Seat Belt Laws

I've complained about it before, but what exactly is the justification for seat belt laws? Most of the rules and norms for which the goverment assumes responsability for enforcing are required to protect people from each other. This only makes sense. The goverment isn't supposed to protect you from yourself. If you want to eat fast food, smoke, participate in extreme sports and so forth, then you have everyright as an individual in charge of yourself. The only exception is people with mental disorders or defficiencies which are deemed incapable of making decisions for themselves. Hence the distinction between minors and adults; at a certain age you assume full responsability for your decisions and actions.

However, seat belt laws exemplify the kinds of rules which are obvious exceptions. Supposing the only way you might happen to injure someone else because you stupidly decided not to wear one is by flying through your window and colliding with a pedestrian in the event of a crash, then what is the justification behind forcing people to wear them? You stand a much greater chance of accidentally running someone over, and yet we don't stop people from driving.

Of course, people are going to object that choosing not to buckle in is just retared. So, since it's stupid, we should just make them. But this really isn't how the goverment is supposed to work. Forcing people to do things just because we judge it to be in their best interest -assuming they would rather not-- is known as paternalism. Just like how kids can't go to jail for stealing (because they are not fully responsible for their actions) forcing people to do things in their best interest absolves a certain amount of responsibility. It really doesn't matter whether they SHOULD do it. They must decide for themselves if they are to be held responsible for their actions.

The Myth of Ethical Socialism

“The trouble with the social-democratic state is that, when government does too much, nobody else does much of anything.”

–Mark Steyn, America Alone (126)

Sometimes arguing against left-wingers gets really frustrating. Take Jack Layton for example; he sounds really good explaining what he’s going to do for the little guy: less taxes, better childcare, more social programs, more foreign aid, more money for healthcare, responsible pollution management, more of pretty much everything. And when one of the other parties has a good idea? Oh well, he’ll just have to do that too. Who’s going to pay for it all? It’s no biggie; he’ll just deal out his special punishment to those evil large corporations. Too bad they won’t stand still and take it. But who votes for him? Are they all just shortsighted? Nope. Not really. They’re usually just nice people trying to help everybody out. Maybe they felt a twinge of guilt as they walked by some homeless fellow shivering on the street corner, and figured “hey, I can’t do anything about it without going hungry myself, but those evil corporations and rich people… would it really be such a hardship if they had trouble making their next Ferrari payment? Maybe they should switch to the bargain caviar.”

But there’s really kind’ve a significant assumption here isn’t there? Something like: “hey, it’s hard for me to do much; so I’ll make a difference by forcing those who can…”, and “good for me! I might not have much cash, but I can be a good person by making sure the government takes care of things.” But I’m not sure this is really very impressive at all. Do people really deserve moral credit for the good perpetrated by the government? When Canada sends aid packages to Afghanistan, should I pat myself on the back? Well, maybe a little. If you pay your taxes, then I suppose you are somewhat responsible for the good things your country does. You elected them too, so there’s another point in your favor. But is paying taxes which are eventually used to set up a soup kitchen as good as volunteering to help run it?

What about those evil conservatives. They don’t seem to want to reallocate the wealth at all. They’re content with the barest minimum of publicly funded social programs. Why, I bet they’d prefer not to be responsible for charity at all. Where does the little guy figure into all of this? Are poor people supposed to be the stepping stones across the muddy path to individual wealth? Are we just going to let the rich squander their resources on fast cars, big houses and whatever ephemeral pleasures should catch their eyes?

With these concerns in mind, it seems like anyone not hoping on the socialist bandwagon is just an irresponsible prick who doesn’t care about anyone but themselves. So what happens in conservative countries? Is everyone hierarchically divided into haves and have not’s?
I think we should take the US as our case in point. Of the advanced democracies, it is clearly the most conservative. Curiously though, without any of the elaborate social programs hogging the tax funds, it also seems to enjoy one of the very highest qualities of life –though most socialists will argue this point on the grounds that it doesn’t have things like public health care (never mind that in countries like Canada that do, we often can’t get access to it (remember the Albertan woman who had to be flown to Montana to give birth because there were no beds?...even in SK or BC!)). However, upon initial consideration it might seem to be a great example of capitalist greed, since, per capita, the US gives way less money to foreign aid than anyone else in the G8. However, this objection quickly flips the other way once you consider that the contributions by private US citizens are (much) larger than anybody else’s. It seems like we have some contradictory evidence going on here. In a country where capitalism runs rampant, and social programs are minimal, we have an example of extremely charitable populace. It almost seems like those evil conservative bastards make charitable contributions all on their own with hardly any government prodding at all. But those Americans… maybe they’re just confused. Once they wake up and realize that the proper thing to do is to hand over their cash to the government, who can handle things properly and establish a proper socialist state, well then they would have a truly enviable system. As it is, they must just be lucky.

In Alberta, we have much the same thing going on. We have lots of cash due to an oil boom, so it’s despite our conservatism that we have developed such a name for charity (take the privately funded homeless shelter in downtown Calgary). So clearly we’re a bad example too, a victim of fortuitous circumstances.

But wait a minute. Just how much moral credit do we get from participating in a socialist state? If it’s the government that redistributes money to the poor, aren’t the tax payer removed from the action? In fact, isn’t it the case that most people kind’ve resent taxation? It doesn’t seem particularly moral if the cash has to be pried out of people’s hands. If anything, if the donation isn’t autonomous and voluntary, then their contribution should be viewed as amoral. This seems much like a vandal doing community service as punishment. We don’t pat him on the back and tell him what nice person he is for cleaning up the graffiti on a bus stop. Since he isn’t there by choice, no merit is associated with his actions even though they seem beneficial. Much the same seems to be the case here.

If we truly want to be good guys, then what we need is a government which encourages moral activity. Not one that does it for us. I don’t care if charitable donations are rewarded by a “FREE! Magazine subscription”, as long as they remain the autonomous choice of private individual they still deserve some moral credit. It doesn’t seem reasonable to expect to establish an environment of morality when every charitable activity is associated with forced taxation.

