After spending a little more time studying Kant, I have to admit that despite my utter embrace of utilitarianism, I see why Kant is such a powerful force in philosophy, and also why his theories have such weight within the world of philosophy. However I do have a problem with his argument that reason can be the penultimate determination of all that is good; I'm not sure that the logic of reason is even a very good guidepost, at least in part because its emphasis on concepts really seems to fall outside of the realm of being able to describe reality. I'm not sure if that makes sense, but I think it probably does.:) Anyway, I do like Kant's emphasis on duty; that's one of the things that Hot Abercrombie Chick and I keep locking horns over. Apparently, I keep imposing duties that don't exist. Of course, I argue that I'm just explicitly defining duties that exist whether you acknowledge them or not, but then again, that's the main disagreement, isn't it? Oh well.

The one thing main question that I keep running into is this: Why can't Kant's categorical imperative also take into consideration the universal good aspects of utilitarianism? Of course, utilitarianism and Kantian ethics tend to place themselves on opposite ends of the spectrum of the world of philosophy because of their emphasis on results vs. intent (respectively), but why not include the best of both? Of course, on what would you base this inclusion (and wouldn't it be kind of like putting the cart before the horse in both cases)? Still, that's the latest ethical quandary rolling around in my head. If you have any comments, please let me know what you think below, or via email.

Two updates in two days...don't get used to this, folks.;)

A couple of news articles from the past few days that have really caught my attention. The first one (registration required for the WaPo website), an opinion piece by David Ignatius, editor of the International Herald Tribune, is particularly interesting because of its analysis of a recent letter captured by U.S. forces in Iraq. The letter, supposedly written by Abu Musab Zarqawi, an al Qaida operative, urges al Qaida and other insurgent forces to focus their attacks on Iraqi security forces in an effort to ferment a civil war between the Shiite majority and the Sunni minority. If true (and not everyone is convinced yet that it is true), it would explain the recent rash of attacks on men trying to join the Iraq police forces and reorganized Iraqi military.

I think my favorite point in the entire article is the reference back to Vietnam. Although (obviously) I don't have any first-hand knowledge of the Vietnam War, what I know generally jibes with what Ignatius says; the media and the public as a whole saw the Tet offensive as a the Viet Cong just flexing their power, in fact it was actually a last gasp effort to bring the country under Communist control. As Ignatius says, how much differently might things have turned out if the U.S. had known the extent of the VC's weakness, and launched a counteroffensive? Or even just stood pat and kept the pressure on the VC? Although it's revisionist history, it might've lead to a much, much different outcome in Vietnam.

Of course, Ignatius basically wants us to believe that Zarqawi's intra-al-Qaida memo is a chance to see into their operations in Iraq at a key juncture, kind of like getting an intra-VC memo right after Tet. Is it?

I sure hope so. Of course, the real litmus test is going to be in about 12 months. By then, it'll be painfully obvious whether this was the first chink appearing in the insurgents' armor, or whether it was just an example of the power of misinformation in the information age. Bottom line? Stay tuned, sports fan. For more analysis of the Zarqawi letter, check out this link, also from WaPo.

Other news in Iraq; it seems like there's a consensus forming that the main obstacle in Iraq to reconstruction isn't even the insurgents in the first place; it's jobs. Why do politics, even international politics, basically all come back to money? The Washington Post, in an article titled "New U.S. Weapon: Jobs for Iraqi Men" comes out and says it, while the L.A. Times dances around it as a prominent sub-plot in an article about Japanese forces in Iraq. Jobs seem like the true wild-card in all of the talk of rebuilding post-war Iraq. The assumption is that if you build it (a functioning free-market democracy), they (meaning investors with venture capital) will come. What if they don't? Does the U.S. have the kind of pure cash reserves to start up businesses in Iraq? And even if we do, what would using them do to an already burgeoning budget deficit?

One last article from around the world, this one about North Korea (subscription required). Since most of you won't be able to access it, the article (fairly short) basically says that small businesses (created by economic reforms in Pyongyang) are really helping the North Korean economy along. Unfortunately, I think you have to call it a double-edged sword; on the one hand, a North Korea that's more economically involved with the world is a North Korea that's less likely to do something retarded that can see economic sanctions have a major impact. But by the same token, an economically successful North Korea could easily breed complacency in Pyongyang and lead to Kim Jong-Il staying in power despite his autocratic ways. Still, in today's world of expanding interconnection (Sex, War, and Politics is disproportionately popular in Australia and, oddly, Singapore), I like the odds that North Korea, in the process of dealing with the rest of the world on economic matters, would probably end up including Western political thoughts in their public discourse and eventually moving towards democracy.

