-forth jousting over eating dead babies (really), which segued into abortion, which segued into Jonathan Eisenman proving to anyone unsure that he's a defensive and self-obsessed twerp (30+ references to himself in a two paragraph post). What's with the name, anyway? "Free Dartmouth"? Free Dartmouth from what? Hetero-patriarchal oppression or something? It just doesn't make any sense. Anyway, I'm surprised it took this long -- almost a few weeks! -- for Free Dartmouth to get that bad. Keep it up, boys.
I may have missed some of Jon's point in my late night stupor and my parliamentary debate rush to answer. Jon said his answer is not utilitarian, but it seems to still follow rule-utilitarianism, rather than act utilitarianism, but I'm not sure on this. Jon then lays out a different utilitarian scenerio under which eaties babies is beneficial. But it seems that if baby-eating ever became socially beneficial, how would we argue against it? Jon may explain the origin of the taboo, but how to we justify it today, especially if we are pro-choice? He seems to be saying we don't need to, but I am not sure. Not all taboos that had practical (if that) reasons in the past deserve credit today. And taboos can be bad: eg those against homosexuality. Lots of repulsive things yesterday may be socially beneficial today or in the future, and yet we wouldn't want to allow them (eg. killing off stupid people). So Jon, I think after revising my thoughts, I'm better understanding you, but not quite. Why did you say you have a reason against eating baby flesh today? You said you had answered me when I responded only to brad, but does your argument really depend on Garg and brain diseases only?
I understand the point that if we are not sure something is human, then we shouldn't eat its flesh. I might note that pro-choicer often use right-based arguments on behalf of the woman. I wasn't talking about eating live fetus arms or live 14 week old stem cells, I was talking about eating dead versions of them. But if Brad cannot be 100% whether each of those things is human, and his uncertainty leads him to play it safe, is he LESS sure and MORE uncertain the younger the unborn baby is? I guess Brad is against stem-cell research (which by the way, is not to far from Jon's hypothetical example about babies being the most nutritious source of food out there-- on that by the way, vegetarians would certaintly eat flesh for protein, esp. given the adequate (however inferior) substitute of tofu.) Jon's example of punching someone in the womb is a very contemporary one: republicans are trying to make it a crime of manslaughter (or murder?) for another to kill a baby in the womb. I think out loud and say there is something morally significant about the forced dependence of a fetus on a mother. One more distinction I made, and didn't make clear in my last post: the one between a human and a person (or a potentional human if you prefer). Should we consider a fetus a person with the same rights as all other humans? If so, Brad cannot maintain that abortion should be allowed for any reason: we would not allow a baby to killed after birth because she was the product of rape. Brad's hiroshima example doesn't help him with this: if he thinks stem cells and new born babies have the same status, he needs to accord them the same right not to be killed or tell us why he makes an exception (and why that exception doesn't lead him to endorse fetus munching!)
Posted by Timothy,
2:53 PM
-
I want my babyback babyback babyback...
I know this was addressed to Brad, but if I may -
Tim writes:
you say you can't be 100% sure that a fetus is a human: what is the source of your doubt and what could convince you?
I would offer that an exhaustive list of categories that distinguish human beings as human beings is not something that mankind currently has within his grasp. I found, in trying to answer a similar question previously, that the best way to delineate what constitutes a human being is to admit arbitrariness and reserve the designation only for Homo sapiens. In light of this, I would offer that a fetus, if a member of that species, is a human. However, as I admit arbitrariness, I would have the force of many other arguments to contend against if I offered this as the backbone of pro-life policy. So we hit something of another snag...
Posted by Jonathan,
3:53 AM
-
The San Francisco Treat
Tim writes:
Jon says he answered the question about babies below, but is our revulsion at baby flesh eating really dependent on brain diseases and Garg's running speed? Jon's account is utilitarian and a case could be made that no one is hurt by eating dead babies. How does allowing the eating of stillborn babies lead to the downfall of the social order in which people actively kill each other? Continuing the ridiculousness, what if we only allow the eating of people who weren't killed? If we're only utilitarian, wouldn't regulation of baby flesh eating help eliminate baby meat tainted with brain diseases?