A Quick Intro to Applied Moral Reasoning

I was thinking about the way I’ve been examining moral issues and decided it looked an awful lot like the approaches advocated by Hare and Rawls. The main idea is to give radically divergent moralities equal consideration in an attempt to resolve moral dilemmas; essentially dissolving the rift between utilitarian and categorical moralities. What follows is an attempted introduction to their theories.
There are two major categories in ethical reasoning into which all rational ethical theories belong, namely categorical morality (most religions, Kantians, emotivists, moral realists etc.) and utilitarian varieties (good of the many outweighs the good of the few). Some, like Hare’s rational approach to ethics, have their foot in both camps, but no theory fails to belong to one or the other. The process of applied ethics, however, really doesn’t subscribe to any particular meta-ethical framework. An ethicist solving actual moral dilemmas might use one theory to justify her decision, but the justification is insufficient if the evidence is only of one type. For example, an ethicist espousing a utilitarian ethical theory might argue that torture should be allowed in cases where the majority stands to benefit. Maybe in the case where a terrorist who is suspected of involvement in an impending WMD plot is arrested and through torture we can hope to acquire information which could save the lives of thousands of people. However, merely arguing the pragmatic consequences of this action does not justify its implementation, because competing categorical moral theories –such as the notion of human rights—do not view consequences as legitimate moral indicators.
This raises the question “what counts as universal justification?” If operating from within an ethical framework is insufficient to insure adequate security for a particular view, then can there be any consensus? Obviously there is no theory which explains . But one of the fundamental ways in which we can measure agreement, is by checking to see if an action proscribed by a moral theory is in reflective equilibrium with our moral intuitions. We could at once be convinced that torture is horrible, yet somewhat convinced that its use is justified in situations such as the one above, so we might examine a particular case and see if our moral theory and our intuitions are in agreement. This, or course, can quickly digress into an emotivist (the technical term for “emotional”) approach to ethics, because if we practice this case by case, then our emotions become the only really important moral indicators and morality thinking becomes a fly by night affair. This need for continuity is why, despite initial impressions, meta-ethics does actually play a role in everyday moral thinking.
There are two modern theories of ethics which I think work particularly well for generating valid moral considerations. The first is Rawls’ theory of justice. The basic operating principle of this theory is the proposed “original position”. Instead of the classical social contract of Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Locke, Rawls advocated a hypothetical situation in which everybody is involved in picking a theory of social interaction from behind a “veil of ignorance”; i.e. without knowing what position in society in which they will find themselves. Since nobody knows whether he or she is a millionaire or a handicapped, mentally retarded single mother of three, each has a reason to ensure the wellbeing of all members of society.
While initially intended as a guide to the construction of a just society, it has become a popular tool in other moral considerations as well. Rawls personally didn’t like it to be used in international contexts, but it is easy to see how it could be used in this way. Instead of not knowing what position one might find oneself within society, one could consider not know what society to which one might belong. Certainly this does not generate moral obligations (Rawls’ contention) because members of other societies are not expected to reciprocate. We can, however, generate a certain amount of human obligations, but these will not be as involved as the duties owned to members of the same society. Personally, I like Rawls approach to moral thinking, because it emphasizes consideration of other viewpoints. There have been objections, however, on the grounds that picking moral obligations based on personal interest in the original position is not really moral and that ignorance of actual circumstance does not generate binding obligations in the actual world… which leads into the other moral theory.
Hare’s “rational approach to ethics” compares desires in terms of intensity to determine moral obligations. Therefore, it is wrong to kill someone because (chances are) their desire to live is stronger than your desire to kill. This part of his moral theory isn’t really developmental, since it relies on the feelings, desires and intuitions we already have, but it does generate a method to rationally consider morally relevant facts. Just like Rawls, Hare intends to emphasize consideration of other viewpoints, and it is this feature which I think indicates universally relevant moral factors, which, in turn can generate universal justification for a particular moral conviction.
Both theories evolved out of utilitarianism, but I think this is trivial since the important factor is not ‘the good’ itself, but what people perceive as the good. Therefore, although someone’s reason for objecting to abortion might have categorical moral justification, this plays no part in forming society’s ethical rule; rather it is the strength of their conviction which is the important factor. This can claim universality because the origins and justification of a person’s moral judgment becomes trivial. In this way, it avoids some of the inherent difficulties of any attempt at a “principled” examination of other views. Consensus (or compromise) in these conditions is perhaps not ultimately moral, but should at least be a best case alternative. Curiously, when expressed as a moral maxim, it sounds exactly like the Golden Rule.

Follow Up to "Conservative Guilt" (below)

I was glancing over this post and realized I didn’t really elucidate my statement in the opening paragraph. I knew what I was thinking, but I might have been the only one. I was trying to argue the case for conservative values with the notion that sometimes the theoretically best course of action is not actually the best course of action. So while the Liberals/NDP might tell us that we have the best medical system and any problems are caused by a lack of funding by the evil Conservatives, it might actually be the case that our system could benefit from the stimulation of healthy competition and it would be better for everyone if we embraced a little of the private sector. This kind of talk is always criticized as “heartless” since it allows for the rich to enjoy an enhancement in what we consider “basic” benefits –an amelioration which would be denied to the poor. But we might be ignoring the inadvertently positive side effects. Hasn’t Alberta already shown that conservative government doesn’t lead to social catastrophe? In fact, if anything it seems to provide a better environment for philanthropy and generosity as people adopt an attitude of personal responsibility for charitable contributions instead of counting on the government to “get the check”. It’s tiring listening to people arguing and getting excited about how to spend each other’s money and feeling noble doing it. Anybody can help out anyone if he or she so desires. A person can even feel morally superior doing it. However, it is completely unacceptable to tell richer people what they ought to be doing while doing nothing yourself.

Conservative Guilt

I’d like to introduce you to a thought experiment. I stole it from a university class I took a while ago and it really has nothing much to do with what I want to talk about, except in one critical detail. In a sense, it represents the case for conservatism.

Imagine you’re Jesus or Mohammed, Mother Teresa or Moses, or some other person you think is particularly wise and virtuous. Suppose that you are contemplating what to do with your aged parents. Since you’re only concerned with the most just and virtuous course of action, whether leave them in state care or handle it yourself will be decided strictly by ethical considerations. Suppose that the most just course of action would be to place them in a home where they can receive medical attention, nutritionally balanced meals, constant supervision and the like. However, doing so could be ethically wrong. Suppose you live in a country with no such state program (China for example), then this choice might allow them to suffer and die since they cannot care for themselves.

The point of the thought experiment is to demonstrate that sometimes perfectly admirable ideals cannot be ratified without significant moral sacrifice. The best scenario does not imply the best decision. When applied to socialistic-liberal ideologies, it means that some of the agendas it advocates are not intrinsically justified. State health care, for example, is a perfectly salient object for such a discussion. Sure, it’s great that everyone has access and is guaranteed care regardless of their financial situation. And, ideologically, our system espouses all the ideals of equality since money and resources cannot secure any improvement to the services provided. But then of course in practice, this reality is artificial. People with money can fly down to Mexico and partake of its burgeoning health-care industry if they so desire. But never mind that. As long as state health care guarantees that even the worst-off can’t slip though the cracks of our extensive social net, then we don’t have to sweat the details.