I know, I've always been an idealist at heart.

I don't really have any plans for topics for this week, but expect the usual mix of international relations, with a little bit of philosophy and even some sensuality.

At very least, I'm going to do better than last week and at least update. Once. Or read the comments. Whichever takes less time.

Well, can I possibly procrastinate any more about actually doing something with Sex, War, and Philosophy? Probably, but for now, at least, the Spirit has me.

At least part of the problem is that my last chosen topic, sexuality as a tool in the modern age, just did absolutely nothing for me. Several times I sat down to write about it and found myself basically writing in circles. I know, I know, that never stopped me from posting before, but essentially I think the debate boils down to a simple truth. Whether using your sexuality to get something is right or wrong, it happens, and the only way to really counter it is to make a conscious effort to not allow the sexuality of another person to affect you. Of course, that's nearly impossible on a conscious level, much less an unconscious level. How do I know? I can't even keep from opening doors for girls I know, even though some of them find it sexist, despite the fact that most of them are not just my equals, but my betters. Regardless, I think the whole debate quickly devolves into a bunch of psychological mish-mash, and I just don't have the interest or the energy to really try to drive at the heart of the matter. It's much more interesting to watch the results, and count the number of comments that Hot Abercrombie Chick gets on even her most boring topics.

So basically, I'm going to maintain my intellectual integrity by not wading into the debate while simultaneously maintaining my cynicism and bitterness. Surely that's the best of all worlds!

In other news, the addition of my picture to Sex, War, and Philosophy has actually had a negative impact on the number of readers checking it out. Of course, it may also have something to do with the fact that I haven't posted in, oh, a whole stinking week. Still, it does no end of good for my self-confidence to think of people consciously avoiding my blog because of my nasty mug.

Before I go, there were two excellent articles this week about the Bush administration. The first, on Slate, is an excellent analysis that asks the question "What the Hell happened to Colin Powell?". A very interesting question, since Powell probably could've been president a few years ago, if he had only wanted the job. Then, after becoming President Bush's Secretary of State, he's basically been marginilized, ignored, and yes, humiliated. It's really too bad, Powell has been one of my favorite figures for years and years, dating back to when I reported on his autobiography in seventh grade (young whippersnapper, ain't I?).

Finally, a long editorial by Robert Kagan, a prominant neo-con hawk, that basically argues three points. First, Kagan argues that the Clinton administration would have done the same thing that Bush did in Iraq, which I think is a wonderful way of trying to portray President Bush as much more of a moderate figure. Since Clinton is widely seen as a dovish president (nevermind Somalia, Kosovo, Haiti, and several other times that Clinton put boots on the ground in foreign countries), this makes Bush look less like a hawk, at least if you buy the argument.

Next, Kagan makes a two-pronged assault on the Weapons of Mass Destruction argument against war in Iraq. He basically says that the WMD argument wasn't the only argument for intervention in Iraq, and that the benefits for the Iraqi people were worth it in the long run anyway. I buy this argument, and in fact have made it myself, but it ignores an important point: It wasn't the argument that President Bush and the members of his administration made in attempting to get us in Iraq. President Bush (and most of the other neo-cons out there) argued that Iraq was an imminent threat, and that under international law (as well as Just-War theory) this allowed the United States to invade, even without international support. Basically, the assumption was that Iraq, if it could not already, was heading towards the capability to threaten the United States, and thus must be stopped. The existance of a WMD program was the primary way that Iraq could threaten the U.S., and that's why President Bush and co. spent months before the invasion trying to provide evidence of chemical and biological weapons programs. If this wasn't the main reason for the invasion, why did it receive so much attention prior to the war? Basically, I but Kagan's argument here, but not it's conclusion in that I don't think it absolves President Bush of any responsibility for essentially misleading the American people