And in doing so, completely misses the point. I posited by reducing the "revulsion" in our society toward the idea of eating flesh to practical causes, that the root of this taboo can be found in practical matters. Now that we have built up this taboo, it does not seem a conclusive refutation of a utilitarian notion of their cause is gained by challenging the utility of taboo in the current time. Furthermore, since Tim feels he is already wallowing in ridiculousness, let's stoop even further. What if stillborn babies were the easiest and most nutritious source of food we could obtain, and we had no reason to believe that eating stillborn babies was the same, morally, as killing and eating other people. We could just make some women into baby factories and give them a good swift kick to the abdomen at around 5:30, boil the miscarriage for half an hour, and serve with rice. I suppose you could refute this by saying that there is a moral imperative not to murder people, but then you would be calling the unborn a person. After all, even if you caused it to be stillborn, it was still inside the womb when you killed it, so you didn't kill a person, did you? Or, you could respond with the utility argument that I made - that it isn't a good practice for people to get into the habit of using one another as a food source. Or, if we would dearly like to eat stillborn or other human, but were worried about contracting kuru, I suppose we could just screen for it. But as there is no screening mechanism for these prions, that would be impossible now - just as impossible as it was when people realized way back when that eating others might just be making them sick. In our times, yes, this is a ridiculous argument to support. But the support, as I said, was in a reduction of our current socialize norms, and to deny that the precursors to which I pointed are still pertinent is not to deny the effects.
And while Tim might have thought his rejoined to me vis-a-vis race was a non sequitur, in fact, he ended his comments on baby-eating by asking if the artist who did so "offends our sensibilities and morals." This provides perfect grounds on which to challenge his assertion made, contra-me, that my categories of "offensive" and "wrong" are not interchangable. We are deciding if eating a dead baby is morally wrong, not whether it is offensive. If I set up a table in Collis upon which sat a barrel of dog feces, this gesture would certainly be offensive to the Collis patrons. However, I question whether or not it is morally wrong in the same way that turning Jews into soap is morally wrong. For that matter, my reference to the preparation of baby in the above paragraph might be offensive, but it is certainly not morally wrong to make such a statement. You would object to the statement, more than likely, on the grounds that if I offered it as a suggestion for action, the action would be reprehensible (or so our gut reaction seems to tell us, which is no doubt why the artist chose to eat a baby in the first place). You would not object on the grounds that you were offended by my remarks; to do so would be a subjective and vacuous objection, not worth the oxygen you are exchanging in your lungs to utter it. Also, when I suggested someone respond to my earlier remarks, it was more because I was looking for satisfactory discourse; an actual defensible assertion. I think I have managed to show why my terminology is not a mere semantic change, but I do not think that the published rejoinder satisfactorily shows any reason why my assertion is incorrect beyond its accusation of word-games. It is a sermon about moral progress. All well and good, but it certainly does little to give me, in this case, any other perspective from which I should be learning.
Posted by Jonathan,
3:46 AM
-
The Britney Rebuttal
I think I have to grant the strength of Brad's arguments about him not accusing pro-choicers of being pro-Cannibal. On the rest, rather than go point by point, I wanted to follow parliamentary debate style and go to rebuttal crystallization points, emphasized with song titles... (such as: Eat my Baby, with more thyme!)
But there are still unadressed issues, so I'll pretend I'm raising points of information (or cross-examining Brad, if you prefer...)
On your second point, you say you can't be 100% sure that a fetus is a human: what is the source of your doubt and what could convince you? Is there more scientific evidence that needs to be gathered yet, or is this largely a moral question? (Hiroshima and abortion are different in the sense that we know the Japanese are human-- even if some in this country during WWII didn't... the uncertainties in that moral situation lie elsewhere)
Posted by Timothy,
3:36 AM
-
The All-American Baby Buffet
Cannibal apologist, I like that! Alright, parliamentary debate on. Let’s do this point-by-point, to make things easier...