But is it virtuous to deny the wealthy extra privilege in the name of equality? It would certainly be justified if it came at the expense of the worst-off, but this doesn’t seem to be the case in the health care system. We’re just encouraging the wealthy to take their money elsewhere, when they could be dragging up the level of well-being for the worst-off, whether they will it or not. Why not keep their resources for ourselves by keeping their expenditures domestic? Instead, we fear that a “two-tiered” system would rob the poor of the talented and qualified doctors they have now. Again, never mind the stress we might relieve to the public system by allowing efficient specialist operations to exist outside the public sphere.

The problem with the conservative policies is that they are unmarketable. How do you explain to the average Canadian the virtues of free-choice and capitalism, when they have become synonymous with egotistical anarchy in the deceiving rhetoric of astute politicians? Jack Layton’s simple sound-bites are cleverly conceived, but they do real damage to our societal structure by impeding the rational conversations we ought to have regarding these meaningful issues. With a simple quip, conservative policies are made to appear selfish and evil without authentic consideration of their value –both for the general society and the worst-off. Ideally these politicians would be accountable for deceiving the public when they promise the world but delivering nothing. But unfortunately, everyone’s a millionaire where promises are concerned. “The ends may be “unarguably good” but they lead to other ends that are unarguably bad” (Mark Steyn).

Part Nine: Tentatively, the End

…continued from “What , Exactly, Does Israel Owe?” (i.e. read the part(s) below first)

I’ve reached the end of my present interest in Israeli affairs, but there are still a couple of comments I wanted to make before abandoning the subject for the time being. There are some people who I just can’t seem to talk to about this issue. As a rule of thumb, this is generally people who believe that the only acceptable solution is for the elimination of the Israeli state. While I can argue with someone who thinks that Israel should just start nuking its neighbors, this discussion is only made possible because I can find some common ground in which to plant a seed of doubt. On the other hand, the view held by someone who truly believes that all Israelis should be displaced and their land “re-claimed” seems to have extremely racist roots. Supposing that the Israelis have no claim to continue living in the area seems to deny that they are just people, with the same interests and needs as the Palestinians who feel upset over being denied the right to kick them out. If you can’t acknowledge them as equals, then there’s no way to compare their welfare with the Palestinians and my protests will fall on deaf ears.

Sometimes it’s helpful to recall why the Jews were placed in the area in the first place. It’s not like they scouted for a weak area of the globe they could move in and occupy. The location is uniquely related to their past and there just isn’t anywhere else they would have recognized as their homeland. This point also relates to the Palestinians in the area, but this only serves to further highlight the need for compromise and to avoid one-sided thinking. There are some hopeful developments in the area, most notably the new initiative to establish a secure and independent government for the Palestinian people, forwarded by the Israelis. But peace will remain elusive so long as people continue to espouse incommensurable and inflexible objectives.

Part Eight: What , Exactly, Does Israel Owe?

…continued from “Why Do We Hesitate” (i.e. read the part(s) below first)

Because I’m used to addressing a largely Conservative and pro-Israeli audience, sometimes my arguments make it seem as though I oppose this viewpoint. Actually those would be perfectly accurate descriptions of my personal views. My writing challenges this perspective so that I, and ideally others, can try to avoid dogmatic thinking. It’s just not reasonable to assume that any one side in this debate is perfectly justified, so it seems like a good idea to analyze the justification for the alternate viewpoint. However, more recently I’ve encountered the opposite persuasion, so I thought it would be appropriate to deal with the some of the most common flaws in the anti-Israeli position.

I’ve often heard the “argument” that Israel’s creation and location was a mistake. This seems to be used as a reason to justify imposing harsher sanctions and penalties against Israel since “they shouldn’t be there anyway.” This argument seems to draw credibility from the assumption that Palestinians have a stronger claim to the territory than the more recently deposited Israelis, which is suspect. First of all, the Palestinians were not a nation before the creation of Israel; this seems to have been a reactive creation. Secondly, there were Jews who lived in the area at the same time as the Palestinians, before Israel as we know it today had even been conceived. Thirdly, when Israel was created, they invited the Palestinians living there to become a part of the new nation (so it could have been a united nation). Furthermore, if a land claim is determined by tracing family lineage, i.e. something which transcends the individual, then why is it that the Palestinian claim to the area supersedes the Israeli claim? There were Jews in the area reaching back into antiquity…

Personally I think justification for a land claim is the most important factor. While there can be no justification for taking something from a person, in what sense does a person’s right to an area depend on their lineage? Say some Palestinian claims a piece of land and can prove with absolute security that it belonged to his family in the past (with photographs or legal documents or whatever have you) and that it was taken by unjust means. Does this inherently prove that the Israeli living there now does so illegally? That’s not how our Justice system works; why should we prescribe it for others? The argument that says: “the Israeli living there now must return the land”, fails to take seriously the distinction between individuals. Assuming the current resident is not personally responsible for displacing the Palestinian, the Israeli cannot –given our legal standards— be held responsible for the Palestinian’s suffering. This is identical to how we deal with native land claims in Canada and the US. We don’t just force the American who is occupying the territory now to move and give back the land. Instead we adopt a sense of corporate liability, and the government as an entity is liable for compensation. This could mistakenly be used as justification for holding the nation of Israel exclusively responsible for the Palestinian plight. But as per my earlier argument (in another section) there are many countries responsible for Israel’s formation, therefore many share this burden.

We must also consider what is owed in virtue of the “Israeli Occupation”, compared to what might be owed just in virtue of the justice of human equality. If we are responsible to make the well-being of the average Palestinian equivalent to the conditions before the creation of Israel, then the improvements we must undertake will yield only minor amelioration in their quality of life. However, as fellow human beings it is my belief that we owe them an equal opportunity for well-being—but that’s another essay altogether. Israel herself seems to owe very little and the particular Israeli occupying the area owes nothing.

Talk of removing, obliterating or absorbing Israel is pointless and completely unjust. Seriously consider the likelihood that many of the original, pre-Israel, residents are driving this agenda. With that in mind, in what sense does Palestine have a right to the territory? Honestly, the real driving force behind this talk is the attempted legitimatization of the hatred felt towards Israel –which I have already argued originates from other factors. We do owe Palestinians something, but that thing is not Israel.

Part Seven: Why Do We Hesitate?