Finally, Kagan argues that the WMD programs in Iraq, despite the Senate testimony of David Kay, no one has really investigated whether Saddam had WMDs or not. He then goes on to argue that, even if Saddam didn't have WMDs, he had the capability to get them, and that if he didn't, he would have if we hadn't intervened. If it sounds a bit like trying to cover all of his bases, well, it is. Kagan basically says that whether Saddam had WMDs or not, he wanted them, and that if he had them, it proves Kagan right, but if he didn't, it proves Kagan right anyway. I appreciate Kagan's stubbornness in sticking to his argument, and trying to throw a blanket on it, but I just don't buy it. Besides which, it makes him sound more than a little desperate. If Saddam's crime was wanting WMDs, then everyone who's ever wanted to murder their boss is guilty of murder and should be imprisoned. I guess Kagan's argument would be that Saddam had, before Gulf War I and again before Operation Desert Fox in '98, actually acquired WMDs, and even used them against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war (when the U.S. was supporting him against the Ayatollah Khomeieni, by the way) and against his own Kurdish population after Desert Storm. However, we still don't throw people in jail, even murders, for crimes that they never actually commit. At least, not yet.

Still, Kagan hits home with some of his points, and I'm intrigued by some of his assertions, even if I disagree with his overall thesis.

Just a couple of things I want to mention in a general sense. First, you'll notice that I've added a picture of myself on the column on the right. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it. I'm not exactly a gorgeous man anyway, and I don't want people judging my ideas, either for better or for worse, based on how I look, but on the other hand, it's another way of holding me accountable for my ideas. Just remember, ad hominem attacks will be ignored, as will pretty much any comments about the way that I look. Feel free to express yourself, just don't be surprised if I ignore you.

Also there's an excellent speech from Charles Krauthammer that I'm probably going to be looking into at some point in the future. There's probably several postings worth of stuff there. My initial reaction: this democractic globalism sounds wonderful, but if that was the real reason that we went to war with Iraq, then why didn't Bush state that emphatically? It seems to me that the argument only really came out when the Weapons of Mass Destruction argument started (pardon the pun) blowing up in Bush's face.

Still, I like the thrust of Krauthammer's argument, and I think it's a very interesting combination of some of Thomas Friedman's globalist arguments with some of the realistic ideals from the past 50 years. Of course, this isn't the first time it's been articulated, but it's definitely the most concise explanation of it I've seen to date. As I said, I think I'm going to revisit the whole issue later.

My good friend Adam chimes in with this response on education. I knew he’d be up for a good tussle on the issue, especially since he is a teacher. So here you go:

You speak of addressing the causes of declines in education. So
let’s do it.

I'm a teacher myself. I know the trials education is facing. Is there a
lack of morality in the schools? Oh, yes. But who's responsibility is it
to teach Morality 101? In this world of drugs, sex, violence, and zero
tolerance policies, there are thousands of good teachers out there
who are frustrated by the limits placed on them when it comes to
actually teaching their students. Some of them are giving up, not
because the students are getting worse (which they are, don't get me
wrong), but because of money. The job simply isn't worth the stress,
and the paltry paycheck isn't enough to feed the family, pay the bills,
AND pay the shrink who gets hired to help the teacher deal with the
stress of his/her job.

At the risk of rambling a bit, let me throw a seven-letter word at you
that terrifies teachers (and frankly, almost any professional) more
than any budget cut, any observation, even more than the No Child
Left Behind act: lawsuit. You can't say or do ANYTHING anymore
without facing the possibility of making someone mad and that
someone then turning around and suing you and your school for
everything it's worth. You can't directly teach morality in the schools,
because you risk offending everyone who doesn't agree with your
particular morality. The world is all about political correctness now,
and the line between right and wrong has blurred so badly that you
couldn't find it with the Hubble Space Telescope. Morality must start
at home. Parents have to (God forbid) TEACH their children the
difference between right and wrong at an early age. They are just as
responsible for the education of their children as teachers are. The
problem is (and forgive me if this point has been stated already) that
no one wants to take responsibility for their actions.

A long time ago, when a student was disciplined and the parents
notified, the general response from said parents was, "Whup him till
he turns black and blue." Nowadays, you get "Oh, not MY darling
child, you must be mistaken!" or "Well then YOU must be doing
something wrong, because MY child is a perfect angel when he/she's
around ME," blah blah blah. Nevermind that this "perfect angel" just
lied to the teacher about his/her homework, cheated on a test, and/or
started a physical fight with another student.