1) “Brad, you made the implication, which you seem to assert again, that a pro-choicer has no reason to oppose eating dead baby flesh.”
No. My comments were based on the logic of *my personal worldview.* Since I believe abortion is murder, and since abortion is currently acceptable, I responded cynically that we may as well allow eating dead babies, since this seems to me the lesser crime. Sir, the proof is in the postings, and within the context of my beliefs, the satirical logic is sound (however unfunny). Now, a pro-choicer may have a different view of things than I do--differentiating between fetuses and infants, for example. In which case he/she may argue that the rights of a dead infant may exceed that of a fetus. Or that the utility of abortion exceeds that of art, etc. etc. So yes, within certain logics, sure, a pro-choicer could oppose eating dead baby flesh and be perfectly consistent.
Once again: I personally believe that pro-choicers might as well allow eating dead baby flesh. But I also recognize that pro-choicers have perfectly good reason to oppose the practice, given their beliefs. Does this make sense? I grant the logic, though I disagree with the premises. Now I also may have ascribed false beliefs to pro-choicers when I implied that they have absolutely no respect for the rights of fetuses. Such is the nature of sarcasm, alas.
2) “Do you believe that abortion is always wrong for any reason? Do you believe it should never be allowed at any stage for any reason? Is a fetus a human? Should even the life of the mother not be an excuse for abortion, as letting die is better than active killing?”
Yes, I believe abortion is always wrong for any reason. But (the short answer) I think in certain cases it should be allowed. If the life of the mother is in danger I would probably support the abortion. I still consider it wrongful murder, just like I consider the bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki wrongful murder, however many lives it saved, and however much I support the action.
Do I believe a fetus is human? Yes. The caveat? Obviously I can’t be 100% sure, and there are great arguments both ways. But I’d rather err on the side of caution and assume human life begins at conception. Even if someday I came to support abortion, I’d never base abortion stance on the *possibility* that life begins in the third trimester. Endorsing abortion because you *think* that a fetus isn’t human seems like a rather grave thing to be wrong about. Especially with the death-toll in the tens of millions, no?
3) “Hence, you would be willing to treat the fetus instrumentally. If you allow that exception, what principled way can you resist doing something with dead babies are stillborn (which are not aborted or not aborted intentionally).”
Again, if I support the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, does that mean I can’t principally oppose murder? I don’t get the logic here. Moral philosophy is not my strong suit, but I think we need a finer distinction between making difficult a moral choices where someone must be hurt, and treating people instrumentally.
As for your second question, how does it follow? I can just deny that infant-cuisine serves any instrumental purpose. But let me turn the question around. Suppose eating dead babies *was* instrumental. If eating dead baby flesh saved lives, would you support it?
4) “I also might mention Brad ignored my stillborn baby/ embryo distinction.”
Sir, I confess to befuddlement. I said that the desecration of an already dead corpse was less egregious than killing an embryo. That seems to make a distinction. Explain yo’self.
5) “Would it be worse, better, or the same to eat a few stem cells in the 2nd week after fertilization than the proto-pinky of a second term fetus?”
Dearie me, now you’re talking about eating living organisms. How is this relevant to the discussion? Oh, and my answer is... “the same.” Well, okay, technically I think eating someone’s brain is worse than eating someone’s pinky. Do you want me to make a hierarchy of organs one shouldn’t eat? Speaking of which, all this talk makes me hungry... should the court adjourn for lunch of some sort? ;)
Posted by Brad Plumer,
2:32 AM
-
Offensive baby talk?
Jon says he answered the question about babies below, but is our revulsion at baby flesh eating really dependent on brain diseases and Garg's running speed? Jon's account is utilitarian and a case could be made that no one is hurt by eating dead babies. How does allowing the eating of stillborn babies lead to the downfall of the social order in which people actively kill each other? Continuing the ridiculousness, what if we only allow the eating of people who weren't killed? If we're only utilitarian, wouldn't regulation of baby flesh eating help eliminate baby meat tainted with brain diseases? Is my suggested opposition to baby flesh eating on the basis of dignity coherent? (No one has addressed whether Channel's 4 broadcast of a picture of an artist eating a baby somehow also upset the dignity of the baby, or offends our sensibilities and morals like the artist themselves did.)