…continued from “Some Possible Steps For A Solution?” (i.e. read the part(s) below first)

I’m curious about what makes westerners willing to act so coldly to Palestinians. Christianized western states have a tradition of generosity and the people living in them are normally quite willing to share their resources in charitable contributions; and yet we seem perfectly willing to ignore the suffering among the common Middle-Eastern states. Why do we seem to find it more congenial to keep them down instead of helping them up? Part of this sentiment may have originated from a traditional connection we have to the state of Israel. While Christians believe the Jews are a bit confused, both groups are supposed to be praying to the same God. Furthermore, it’s no secret that the bible predicts perpetual conflict in the area. So if you really believe the pursuit of peace is hopeless, why even make the effort? But this sort of belief cannot inform political policy. Even if we believe efforts in the pursuit of stability are futile, it is completely unfair to behave as though this justifies not trying.

But this is not a sufficient explanation since we are largely a secular society. It could be the mere fact that Israel appeals to our western sensibilities since they share many of our attitudes. I think Israel’s response to terror coincides with how we (like to) imagine we would respond in a similar circumstance. Conversely, religion in Palestine (and other Muslim countries) is much closer to the surface and we perceive this as regressive since we believe our own scientific morality is more evolved. However, whether this belief is enlightened or misinformed it should not affect our treatment of Palestine. Even if our society is better than theirs this is no justification for poor treatment. We owe compassion and support because Palestinians are human; they are entitled to all the rights and privileges that go along with it.

Part Six: Some Possible Steps For A Solution?

…continued from “But Israel Is A Bully” (i.e. read the part(s) below first)

Most of my comments so far have been complaints about inefficacity of the attempted solutions. But how do you begin to address the injustice inherent in the Palestinian plight? How do you create meaningful peace in the area? You cannot negotiate with terrorists (Jack Layton suggested it, but I’m going to assume he’s brighter than that and was just hoping to score some cheap political points) because ideological or religious extremists pursue absolute and nonnegotiable goals. Hamas would not be satisfied by increased justice for the Palestinian people; they want Israel wiped from the map (though, as a political party, they seem to be somewhat corrupted (in a good way) by their newly achieved power).
For Israel, improving Palestinian life in a general sense often looks like rewarding terrorism. For example, when they began the program to “retreat to defensible borders” they demolished all the buildings and towns that had been established under Israeli occupation. There is a rational reason to do so, since leaving the area and the homes might appear as though they had been forced out of the area by the actions of terrorists and made it appear as though participating in this kind of activity had benefits. Destroying the buildings may have thwarted some of the expectations Palestinians had about reclaiming the area, but it is also a missed opportunity for a cheap act of goodwill. I call it cheap not because the homes were inexpensive to build, but because leaving them doesn’t cost anything whereas fuelling the heavy machinery and paying people to knock them down does. But this just goes to show that it isn’t Israel who should be responsible for making things better.
Stephen Harper commented during a speech at a B'nai Brith banquet that "our government believes in a two-state solution —in a secure democratic and prosperous Israel living beside a viable democratic and peaceful Palestinian state." Indeed most of the western democracies seem to agree with some version of this idea, but none seem to engage in its pursuit beyond the occasional concession in international negotiations. It’s easy to see why Iran, Libya and Syria are so influential; they invest in the area. You can’t blame someone for going to a school that encourages and trains terrorists if it’s the only one available. While the western states talk about establishing a thriving and stable economy, Palestine’s Middle-Eastern allies are the only ones spending any money. It is my belief that a strong middle class is necessary prerequisite to a peaceful Palestine. Not only would this curb the jealousy they feel, but well-off people don’t blow themselves up. They have something to live for.
I’m not exactly sure how all this talk about making Palestine a better place can be translated into action. Since we often criticize externally funded schools –for good reason; in these cases education is often an ancillary objective to more sinister agenda— we probably would look silly if tried to set some up, even if our intentions were sincere. We do have to be more proactive; granting liberties does nothing to improve relations, we may actually have to give something real. I believe that the first step should be to resume the aid-package program. While I realize that the program stopped because the political leadership in the country refuses to acknowledge Israel and that this response is likely to be effective (since Hamas is likely to be short-lived if they cannot provide the basic essentials for their population) this strategy looks to me like a kinder, gentler form of state-sponsored terror. For example, the definition of Terrorism offered in my intro political-science course is “the deliberate use of violence or the threat of such, directed upon civilians in order to achieve political objectives” (Thomas Kapitan). The cessation of aid-packages is deliberate, it is directed at the civilians and it is intended to achieve political objectives. Our moral principles are in serious jeopardy when we advocate such hypocritical standards.

Part Five: But Israel Is A Bully

…continued from “And For That Matter…” (i.e. read the part(s) below first)
But Israel is guilty of many crimes against the Palestinian people. If some disgruntled Palestinian fires a homemade rocket into a vacant Israeli field, Israel returns fire, sends in tanks and soldiers and then eliminates a few high raking political leaders. Is this a fair reaction? (…well, it probably is in at least one sense since an aggressive manoeuvre is an aggressive manoeuvre, we can’t expect Israel to shoot back with similar crappy and inaccurate weapons because that would be a war crime).

There is an inconsistency in the application of the rules of ethical international relations which allows Israel to bomb civilians, hold suspected terrorists in jail indefinitely and throw the whole country into disorder whenever she feels threatened. The pecking order seems to allow the US and her allies nearly complete freedom to dominate those unable to defend themselves. When two groups negotiate it is true that the stronger party is expected to have to make fewer concessions since negotiations are usually motivated by a desire to avoid war; so it only makes sense that the more likely victor is able to demand more. However, might does not make right. Just because Israel and her buddies can make invasive and restricting demands on Palestine does not mean that it is justified.

If we could actually understand their perspective, we would start treating Palestinians with more dignity and respect and at least allow them control over their domestic affairs. The bombing episodes in the ‘30s and ‘40s demonstrate that no group is inherently more ethical than the other (a period during which Israel engaged in terror tactics). Although Israel seems to have grown out of that phase faster, it was only able to do so with the support and acceptance of the rest of the world. If we really intend to establish a meaningful and lasting peace in the area we owe more support, understanding, sympathy to the Palestinians.

Part Four: And For That Matter…

…continued from “No One Deserves This Fate” (i.e. read the part(s) below first)

Just how much can you blame on their social circumstances?

Shouldn’t the Palestinians be able to realize that they must be doing something wrong when everyone is against them? Granted that they are often misinformed, but they should recognize the inherent injustice in attacking civilians. We can still hold them responsible for their actions even though they are victims of circumstance. We don’t let murderers and drug dealers out of prison because they grew up in bad homes, and we can apply the same kind of justice to those who engage in acts of violence directed against civilians… But when this argument us used it is often a deliberate misdirection. I don’t think many people believe that terrorism is in fact justified (at least I hope not), so it oversimplifies the dynamics of the situation. The focus of my investigation is centered on Israeli-Palestinian policies and not anti-terror strategies (except so far as they relate to the development and growth of violent sentiments in the civilian population). The terrorists can’t escape culpability because of their circumstances; applying this kind of justice is in complete opposition to the foundations of modern liberal societies. But when the sense of frustration and dissatisfaction harbored by the average Palestinian citizen, generated by the deplorable conditions of their everyday life, turns into hatred of their much better off neighbors, it is understandable even though the consequences are not tolerable.