Sorry, this has gotten way off the original topic of morality in the
schools. To attempt to get back on topic (and wrap this up), you can't
teach morality in the schools without first teaching morality in the
homes. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. I work with
preschoolers, ages three to five, most of which are from lower-
income households. Some of their parents bring them to school
every morning, and I'm appalled by what I see. Parents will walk into
my classroom (or stagger, sometimes) smelling like drugs and booze,
dump their kid off, barely remember to sign them in, and stagger
back out the door. All I can think when I see this kind of behavior is
that I know where the kids get it now. Parents have got to shape up
and learn right from wrong before the kids are ever going to
straighten up.

I think that almost everything that Adam says jives with what I’ve already posted on the subject. Simply put, we both agree that schools should be fully funded, but money isn’t the long-term answer. Adam agrees that genuine values in our school system is probably the long-term answer; he frets that it’s not possible under the current litigious society, which actually speaks more to my original point in selecting it as one of the values that I agreed with Rush on. I think it’s something we need to change, and governmental action is ultimately how that needs to happen. Finally, although I didn’t really touch on it in my initial comments, I assumed that since values and moral education was important, students would be exposed to it by their parents. That may be a large assumption, but one that we have to make, since there isn’t any way to legislate behavior in the home. However, if we, as a nation, mandate a discussion about values and morality in our schools, it seems almost a certainty that discussions in the home would follow; if not from the current generation, then at least from the generation that at first received the instruction. But, again, I consider that a peripheral issue.

Once again, the principle of equal time is in effect, although I think that this education debate has been beaten to death. However, if you’ve got a new point to make in the discussion, shoot me an email and I’ll post any responses right here on Sex, War, and Philosophy.

Thanks again to Adam for the response.

I've just received a pretty decent rebuttle of my "Morality in School" tangent below. I don't have time to post a reply tonight, so I'll hold it until tomorrow or maybe the weekend, when I'll have a chance to set out my own reply. In other news, Hot Abercrombie Chick has a new topic (home defense), although it's a pretty limited scenario, and I've pretty much elucidated all my thoughts on it in her comments sections. I just have to ask, though: how can she get more comments in the past two days than I've had total visitors since the creation of Sex, War, and Philosophy? If only I had boobs...just kidding, AC.

Which reminds me, I think I'm going to get around to that feminism/female empowerment post this weekend as well. If you didn't catch it the first time, check out the Slate article I pointed out earlier for a general sketch of what I mean.

Finally, I've been trying to add some new links on the sidebar to some new worthy blogs. All of them (except for Intel Dump, HAC, and Easterblogg), are small, well written personally written blogs that aren't getting very much attention yet. I think this is a powerful medium for expressing yourself, if you are willing to look at the bigger questions. I'd like to think that all of the blogs on my lists are, in that sense, important. Of course, I'd like to think that because I want Sex, War, and Philosophy to be important, too, but that's another story for another day.

Anyway, the whole point of this post is that I want to encourage any readers that stumble through the front door to take a chance and check them out. All of my links open in a new window (to facilitate checking out news articles) so you can come back to SWP later if you want, or not. Either way, I think you'll enjoy them, and I think they're worthy of more attention.

If you'd like me to list your blog, give me the link either via the comments section or email me the link.

I hate to do this, but I'm going to answer a question in the "Comments" section on the main blog, mainly because I hate the character limits of Haloscan and, well, it's my blog and I'll do what I want. So there.

Camila (visit her website here) writes in the comments section about my guiding principles:

8. The way to improve our schools is not more money, but the reintroduction of moral values.

Ah, but which part of the schools are you talking about? The personal, private actions and choices of the students? Their intellectual education? Their preparations for life in the real world?

Money is a means, not a goal, whereas moral values are a goal. I dare to suggest you and Rush are comparing apples and oranges, my friend. How would you introduce moral values? A chapel in every public school? A 'moral values class' where students have to write essays on ethics? Those would all take money.

I apologize. This is a list of your beliefs, not of methods. However, by those standards, money shouldn't be there at all.

Money is used to buy decent equipment. Money is used to attract quality teachers, many of whom instill in their students not only knowledge but also basic moral values. Money is used, period. Not simply thrown into a pit.

I believe you are talking about in the students. But what is the purpose of school? It isn't to raise children. Adhering to individualism, I believe you would state that to be the right of the parents. What school is meant to do is to help capitalism work as it should -- to give every child an equal foothold in the global economy, from which they can act as they will.

Personally, I'd rather see education as a way to improve students, intellectually, physically, and morally, in which case your model would fit.