Let's talk about race...
Perhaps it not best to follow comments about eating baby flesh with a post about the old topic of offensiveness! My thoughts aren't complete, but I'll post what I have, as Jon Eisenman shed a few tears earlier (and below) when I didn?t respond to his post on 'ghetto party, the sequel' (brought up by Kumar. I had said: "somehow we have to figure out the spirit in which we should approach claims of being justifiably offended." Jon responded:
"Statements can be wrong or right without a criterion for offensive/inoffensive. Should blacks be offended by this statement? Well, I wouldn't be offended if Trent Lott said Jews should be made into soap. I would find the remark, even in light of recent (circa 60 years) history, to be ridiculous, misguided, and stupid, but it wouldn't offend me. Would I exercise my right to free speech in vocally resisting this idea? Yes. But it wouldn't be on the grounds that it's "offensive." It would be on the grounds that it's "wrong." So I think if someone wants to show that the adoption of speech patterns by white suburbanites is wrong, they are not doing it by showing that it is offensive. They will need to show that just the vocalization of those words causes harm (I'll take mental harm, too) to blacks."
I'm a little confused by Jon's statement. He has a rather black and white view of things: things are either wrong or not wrong. Apparently we replace the word 'offensive' with 'wrong' with no problem at all: the only 'offensive' things that should be condemned are ones that are flat out 'wrong': all other offensive things are not 'wrong' and merely refer to people's feelings getting hurt, making the category of 'offensive' unnecessary and even harmful. Part of my 'philosophy', or rather the spirit in which I tend to think we should approach these things, is that what is 'offensive' or not is not simply always 'right' or 'wrong' but comes through conversation and moral learning, learning that involves talking with other people and groups and hearing their perspectives. I?m not trying to be a relativist, but to say that moral progress often comes as a result of learning experiences and from facts and views we couldn?t have known about beforehand. It's nice Jon's mother told him not to take offense, but we can learn lessons from each other and not just our parents?
I answered Wali's question about why eating dead babies is a bad idea whether or not you give a damn about their intrinsic rights. Convenient ways to avoid ethical questions...ah. By the way, I am a little disheartened by the fact that I wrote what until then had been the longest post here about race, and no one responded. I guess that means I have conclusively decided the issue : )
Posted by Jonathan,
1:57 AM
-
Brad Plumer: Pro-Life Bigot or Cannibal Apologist?
Brad, you made the implication, which you seem to assert again, that a pro-choicer has no reason to oppose eating dead baby flesh. I hope you can recognize my wryness. I think in your humor there is a serious point: if we treat something as less than a full human, does it have any dignity we are bound to respect (or rather, can we legitimately sanction those who do not respect this dignity)? The reference to "pro-life bigot" in this post's title is not for being pro-life per se. It's asking if Brad is accusing those of us who are pro-choice of having no logical reason to oppose a lesser cruelty than abortion.
But Brad, a few questions for you, since you seem to be pro-life (or pro-cannibal; I assume the former, or would ask how you answer your own question). Do you believe that abortion is always wrong for any reason? Do you believe it should never be allowed at any stage for any reason? Is a fetus a human? Should even the life of the mother not be an excuse for abortion, as letting die is better than active killing? I'm not trying to getting into an abortion debate, but if Brad does not answer yes to each of these questions (with the possible exception of the last one), then he does not think that fetuses are persons (within say the limits of the fourteenth amendment). If Brad thinks, say, abortion is acceptable in the first trimester in cases of rape and incest, then he is sometimes willing to allow the killing of fetuses based on factors morally irrelevent to an absolutist stance on the status of the fetus as a person (and not merely as living, or as a potential human). Hence, you would be willing to treat the fetus instrumentally. If you allow that exception, what principled way can you resist doing something with dead babies are stillborn (which are not aborted or not aborted intentionally).