Part Three: No One Deserves This Fate

…continued from “Is Wealth A Crime?” (i.e. read the part(s) below first)

(I’m not going to spend too much time on this part since I covered the principle in the “Civilian Culpability” blog.)

Is it fair to hold the Palestinians responsible for all this? All they’ve ever known is war. Education and opportunity is not available to them like it is for Israelis; is it their fault they are sometimes misinformed? I don’t think there are very many Palestinians who really know the details of the deals that have been offered them (clearly defined land with autonomous government… it has come up more than once). They are too often used as a proxy by nations like Syria who wish to wage war on Israel without the consequences of a counter-attack. If you are confused and poorly informed, is it wrong to listen to those who help you most?

Although terrorism is unjust and wrong (I won’t bother explaining why, but leave a comment if you disagree, I’ll explain it) at least it gives them some hope and a small sense of power. It’s a reaction born of desperation. As for the suicide bombings, if there’s nothing left to live for it only makes sense to use your life to strike back at those you view as oppressors.

In response, countries provide aid packages. But this does nothing to improve the Palestinian psyche. It is absolutely necessary to keep the people alive, but it only perpetuates the circumstances since the Palestinians never get to “make it on their own.” These packages are band-aid solutions and we, as an international community, should feel great shame in our abandonment of a greater and more permanent solution. In responding in such a manner, we don’t just let down the Palestinians, we let down Israel too. There is more that one signature on the Balfour Declaration. Though the problems only rarely have an effect on us (9/11), in the name of justice and fairness, we should not act as though Israel is responsible for them.

Part Two: Is Wealth A Crime?

…continued from “What’s the deal with Israel?” (i.e. read the part below first)

Why shouldn’t Israel have the capability to defend herself? It’s not as though her neighbors inspire confidence. Ahmadinejad denies her existence at every international meeting while doggedly pursuing nuclear power; Palestine elects a terrorist group as a “government”; Syria sends rockets to Hezbollah in Lebanon… seems like everyone is an anti-Semite. While these countries do lack complete autonomy, since Israel could reduce them to rubble if they stepped out of line, this is completely reasonable. There is no one in the world that has the ability to act completely independent of international consensus (the US comes closest, but they do so by pushing boundaries, not ignoring them). No one is entirely autonomous. Why should we allow them to possess WMDs when they won’t act like grown-ups?...but I digress. I believe I was interested in Israeli-Palestinian affairs.

Israel has often been called a mistake, but this doesn’t contribute anything to the discussion (I’ll tell you what I think about this line of reasoning in another blog, don’t worry). So I’m going to ignore that aspect for now on the grounds that most rational people will agree that we can’t ask them to leave now; we can’t “fix” it by uprooting the Jews to satisfy the Palestinians. So Israel must be allowed to exist. However, a more constructive debate might be whether Israel should be forced to allow more liberties to the Palestinians. Free up transportation routes and the like. From the Israeli viewpoint, this must come perilously close to ceding to terrorism. Not just because they have to give up something for nothing, they must be used to that by now, but also because it allows the terrorists more freedom to plan against them (it’s a little easier to smuggle in weapons when no one is inspecting the crates).

The problem with allowing the Palestinians more freedom is evidenced by their history. It could be argued that terrorism continued even when Israel left Gaza and retreated to “defensible borders” because it still wasn’t enough. However, terrorists are not a unified political front. It’s much easier to get them rolling than to make them quit. Indeed the terrorist groups all seem to have a common ambition, the complete destruction and elimination of Israel. Some people might say that if Israel would just relax its control eventually the Palestinians would recognize this generosity and cease to terrorize them; but even if this is absolutely true, would it be fair to expect Israel to endure this sacrifice? What would happen to them in the interim between releasing their intense control and the supposed Palestinian cessation of hostilities?

What’s The Deal With Israel?

(Preliminary preamble: Ever since the Lebanese-Israeli conflict I’ve been thinking about Israel’s situation. I had been considering releasing a comprehensive paper, but once I began to consider all of the relevant factors I realized it might take another month for me to complete. I wrote the following segment last night along with most of the next entry, so it should follow shortly. Initially I concentrate on the Israeli-Palestinian relationship since it seems to be the most pressing, but I’ll finish with an analysis of Israel’s global predicament. )

Try and imagine life from the Palestinian perspective. What’s it like really to grow up poor; with occasional bombings cracking the clay in your home and knowing that there’s a group of people living in the same terrain, but instead of suffering they manage to prosper and flourish? I mean, lets compare circumstances for minute.

Israel is hardly poor. Their wealth per capita might not be extraordinary by western standards, but it sticks out quite a bit when you consider their geographical location. Palestine on the other hand is on the verge of a “humanitarian crisis”, with barely enough of the basic essentials to support its citizens. Just next door however, there is a “special” group of people who live on identical terrain who, instead of suffering, manage to prosper and flourish.

Israel has planes, trains and automobiles and the military capabilities to dominate each and every one of its neighbors. Not only do they have the nuclear capabilities to destroy everyone else in the vicinity, but in conventional combat there is no other country that could even hope to put a plane in the air in a time of war. It’s no secret that their air force is one of the most advanced in the world; they may no have the numbers, but they are using the same equipment deployed by the US. But how must it feel to know that your country is defenseless in the event of a conflict? (I can’t imagine that Israel is unaware of the psychological impact their air force has either; it is common practice to “buzz” the area whenever an attack is suspected or occurs.) Since they can control the seaways and airways every import is subject to Israeli scrutiny too.

Israel has powerful friends. While the international community prevents them from completely subjugating their neighbors, the US, Britain, and even Canada is willing to give them whatever it takes to ensure their continued dominance (Canada for its part, mostly contributes “soft power” by way of support in international negotiations (i.e. our contribution is consent (ever heard the phrase “Israel has the right to defend herself”?))). But who’s buddies with Palestine?... Lebanon? (ha, ha)… Syria I suppose, but they’re like an evil sibling who provokes them to bad behavior and then gets away Scott-free. They’re not exactly international superstars anyway. Truth is, Palestine has no friends. (She’s like the lonely creepy-guy who roams the hallways in a black trench coat.)

Supposedly they both have the same kind of government, live in the same physical environment…and people are all the same right? What’s fair about their predicament?