As it is, introducing morality into the schools (leave alone how) would not necessarily improve the education of the students. Though perhaps that is not what you mean by improving our schools?

A very in-depth response to a very trifling comment, but let's see if I can't clarify myself a little bit. Let me handle this point by point, in a semi-systematic manner. First, let me handle the question about money as a means versus moral values as a goal.

I would argue that although money is definitely the means to an end, whenever we get down to discussing education, all too often it is also the end. Every debate about education inevitably comes with dollar signs attached, simply because it's much easier to throw money at a problem than it is to really address any of the underlying causes. That's really my point, and I think it's Rush's too. Ideally, every school would have enough funding to provide adequate teachers and equipment. I can't think of a single person that wants their children taught in a burned out warehouse, or anything extreme like that. So let's agree; I'm not advocating a return to Aristotelian zero-budget learn-while-you-wander-in-the-garden education. Assuming that schools are adequately funded (which, I'll admit, is quite an assumption), I'm saying that more money won't make education better.

How to introduce moral values? That's a much better question, and one much too complicated for this humble blog. I'd say that what I'm looking for is not a better curriculum, necessarily, but a better job with the curriculum that we have. More introspective, in-depth looks at the "Why?" part of the question instead of the "Who? What? When? Where?" parts. And, ultimately, I think that we need to realize, and adopt, as a country the realization that there are some objectively right and objectively wrong ways of looking at the world out there. There are absolute truths; there's a higher purpose to all that we do here on Earth. I'm not really talking about a religious truth, although I've integrated my own religious beliefs with this higher truth, so they are not incompatible. I think that we can all agree that our purpose on Earth is to leave it better than we found it; to be the most productive members of society possible. That's the 'moral' I'd most like to see introduced and re-enforced in public schools. I've known far too many talented, capable people who've wasted everything they've been given because they (falsely) interpreted that all there was to life was their own selfish needs and wants. I'd like to see people realize that they're part of something greater than themselves: the human race.

That's why I get so hot and bothered about some of the responses I get about, "You can't force me to have responsibility for my actions, ect. ect." Actually, the responsibility is there whether you like or not. You don't have to acknowledge it, and some people don't, but it still exists. That's the objectivist in me. I really can't understand a life in which there isn't a higher goal, a higher purpose. It seems rather pointless to me, and I think that it seems rather pointless to most kids in school. So I would hope we can give them a goal, if nothing more noble than "Try to do my part to make the world better." Color me an idealist.

So in that sense, I agree with Camila's idea about school as a place for the student to improve students intellectually, physically, and morally. But I think that more importantly than as a goal in and of itself, that improving these students is in our long-term interests. Producing students who recognize their responsibilities to both the world at large and to themselves are, in my opinion, students who are more likely to become productive members of society, which benefits us all in the end.

Since this has turned into such a long entry, I'll happily give anyone equal time outside of Haloscan character constraints. Just drop me an email and I'll post any comments, and my responses, right here in Sex, War, and Philosophy. Or, if you can fit in 1,000 characters, hit a comment button. Either way, I look forward to your responses.

Sorry about my conspicuous absence yesterday. School and work finally caught up with my zeal for Blogging. In the meantime, the new news cycle has brought a whole slew of new info. Most important from my perspective? Well, Ivan Rybkin is alive, even if his explanation is kind of shady. That's good news, at least for non-Russians, because it means that Putin, at least this time, isn't attempting a creeping coup. The bad news is, however, the alternatives in the March 14 election may be worse than Putin. I really like this article just because Rybkin's wife basically calls him unfit to govern.

In other news, its good to see that the U.S. is pressuring Pakistan on stolen/sold nuclear technology. After justifying the entire Iraqi invasion on the basis of containing weapons of mass destruction, shouldn't we respond more vigorously when one of our allies does the same thing?

This one may end up being a post for a different day, but it's still worth the read. There's an article in Slate about The Apprentice. Although I have to admit that I've never even seen the show, the article makes some pretty interesting points about gender in America today that I may have to come back to at some point. Don't get me wrong, but why do blogs like Hot Abercrombie Chick and Hot Southern Girl consistently outdraw quaint old Sex, War, and Philosophy? I'm not quite ready to play the gender card, at least in part because I hate a monocausal explanation, but can you really doubt that it's a factor? Here's the real question, though: if I talk shit about both of them, and the people on their pages read about me talking shit and click on the link to come visit this blog, doesn't that indict me at least as much as them? Except that I'm exploiting their sexuality, instead of exploiting my own. Actually, the more that I think about it, the more that I think I'm going to revisit this on a different post, later, when I've got more time to deal with the whole matter. In the meantime, feel free to use the comments section to tell me what you think.