I said I was speaking in the mode of parliamentary debate, which means I can play devil's advocate and inject humor about death (and so can you!) So I'll switch gears and challenge everyone: what's wrong with eating the flesh of dead babies? For Brad, what's wrong with a little nibble that hurts no one? Can you be in favor of allowing the death of unborn 'babies' but somehow be appalled at the thought of eating them? I also might mention Brad ignored my stillborn baby/ embryo distinction. Many pro-choicers draw the line at aborting viable fetuses. (also, a still born baby is hardly viable). But this doesn't let us off the hook. Would it be worse, better, or the same to eat a few stem cells in the 2nd week after fertilization than the proto-pinky of a second term fetus? Are these equivilant to eating a baby who died after being alive a week outside the womb? Is it somehow more repulsive to eat baby flesh than adult flesh? Is so, why? Does Brad weep for the 1/3 or so of all pregnancies that end in miscarriage? Is it worse to eat an aborted baby than to eat a miscarried baby?
I think the beginning of an answer is that fetuses are not full humans, but neither are they morally irrelevent. You could take a line similar to Kant's instrumental stance on animal rights: we shouldn't treat animals badly not because they have intrinsic rights, but because it may cause us to treat badly those who do have rights and people, who are similar to animals. Simply because something is not fully human does not mean it is trash to be discarded. (obvious trash is not human and can be discarded, but not everything non-human has no moral status). I can eat meat and still animals should have 'humane' conditions when they are alive. I can favor allowing cats to put to sleep without thinking that animal cruelty laws are ridiculous (can't I?) The ridiculousness continues...
Posted by Timothy,
1:40 AM
-
I'll Gladly Pay You Tuesday For A Hamburger Today
Perhaps this is a reductionist account, but I would posit that religious traditions opposed to cannibalism might be so for at least two simple reasons. First, if people can freely cannibalize one another, social order is in jeopardy. If I had a hankering for some Indian victuals, you'd better believe Garg couldn't outrun me, and he is for gun control, so I would have his head on a platter faster than Jewel could get a less substantial meal to my door. Secondly, as any native New Guinean on this blog could tell you, eating members of your own species puts you at risk of developing prion-caused diseases like kuru, or, if you're a cow, bovine spongiform encephalitis. Two good reasons not to cannibalize things. Bon apetite.
Posted by Jonathan,
12:47 AM
-
Thursday, January 02, 2003 Eating Baby Flesh is Wrong, Dammit!
eek! Tim, I was being sarcastic. Or at least trying. Yes, I think chowing down an infant corpse is wrong (and I was hoping that could go without saying...). But I find descrating an already-dead body less egregious than killing a living fetus. From my point of view, it seems silly for people to accept the latter and express shock at the former. That was what I was trying to imply. But if you personally see nothing wrong with abortion, then obviously you can be against eating dead babies and not see the contradiction.
Make sense? I do not, nor have I ever, endorsed the biting, nibbling, gnawing, munching, chewing or digesting of little children! I'll be honest, I never thought I would ever be forced to say that... ;)
You got to love GOP basher Tom Tomorrow and also, in a very different way, crazy Christian fundamentalist Jack Chick, whose new comic tract talks about Muslims converting after the World Trade Center attacks. By the way, here is my all time favorite Chick tract: what an ending! (Oh, and this tract inspired The Holy and the Homo. See the Jack Chick parody site.)
Posted by Timothy,
6:24 PM
-
Eating Baby Flesh is Wrong, Dammit!