Ignatieff’s Consistent New Original Position on Israel (...confused? me too)

It’s too bad for Iggy. First he gets the Lebanese mad because he “wouldn’t lose sleep over” EnCana (a town, at one point occupied by Hezbollah, where Israel bombed and killed several civilians); then his “clarification” pisses off Israeli supporters because he later calls the bombings a war crime. It takes a truly unique talent to alienate the people on both sides of an argument at the same time. Tonight on The Hour Michael was busy “not backpedaling, not clarifying” but… talking(?) about his alleged anti-Israeli position. Apparently he wants to set the record straight by telling us that what he really believes is that it’s important for us to have a set of rules and regulations about ethical war-time conduct which we apply consistently. While I think this is a particularly noble aspiration—an example of why I have considered him my leading preference for Liberal leader– it doesn’t explain his position towards the Middle East. Although the claim made by his political rival Bob Rae that Ignatieff has switched positions three times is unfair, so are Iggy’s protests that his comments are clear but taken out of context. If their inflammatory nature is caused by a mere misunderstanding why doesn’t he clarify them by simply telling us his true stance towards the Middle East? ...I hope this isn’t a strategy to keep his attitude ambiguous so he can propagate the Liberal propensity to use opinion polls to develop foreign strategy.

Civilian Culpability

Conversation about terrorism is starting to have a distinctly dangerous note. I’ve heard people half-jokingly (but only half) say that terrorists should all be killed and since their not about to crowd together and stand still while we take aim, we should just nuke the those who harbor them to solve the problem once and for all. A slightly more rational view holds that civilian casualties are a somewhat regrettable necessity in our conflict with terrorism, but this view is a development from a not-so-uncommon mistake—rooted in racism– which assumes that the people in countries harboring terrorists are somehow culpable for their crimes.
While it’s true that many of the people in these countries are sympathetic to the terrorist cause, they are not completely responsible for acquiring these beliefs. In Lebanon the Hezbollah owned a private network and were free to broadcast the information that promoted their view and mindset. Can we blame the Lebanese for listening? While many people don’t bother to consider it, the same sort of thing goes on in Canada with our news agencies. While they avoid overt lies it is common practice to influence how the story is interpreted to better correspond to the beliefs of the news agency reporting it. It does not matter whether the story relies on testimonials from experts, interviews with the public or analysis of the bare facts; it still contains as much influence from the interviewer as the interviewee and we are often guilty of the same sin of unreflective acceptance about what we’re told. The information proffered by Hezbollah’s network may not have completely reflected the truth but it is understandable that the Lebanese people could be misled.
But is it reasonable to blame people in environments like this for forming mistaken beliefs? Perhaps we believe that if they just started thinking for themselves they’d soon figure out that something was wrong with their beliefs. After all, surely they must wonder why the whole western word seems to be allied against them. But a quick view into western history proves that we are willing to act in a similar fashion. It’s a curious sort of fairytale-belief that holds that the ideals espoused during the French revolution were commonly understood by the average citizen. Probably the truth is that the average person had a deep seeded sense of injustice and came to blame it on the method of governance. The reaction to this sense of injustice was not calm, rational and peaceful; rather the bloody revolution proved how far western people are willing to go in reaction to a perceived injustice. So consider the plight of the average citizen in a country like Lebanon. Just next door there resides a wealthy neighbor, loved by the superpowers and possessing enough military might to annihilate any opponent. Would it seem fair that they should prosper while the Muslim countries decay? …and what reaction should we expect to this sentiment? If people really are all the same we cannot expect better behavior from them than we get from ourselves.
I’m not defending their right to terrorize, but these “crazy Arabs” are reacting in a manner that strikingly resembles scenes from both our past and present and we therefore cannot in good conscience hold ourselves in higher regard. I think this tendency to convince ourselves that the civilian casualties in these countries are tolerable comes from our self-deceptive ability to disassociate from them. While cultural and historical influences prevented the current terrorists from developing here, nothing but a birth lottery made it the case that it happened to Middle-Easterners and not us. Because people can be blamed for the choices they make but not their environmental circumstances, blaming these people for the terror problem isn’t fair. A civilian death is not any less tragic because they live in a country half ruled by terrorists. There is the same deeply rooted injustice inherent in even their accidental deaths. Killing the militants is necessary, but each time a civilian is killed it is just as tragic as when an Israeli or American dies.

Negociate now. Before it's too late.

I’m happy a Canadian political leader is finally willing to negotiate with terrorist groups. These disenfranchised Muslim extremist groups deserve just as much respect and representation as any group of political lobbyists. Since Harper has already admitted that military options cannot achieve total victory against these kinds of tactics, it’s time we started considering how our eventual submission should be negotiated. If we wait until they achieve complete victory, we won’t have any bargaining chips with which to secure a more harmonistic cohabitation. While certain points are obviously un-negotiable—like the necessity of our complete conversion to Islam— perhaps if we agree to submit now we can secure basic liberties like the right for women “to feel sunlight on their faces” (like it was the case in pre-invaded Iraq). Let’s keep in mind who is the aggressor here. For example, Israel has a few rockets launched into its borders—most of which don’t hit anything at all– and it thinks it has the right to shoot back at the rocket launchers. The incredible insolence of it all really ruffles my feathers. When are people going to realize we don’t have to die? Islam is a religion of peace and all it requires of us is our complete faith and devotion.

… but seriously. I’m glad the NDP has decided to return to its looniest habits. They were starting to have political agendas which could convince the unreflective listener that they weren’t completely nuts.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a Clever Fellow?

Nuclear power is an interesting negotiating trick for Iran; possessing such a disastrous destructive ability would place Iran in a much more powerful position because, though still not anywhere near equal to the United States in military capabilities, they would be able to eliminate Israel, an unpopular American ally, before any sufficient defense could be organized. Since such an outcome would be impermissible, the US would have to be much more sensitive to Iran’s demands and doing so would legitimize their claim to equal international representation. The only problem with this plan is that the Iranian president may be pushing his agenda too hard; not content to play with the notion of nuclear power, he actually seems intent on getting it. But, because compromising Israel’s ability to protect itself cannot be allowed, he may actually force a conflict with the western powers. If he just wants to increase his country’s international influence then pretending to develop nuclear abilities as long as possible and appearing ready to use them against Israel is a brilliant move —as long as it’s not carried too far. However, if he honestly wants to obliterate Israel —like he keeps saying– then we may be on the brink of another bloody conflict.
But, it’s extremely hard to tell if this is his authentic desire. It seems like a less public weapons program would be more effective since Israel has already proven it’s willingness to bomb any facility it believes might be involved in the development of nuclear weapons, and no matter the cost surely the Americans would be ready to send in troops if it were the only way to prevent nuclear war. I have to assume that the Iranian president is a very smart guy and probably realizes this… but on the other hand, Iran has also been funding groups like Hezbollah who are very effective at disrupting normal life in Israel and don’t seem to give Iran any substantial augmentation in their political influence. While Hezbollah’s political power has skyrocketed and this has indirectly helped Iran (by giving the western powers more things to worry about), I don’t believe anyone could have confidently predicted this, so the Iranian contributions seem like pure malice (although, to introduce another conspiracy theory, Iran could have helped these groups to show just how seriously they were committed to Israel’s elimination…).
Having international negotiating power legitimized by military might seems kind’ve unjust but it’s the only way it’s ever been done and likely to get done, so denying Iranians equality with the west by refusing to allow them to develop nuclear arms seems unfair (does anyone really think they just want nuclear energy?). However, it would be just as unjust if Iran’s power came at the expense of Israeli citizens and unfortunately, I haven’t yet found a good way to reconcile these two goals.