UPDATE

Check out what Easterblogg has to say about the Pakistani weapons issue.

Another drive-by post, but I promise to make this one short. An column by Fred Hiatt from WaPo (subscription required) that just covers the basics of what's going on in Iraq right now. If you want a different opinion, check out Thomas Friedman of the New York Times (subscription required). Both essentially argue the same thing; if we, as a nation, can't establish a true, lasting democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, history will remember us as failures. That's one of the things that bothers me most about the current political environment. President Bush can't wait to pull the troops out of Iraq (at least partly scheduled to coincide with the political cycle of the fall elections) and doesn't want to raise taxes or spend any more money on Iraq. The problem is that in every instance where the United States has successfully reconstructed a nation after first tearing it apart in war, the only real solution was a massive commitment of troops and capital. Germany and Japan after World War II are classical examples of war-torn nations, yet thanks to American occupation and American financial support, both nations are now thriving.

My point is that we lost the ability to rely on half measures shortly after the first Abrams tank rolled into Iraq and the first air strike in Afghanistan. We, as a nation, have to dedicate ourselves to fixing both of these countries, if for no better reason than because we caused most of the destruction ourselves. We undertook military operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan unilaterally, so for better or worse, the only nation that can claim success or failure in either locale is the United States. The world really is watching. Will they see the United States as dedicated to promoting democracy and the free market, or the United States as just an unrestrainable hegemon? We've got to do this right because the cost of doing it wrong is much, much higher.

I could care less about gay marriage, welfare, drug benefits, and even Weapons of Mass Destruction. The only thing that I'm looking for in the elections in the Fall is a candidate who can look the American people square in the face and say, "Even though it may not be easy, we're in Iraq and Afghanistan come Hell or high water." Whoever does that little bit, or comes closest, wins my vote hands down.

If you've been reading this blog, you've not doubt wondered how I can call it Sex, War, and Philosophy when there seems to be lots of philosophy, a little war, and not a bit of sex to be seen. Fair enough. But since I'm not a porn peddler (NOT SAFE FOR WORK OR YOUNGSTERS), I'm only really going to bring it up when I think there's something to be learned, or some bigger point to be made.

Having said that, I'd like to go back to a point that I made this afternoon (actually yesterday, because it's past midnight, but whatever). I said that I'd decided that I really liked utilitarianism, since I'd been reading a lot about it lately. Specifically I've been reading Mills, along with some other, more modern types that fall in line with rule utilitarianism (more in another post). One of the things that I liked about Mills most was his belief that intellecual pleasures are inherently better than the base, animal pleasures. I'd agree with that, and point to a specific example: who can really argue that screwing is better than making love? I know that in contemporary America, the two carry the same literal definition, but I define screwing as the act of copulation without any emotional attachment. 'Making love' carries a much deeper, richer connotation. That's what you do when you truly love someone, and want to express your love in a physical, visceral way.

In other words, even sex is better if enjoyed with someone that you love who loves you back. There might be some room for argument about that, of course, but I'm going to have to say that most people who have experienced both tend to agree that 'making love' is infinitely better than screwing.

An article today in The Moscow Times sure does raise a lot of doubts about the viability of an actual contested election in Russia in March, doesn't it? This is, count'em, the third rival of Vladimir Putin to mysteriously disappear. The other two were murdered. According to the article, Rybkin (the candidate) disappeared from his house; when his wife came home, she found dishes in the sink and her husband's shirt (CNN) and both his cars in the garage. It's also worth noting that Rybkin disappeared this weekend after sending an open letter to the Russian newspaper Kommersant hurling accusations at Putin as recently as Friday.

One rival disappearing is suspicious. Two rivals disappearing is worrying. Three is a trend. This also doesn't count another Putin rival who's facing corruption charges; hard to campaign, much less be elected, from jail, eh? Granted, the State Department has pushed Putin a little bit, but doesn't it worry anybody that every day, Russia seems to go further and further off of the reservation?