I feel like I'm back in parliamentary debate when I hear Brad's wicked comments, so I'll approach it like that. I have to say I do not think you have to be against abortion to be against eating the flesh of dead babies. (I might note this case involves a stillborn baby: the person wasn't eating an aborted fetus or an early term embryo). I suppose the taboo against eating flesh is that: a taboo. But maybe we don't want people to eat the flesh of the dead in part because it might encourage them to cause people to be dead. But people don't abort in order to eat baby flesh, and I don't think we have to worry about that. I don't think Roe v. Wade has caused an epidemic of baby-burgers. But does this case remind us that still born babies (or fetuses, if you draw that implication) have some moral standing? Sure. The dead deserve respect as once living human beings. Even if you want to say fetuses deserve respect as potential human beings, this does mean dead potential human beings should be accorded full personhood. Someone else can comment on whether Christianity condemns cannibalism. (and for those of you who think eating baby flesh is wrong- explain to Brad why and also whether it's art to simply break taboos)
Posted by Timothy,
6:20 PM
-
Wednesday, January 01, 2003 re: Is eating the flesh of babies art?
Sure, why not? We already kill unborn fetuses by the bucketful for the sake of convenience. Might as well munch on an infant or two while we‘re at it...
As for Christian backing, I don’t know if the Bible expressly forbids cannibalism. If I recall, there are several injunctions in Leviticus and Deuteronomy against eating anything with blood still in it, and against eating anything that dies of itself. So... I’d say that just about rules out eating stillborn babies. Unless, of course, he’s just biting and chewing, without swallowing. In which case he might be in the clear.
Posted by Brad Plumer,
10:48 PM
-
Is eating the flesh of babies art?
C4 to show artist eating dead baby
Jamie Wilson Monday December 30, 2002 The Guardian
Channel 4 was yesterday back in the dock over plans to broadcast a programme showing a performance artist eating the flesh of a dead baby.
The documentary, Beijing Swings, which looks at the extreme practices of some artists in China, also shows a man drinking wine that has had an amputated penis marinaded in it.
The programme, which has been condemned by the Chinese embassy in London, will be broadcast on Thursday night. A spokesman for Channel 4 said last night: "The programme will be controversial and will shock some viewers but a warning will be given before it goes out on air."
The documentary shows stills of Zhu Yu, the artist, biting into the body of a stillborn infant. He says: "No religion forbids cannibalism. Nor can I find any law which prevents us from eating people. I took advantage of the space between morality and the law and based my work on it."
Zhu, who is a Christian, says religion has had a major impact on his work.
But the Tory MP Ann Widdecombe, said: "Jesus Christ said suffer the little ones to come unto me, not that they should be eaten for public entertainment. This programme sounds hideous."
So should Channel 4 in Britain broacast this? Are their actions different from the 'artist' who ate the stillborn baby flesh?
Posted by Timothy,
8:21 PM
-
Tuesday, December 31, 2002 re: Education and the Government
Mr. Stevenson quoted me in his latest post on the Observer, so I feel obliged to reply, though I don't quite understand why he quoted my statement that the federal government has nothing to do with education. (He neither refuted it nor addressed it). Oh well, any excuse to continue my drivel...
1) Mr. Stevenson writes: "If I had the power, I would have stringent standards to becoming a teacher and make it a capital crime to be an unqualified teacher in the public schools."
Make stricter standards and fewer tachers will be available. As Mr. Alessandroni has noted, teachers already make less than plumbers. What incentive do teachers have to undergo even MORE training? Privatize education, however, and force schools to pay for top-notch teachers, and both skill-level and salaries will go up. Schools can't turn profits by hiring cheap, unskilled teachers anymore than Morgan Stanley can save money by putting unskilled laborers in analyst positions. Both will pay handsomely for quality.
2) "[What] coporatization of media and the creation of profit-driven news does is dumb-down the public."
Too true, which is why privatized education would probably only work in conjunction with some sort of federal educational standard. Maybe this is what Karsten was getting at (and I missed it earlier, apologies). And I wonder... would it be possible for "corporate" education to create a "dumbed down" education? Would schools start teaching their students "ways to play the game," ie: learn how to take SATs, learn how to get into college, learn how to interview well, but NOT learn those useless liberal arts? How do we avoid this (assuming it should be avoided)? Or do we need to? Sure, current private schools churn out their fair share of tools, but plenty of private schools (Jesuit schools, anyone?) offer the sort of education that would make the Dartmouth Observer drool. So it's not obvious that privatized schools would turn into another form of "mass consumption," but we should still take the possibility seriously.