Is it Time For a Ceasefire?

On the one side, Israel has killed many more civilians than Hezbollah could ever dream of since the war began (about 7 to 1 now (only counting since Israel began its offensive and not including deaths by suicide bombers and pre-war rocket activity)). Not on purpose of course and probably not from carelessness either; the Israeli weapons and military operations are much more comprehensive… so more things get blown up. While they are killing a lot of civilians I still find it hard to get really upset with Israel because I have no sympathy for Hezbollah or any of its supporters. How could you possibly hope to eliminate a terrorist group without shooting a few people?
If the complaint is that Israel’s reaction is too extreme, then imagine some of the alternatives. If Mexico started shooting random rockets into the US they’d be a giant crater by the end of the week. The last time the US suffered one really bad terrorist attack they responded by overthrowing two countries, but Israel launches some minor ground offensives to root out some Hezbollah militants and everyone is busy scolding them for endangering a fragile democracy (so fragile that they have no control over the southern part of the country). You can’t expect Israel to sit on its hands and permit terrorists to lob rockets into its cities, so don’t get excited when they decide to shoot back.
But without getting straight-out racist about it, you can’t blame the Lebanese people for Hezbollah. People seem to convince themselves that the civilian casualties are tolerable by disassociating themselves from the Lebanese. But unless there is something fundamentally different about them, the same kind of terror group could have developed anywhere. While cultural and historical influences prevented it from occurring here, nothing but a birth lottery made it happen to them and not us. Because people can be blamed for the choices they make but not their environmental circumstances, blaming the Lebanese for Hezbollah isn’t fair. A civilian death is not less tragic because they live in a country half ruled by terrorists. Killing the militants is allowed, but each time a Lebanese civilian is killed it’s just as tragic as when an Israeli or American dies. There is a deeply rooted injustice inherent in even their accidental deaths.
A ceasefire is essentially designed to protect the Lebanese. Although it would stop Hezbollah from blowing up any more Israelis right now, in the long run it would probably be safer for Israel to shoot at Lebanon until they run out of militant radicals to kill (or decimate their population, whichever comes first). In a sense any cessation of hostilities trades Israeli lives for Lebanese; allowing some terrorists to survive means they will be back later to plan new attacks.
So, allowing Israel to keep shooting and killing civilians isn’t fair because the Lebanese people should not suffer as a whole for the crimes of a few, but stopping Israel means that the terrorists will return to kill them later. Getting back to the original question, frankly it’s impossible for me to tell if we’ve reached the point at which it’s better to stop the fighting or if doing so would only cause greater tragedy down the road. Not only am I not nearly well enough informed about what’s going on, but I’m not sure how to begin to calculate the balance between the lives lost on both sides. It’s really not fair to do a one to one math equation to see which event keeps the most people alive, I mean we wouldn’t want to say that maybe it would have been better to not have fought the Nazis since perhaps more people might be alive if we had surrendered and let them kill all the Jews; there’s something important about achieving justice too. The only conviction I feel certain about is that there is no side in this debate which is completely justified in its stance or actions.

Proposals for the UN

Thinking about the Middle East and what kind of reaction might be appropriate and effective to prevent civilian casualties and yet keep Israel safe led me to propose a couple. At least initially it seemed appropriate to deny UN status to any country which refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist. It seems just since these countries are inherently doing the same to Israel since a country which is “non-existent” cannot participate (which is also why Hezbollah has no chance to achieve UN representation). However, this might create a problem since non-membership in the UN also allows non-conformity with its sanctions. If a country does not agree to the rules or at least have an equal part in creating them then it may validly complain that they do not apply. (Of course in cases like Lebanon, this seems to be pretty much the case regardless; but it legitimizes their non-cooperation). Also, UN forces would be perceived less as an international presence and more as foreigners imposing on Muslim sovereignty. So, I thought maybe a better idea would be to reject their right to vote. This paralyzes only a small part of their international power, but keeping them inside the UN is necessary to prevent justifying their non-conformity with international consensus.
The UN also needs to increase its reprimand of countries, governments and organizations which fund or supply terrorist groups. Iran and Syria shouldn’t be allowed to escape responsibility for Hezbollah while Lebanon’s infrastructure gets pounded just because Hezbollah doesn’t live there. So how do you decide when a country is responsible for terror activity? (I.e. what about Lebanon where there seems to be two political and military presences?) I suppose it depends exclusively on the government’s level of cooperation. Each country has to be given a mandate such that they are responsible for hostilities originating within their borders (so they cannot plead ignorance) and their cooperation with these groups (so they cannot escape the consequences). But for this to be a fair system then just as Palestine should be responsible for its suicide bombers, Canada should be held responsible for terrorists who use the country as a launch pad. This seems like the only way to make it fair an equal.

The Middle East Crisis

Because Israel has begun its “realignment” and “retreat to defensible borders,” the timing of the recent escalation in violence couldn’t be any more unreasonable for the Palestinians. Israel cannot be perceived as wavering in response to terrorist activity, so it cannot continue with its plans to evacuate. While I understand that some groups would only be satisfied with Israel’s total elimination, doesn’t it seem more reasonable to at least wait until it finishes voluntarily returning the land? Israel abandoned Gaza, so it seems foolish to have started firing rockets. If I were planning Israel’s defense, every time a rocket landed inside my borders I think it would be quite reasonable to reclaim a chunk of Gaza until there was enough of a buffer that the missiles no longer posed a threat.
Kidnapping the Israeli soldiers was an even worse mistake. Public morale requires that Israel be fanatical about its citizen’s safety and bargaining with terrorists would only encourage them further, so what alternative remains but a large-scale offensive? Blair and Harper apparently had some other idea, but maybe someone can explain to me what they expect to accomplish with their demands for negotiation and continuing to “follow the roadmap for peace.” Since Israel cannot reasonably be expected to cede anything in exchange for their captured soldiers –which would only encourage further terrorist kidnappings– what possible negotiation can take place? I might think he’s the best prime minister we’ve had in my lifetime, but Harper definitely made a mistake by apparently backing down from his position the day before that Israel bore no responsibility for the escalation and had the right to defend itself.
While I’m sure Israel would love the opportunity to prove their good faith by ending the bombings and then continuing to return pieces of land, without the soldiers’ safe return I can’t see any quick resolution to the increasing violence or alternative actions for the Israeli government.