Good news! I finally set up the comments section so that you can immediately give me feedback on what you like and what you don't like about each post. Having said that, I still encourage email just because on most of the meaty issues that I like to cover in this blog, the 1,000 character limits of Haloscan just don't hack it. Either way, please use this new feature! I really think that the interactive factor raises the stakes and overall leads to a better, more complete blog.

Just a quick, drive-by post. After doing some reading, I think that I'm pretty much ready to throw myself into the world of philosophy as a utilitarian. Although I'm not sure if I like the idea of trying to apply it to a group that doesn't necessarily support the idea completely, I very much like the consequential nature of utilitarianism. It particularly speaks to me when you consider a self-selecting minority that's willing to undergo hardships for the majority's benefit. Isn't that pretty much the nature of every intervention (humanitarian and otherwise) that the United States has involved itself in over the course of the past 200 years? That also nicely handles the question of how an out-of-touch, middle-aged politician, who himself faces no danger, can send kids fresh out of high school to die alone on foreign soil; it isn't immoral, especially if the soldier self-selects himself as part of that minority.

Of course, that's a mighty convenient way to look at things; utilitarianism would require that soldier to be sent regardless of whether he himself agreed with the decision. But isn't that exactly what the draft is about; we select a few, who for the betterment of the entire society, face danger and even the pain of death to secure the blessings of liberty to the entire nation.

You can see, I suppose, why utilitarianism speaks to me so clearly. The only question that I struggle with most is that, regardless of intent, utilitarianism and consequentialism would reward good and bad intentions equally, despite the outcome. I'm not sure if I'm entirely comfortable with that. Then again, the old saying is, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

As always, I welcome your email.

posted at 13:07 by t.

Hot Chick posts another hot topic

Hot Abercrombie Chick has another predominantly philosophical question with practical applications: Should welfare exist?

Abercrombie, after defining the basic terms, writes that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," doesn't cover welfare. She writes:

The interpretation of a "right" as the "right to have something" even if that something must be provided by an outside source results in mandates that just cannot be accommodated. The proper definition is more like "the right to not be deprived of something by other people."

According to this definition, "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" means that no one has the right to take your life or liberty from you. It does not mean that other people are obligated to procure these things for you if, for whatever reason, you are unable to achieve them yourself. This definition is in harmony with the kind of freedom thought of as non-interference.

I agree. That seems to pretty clearly be the intent of the free-market system under which we operate. Not everyone gets a Mercedes, or a Benz, but everyone gets a fair shot at trying to acquire those things within their means. However, she writes later in the same post:

Although some people would object, I think most will accept this distinction. For example: In some African country, right now, there are children starving to death. People are dying from hunger and disease. We, you and I and everyone else, could all chip in maybe $100 each and prevent a great number of these deaths, for some time at least. But we aren't doing that, and as such, we are not doing something within our power to prevent them from dying.

Is this the same as going over to impoverished countries and murdering people with automatic weapons, rockets, bombs, and whatever else you might employ in doing such a thing? I think it is obvious that it is not. But what are the consequences if you deny this? Okay, fine, you send your $100 on over, let a few families eat for a month or two or three (I don' t know their food prices). But couldn't you have done more? If it had been $150, you could have kept another family from starving to death overnight, or next week. Or a few more for $200, or $250.

Her argument is that since non-support is a non-action instead of an action, that it excises any moral obligation; letting people starve is better than shooting people because we didn't have an active role in it.

This is the exact line of reasoning that bothers me most from AC. I would argue that this is the moral equivalent of not throwing a life ring to a drowning person. Certainly, the end (death by starvation for welfare or death by drowning) is just as bad as actively doing something immoral (arbitrarily shooting the starving, pushing the drowning man under). In fact, one may say that at least the actively immoral act hastens the end result, causing lest pain in the process.

No, I'm just not persuaded by AC's argument. But since this is a constructive blog, not destructive (despite the M4 reference above) I'll offer why AC is right. Welfare is not necessary. But she's also wrong. The moral obligation still exists.

In the first place, let's be frank here; Americans as a whole have no idea what need really is. Even those living on the very edge of solvency, or on the verge of poverty, still have a standard of living virtually unheard of in the annals of history. Our poorest, most miserable person lives much, much better than Jesus Christ ever lived. In fact, they live better than even the kings during Jesus's time. So welfare within the United States is, to say the least, kind of oxymoronic. Even those with virtually no job skills can find a job that pays enough for the basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter. And I'm sorry, but food and shelter are, ultimately, the only requirements for life. You may not eat steak; Hell, you may not even be able to afford meat, but your caloric content will meat your basic needs and you will have a roof over your head. End of story. If you cannot meat those basic requirements in the United States, it is because you are trying to achieve something more than that, and shortchanging the true necessaries of life.