3) "The debate about public education should be, in my mind, how can we construct an educational system that will give the least advantage as well as the most advantaged the tools to fulfill the basic duties of citizens in America? "
What are these duties, again? And please, I'd love to hear where trigonometry fits into all of this... :)
Posted by Brad Plumer,
3:11 AM
-
Monday, December 30, 2002 re: School Choice
aaaaugh! my computer has crashed three times while replying... so I’ll give the short version. Karsten, you wrote: “But fundamentally speaking, our federal government guarantees equal opportunity to all its citizens (with education as its primary mechanism).” I see a couple things wrong with this.
1) Fundamentally speaking the federal government has nothing to do with education, unless I‘m mistaken. There is a clear constitutional mandate for defense spending, etc., but none for educational spending.
2) I don’t understand what you mean by “equal opportunity.” Right now, not everyone has the opportunity to attend (or even apply to) Exeter and Groton. Should these schools be eliminated or nationalized? Or do you mean equal opportunity to attend some school with minimum (sometimes very minimum) standards? In which case, I don’t see how privatizing education would get rid of this opportunity. Schools would still exist. If anything, I wonder how “equal opportunity” it is to confine a kid to a crappy school district?
I agree that it would be dangerous to worship free markets (great pic btw) and expect them to work for the eventual good of all. Unfortunately I haven’t researched/thought about it enough to outline exactly how privatized education would benefit everyone (it probably wouldn‘t), especially those who couldn‘t immediately pay for school (ie. the nuances of vouchers... what about immigrants, etc.? do certain schools charge more than others? would vouchers be insufficient for certain schools? i dunno...). But in principle, I don’t see how it is less equal opportunity than the current system.
So, what do you think would be a more offensively racist display to put on TV during prime time? a) Showing a movie in which a white man wears a placard with the phrase "I hate Niggers"in a predominantly black neighorhood, and is subsequently attacked by a mob of young black men who were outraged by this display of deliberately anatgonistic racism. b) Showing a movie in which a white man wears a placard with the phrase "I hate everyone" in a predominantly black neighborhood, and is subsequently attacked by a mob of young black men who were outraged by nothing more than this rather odd display of general misanthropy. If you chose a), and proceeded to edit that scene so that it becomes as in b), you too could be an executive at Fox Television. (the movie in question is Die Hard With a Vengeance )-from atrios.
If Fox was so insistent on not having the 'N-word' appear on television, why didn't they at least just change the sign to 'I hate blacks'? Hmmm... if I was conspiracy minded, I was would say it is all part of Rupert Murdoch's plot to decontextualize black rage! heh. But television network execs are just that idiotic in general, I guess... Should Fox have left it unedited? Does anyone have opinions on when it might appropriate to leave racial slurs present, in order to provide context? (say, on this website or in academic work?)
Posted by Timothy,
3:13 AM
-
Giving Too Much Credit?
Click here to check out a new book published by the Brookings Institute arguing for climate change policy more "sensible" than the Kyoto Protocol. The authors contend that the national strategy must meet four criteria: "it should slow down carbon dioxide emissions where it is cost-effective to do so; compensate those who are hurt economically; require a high degree of consensus both domestically and internationally; and allow countries to enter the program easily and continue to participate even if they drop out of the agreement at certain times."
Maybe I'm giving too much credit here, but regardless of the content of the book or the strength of its arguments, I'm heartened to see economists offering their own policy recommendations given the propensity within that discipline--especially when it comes to environmental and social policy matters--to merely criticize others' political initiatives and thus avoid subjecting one's own positive conceptions to scrutiny.