Having said that, let us also be open minded and far-reaching in our discussion. While there are certainly not people in the United States who have been denied their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (without forfeiting their rights first), there are most certainly those abroad who are, indeed starving, who lack either the knowhow or resources to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for themselves. What should we do with them?

AC would use a utilitarian argument (though she would deny it is utilitarian) that even if everyone in the United States contributed $100, we still couldn't feed every person in the third world who needed it, much less provide each of them with protection from the elements in some form.

I would argue with AC on two grounds. I have, like most, heard some ridiculously low numbers thrown around that, if paid by everyone in the United States, could feed all the starving people in the world. I don't have enough knowledge to even pretend to guess at what kind of burden the U.S. would have to pay to feed the world, but here's a quick thought. If there are 280 million people in the United States, and each of them paid $100, that's $280 billion dollars. On a planet with 6 billion people, that works out to $46 per person, but that's not really accurate, is it? Let's say that of the 6 billion people on Earth, 3 billion are starving. Suddenly, the number just jumped to $93 a person, or roughly $.26 a day. A quarter a day doesn't seem like much, but for a relatively low cost, high caloric food like wheat, it can buy quite a bit. Hell, I can live on a buck a day (Ramen noodles, baby, click the link to see all 15 wonderful flavors of Ramen now available from Nissin). My point being that at some point, the economy of scale kicks in, and you find that, even if you can't feed all these people completely, that with a small supplement of meat and veggies, they can live fairly comfortably for a long time.

My next argument concerns whether we are obligated to at least try to make a difference. Because I enjoy a challenge, I would say that we can argue strictly from a selfish, self interested standpoint that raising the people of Africa and Asia out of their current condition would be morally right.

Simply put, if the people of Africa can, for a moment, confront the biggest threat to their livelihood, they can move on to trying to rise out of their current third world status. This is essentially the ultimate liberal economic argument: if Africa can raise their standard of living, eventually achieve self-sufficiency, and at some point, even in the distant future, become productive members of the international order, we will find a whole world (literally) of new markets for new goods and services opened to us. Don't believe it can happen? Look at Germany and Japan after World War II, and look at them now. Hopefully, in fifty years, the same thing will apply to Afghanistan and Iraq, although the jury is still out on those accounts.

That's why Abercrombie is both right and wrong about welfare. The welfare system, as it exists in the United States of America, is probably unnecessary. But doesn't there exist a moral obligation to the whole of humanity that we, as the greatest achievers in the history of humanity, have an obligation to fulfill?

I look forward to any comments that you have on this post. Email will have to work until I get off my fat duff and set up a comments section.

posted at 01:09 by t.

Sunday, February 08, 2004

Sex, War, and Philosophy...Just not all at once

Well, here we go. Welcome to Sex, War, and Philosophy, my foray into the blogging world. I thought that the first thing that I'd do is steal some ideas from Rush Limbaugh that make a nice compare and contrast with my own world views. So here we go:

These are based on Rush Limbaugh's 35 Undeniable Truths. You'll notice that I only use ten, and I don't claim that there isn't room to argue about them, but I do believe that these are all true and should serve as the basis of looking at the world.

1. There is a distinct singular American culture - rugged individualism and self-reliance - which made America great.
2. The vast majority of the rich in this country did not inherit their wealth; they earned it. They are the country's achievers, producers, and job creators.
3. Words mean things.
4. Character matters; leadership descends from character.
5. Abstinence prevents sexually transmitted disease and pregnancy -every time it's tried.
6. There's a simple way to solve the crime problem: obey the law; punish those who do not.
7. If you commit a crime, you are guilty.
8. The way to improve our schools is not more money, but the reintroduction of moral values.
9. There is a God.
10. Morality is not defined by individual choice.

The first thing you'll notice if you click the link above is that I've pretty much deleted any reference to feminism on Rush's list; also I threw out any mention of 'Liberals' as that's the kind of frothing-at-the-mouth that eventually turned me off to Rush's message. Basically, the list above is a good starting point for what I think; but there's a lot more that we'll have to get into later.

posted at 16:02 by t.

People visiting Sex, War, and Philosophy since its founding