Re: school choice
Brad, one thing that I find problematic about your post is the phrase "if school choice was as mobile as it should be." Classical economic theory, on its face, seems to support the idea of privatized education: profit motive, competition, consumer choice and all that. But fundamentally speaking, our federal government guarantees equal opportunity to all its citizens (with education as its primary mechanism). So long as that holds true, what motivates educational policy must be a devotion to providing the social good and not the callous pursuit of profit that characterizes commercial enterprise. My opinion on this matter applies, naturally, to ALL manner of social goods. As this is a fundamental economic consideration, others' thoughts on the matter would be appreciated... perhaps in particular Mr. Stevenson, who adoringly worships at the altar of capitalism when it comes to everything except education (as far as I can tell).
Posted by Karsten Barde,
1:54 AM
-
Sunday, December 29, 2002 From the cross to the class
Today's Denver Post (sorry, no link, got a brontosaurus computer and have to read printed newspapers, alas) reports on a study concluding that among states that have implemented rigorous standardized testing, dropout rates have risen, SAT scores have dropped, and AP performance has sagged. Now, this study isn't overly informative becuase it looks at the standardized test states as an aggregate. For instance, 62% of states with tests have seen dropout rates increased. What about the other 38%? Are standardized tests helping here? And why?
Anyways, back to privatized education. Would private schools end up depending on standardized tests as a way of raising their profile, recruiting top students and turning a profit? In theory, if school choice was as mobile as it should be, standardized tests alone wouldn't cut it. (Smart) parents would have no trouble looking at dropout rates, SAT scores, college placement, AP performances. I think those five factors, as well as classroom size, can help indicate the quality of a school.
But are these good factors? AP performance, college placement and SAT scores only measure relatively high-ability students (which is an important consideration, but not the only one). And a school shouldn't necessarily be punished for dropout rates-- for instance, Columbine elementary school has massive dropout rates because of the high Mexican population who pull their kids out of school to go home when work is over (although I hear they're changing the school schedule to accomodate this).
It seems that, in theory, a good standardized test score would be the best indicator of the overall quality of a school. But apparently it's not working. Is the test concept completely hopeless? Or do these tests need revamping? We always hear about the wonderful education in Japan and South Korea, countries which test their kids until they bleed out the ears. But more and more students are dropping out in Japan, cracking under the pressure, clamoring for a more "creative" approach to learning.
Haven't given this issue much thought, and I'm sure I'm missing much, so... fire away.
Mr. Alessandroni, grab an umbrella and prepare for the four horseman: I agree with most of what you said, especially about birth control. Two things, though. First, I don't think anyone mentioned discrimination against racial minorities. If anything I suggested that religion is a lot more minority-friendly than usually thought, and the main troubles come with sexual orientation issues. I could be wrong though.
Second, IF (purely hypothetical) Catholic aid groups are more effective at reducing AIDS in particular countries, why shouldn't they receive funding? If these groups save lives by persuading everyone into abstinence, is that really a bad thing? Who are we to say? Now, in this case I think birth control is a more effective way to solve the problem. I'm merely trying to point out that religious morality in itself is not necessarily bad. Everyone has their own presumptions and morals, even secular liberals. Funding should go to groups that get the job done.
Posted by Brad Plumer,
3:15 PM
-
The Running Man Commeth: Reality Television Ethics
Have any of you those commercials for ABC's Joe Millionaire? All the women think they are competing for a multi-millionaire, but the show iss advertised as a reality TV show with a twist. They tell us the guy really isn't rich, but earns only $19,000, which we know from the beginning, but the women do not. Now I was a huge fan of survivor. I loved the first series. But Doesn't this reek of psychological experimentation? We all get to giggle to see if the women were really just in it for the money (as if anyone who goes on TV like this is really going to fall in love in an utterly normally way). But my prediction: right after the episode where the women are told Joe's millions are a lie, they are told no, we lied again. He really is (somewhat) rich. We'll see if I'm right that ABC can play us all twice. I don't know if they are smart enough to play it that way, but that's what I would do if I were a producer. (Strangely, I find that scenario more acceptable, not sure why).
A sectarian democracy is effectively a contradiction in terms.