Ethics of Abortion

(I decided to post my draft for the blog on abortion. My cause for writing it was getting a bit stale anyway, plus I figured if I have big holes in my argument someone else can point them out.)

After viewing a pro-life demonstration on campus –or rather viewing what I thought was an art display then figuring it out from the diverse reactions—I decided to elucidate what I consider to be the major conflicts in the debate.

It seems the informed opinion is founded on faith that science will or has provided a clear distinction for qualifying humanity –the stage of development at which a fetus becomes a baby. The idea of a clear physical distinction seems to originate from our desire to qualify our judgment that it is ok to kill animals but not humans. There must be something that generates our special distinction. A pro-lifer will be ready to say that this is merely a semantic difference; a fetus just is a less developed baby. But to give both sides the best translation we need to assume that there is a difference. However, establishing a difference might not necessarily justify a classification as “non-human.” Classically we identify the major human feature as rationality. However, clearly a two year old child does not have developed rationality skills, but we don’t want to say that it is ok to kill one. Even baby-shakers can be sent to prison, so we must believe that they have the minimum level of humanness is present in the very smallest babies. Premature babies push the threshold even further; seems like we must include any fetus that could survive outside the womb, but after that it gets a bit foggier.

Starting from the other end, I wouldn’t expect people to include either a sperm or an egg, or even a joined sperm and egg as having this essential quality (some might, but they’re weird); this process can even occur outside the womb. So we must want to say that human-ness has not been achieved here. The problem is, though there is some stage at which the fetus acquires the essential quality, the characteristics meriting this distinction are very unclear. In fact, while science can name any number of essential properties to distinguish stages of development, which stage uniquely imbues the fetus with the special status of being human seems absolutely a matter of preference. Analogous to the old philosopher’s puzzle of when a pile becomes a heap, no stage seems clearly distinguishable from its precedent. Someone might be tempted to assert that failing rationality, the presence of life should be the determining factor. But unlike resuscitation after cardiac arrest, there is no magic spark or moment during the development of a baby. I know someone will probably want to say that when a fetus gets a beating heart it should qualify as living, but what about all the kinds of living things without hearts? –scientists even argue about whether to include viruses in this special distinction.

The debate thus far has been centered on what we could normally define as “the facts” of abortion. For obvious reasons, no matter how much we study human development we are not ever going to discover an obvious and clear distinction that could end the moral debate, but I think I’ve set the stage to reveal the true positions underlying the abortion debate. The pro-lifers are typically religious but it seems reasonable to take this side in the debate without appealing to any theological reasoning (although this is generally the source of their vehement reactions). The proper argument is that if we intrinsically value human life, since there is no (justified) way to distinguish when a fetus becomes a baby we must preserve the absolute right for the fetus to qualify as human. While religion often stimulates this moral reaction, it seems perfectly rational to object on these (secular humanist) grounds.

However, the pro-choice camp is not simple enough to argue with the “humanity distinction.” If they were, it would look like one side was arguing that abortion is murder while the other equated a fetus to trash. The debate would be simplistic, and I think the common person would err on the side of caution (i.e. save the fetus just to be safe). However, the strong pro-choice sentiments originate from feminism. Feminists want to eliminate outside influence on their life choices and a debate with a gender specific impact lends itself to their arena.
Forcing pregnant women to carry the fetus to term seems to place an unmerited restriction on the freedom of women; a restriction that does not exist for men. This kind of intrusion into their private life seems to require an objective morality, enforced by the state, since the scientific “facts” are insufficient for a conclusive distinction. How can we ask this of them when men, through biological fortune, escape all maternal responsibilities? It seems that we would be forcing them to perform “traditional” duties, consequently reducing them to a second-sex. A pro-lifer might try to compensate by placing more legal responsibility with the father, but part of the role is intrinsically female.

Some feminist groups claim that a baby is a part of a woman’s body. So an abortion is like a lizard choosing to cut off its tail. Clearly if this were the case, then clearly government control of abortions is a direct control on women themselves. However, I would contend that this is a prime exemplar of the condition of morality in the modern scientific rationality. Ethical debates can no longer be reference to a common collection of accepted ideas; the only common consensus in meta-ethics is that there is no such thing as objective morality. (Morality no longer seems able to compete with science for people’s heart and soul convictions –but, as pragmatism contends, if we acknowledge that “truth” is not the object of our inquiry, but admit that the true superlative cause is function, then scientific investigation must serve human interest and morality is a perfect method to evaluate how well science achieves this goal.) It should not be a surprising that the only way to resolve our applied-ethical concerns is to persuade people by making analogies to something they will intuitively agree with.

In the world of science, an abortion is only like—an abortion. But if someone can be persuaded to perceive it as a piece of some woman, then clearly removing it is up to her and only her. This method of persuasive analogies seems to be the only reliable method we have to convince people to take one side of the other. My personal conviction depends on a complicated epistemological program and therefore is of no importance to the current discussion. I think there are valid considerations from both sides, so to choose one stance must always come at the expense of some moral consideration. (I believe the most important factor in morality is to have a reason for any opinion you intend to share and to advocate that opinion only as far as your conviction allows. See the blog "Passion and Freedom" for the argument.)

No Blogs.

Since I'm busy, there's no reason to expect any blogging action in the next week. However, I have (a few) new posts in progress that should be completed shortly after that. Topics include abortion, gay rights and the new anti-smoking campaigns (did you know they started getting sixth graders to fill out post cards to send to their MLAs asking them to ban power-walls? (Also, researchers studying the effects this had in other provinces say "it's too soon to tell what effect it's having," which is usually code for "none at all.")).

New Mercer Photoshop Challenge

"We're just defending the Republic..."

(check out more @ http://www.cbc.ca/rickmercer)

Questioning Promiscuity 1: An Exercise in Applied Ethics

¹ (A bit of preamble: Despite recognizing that feminists will likely see me as hopelessly obtuse, during this essay I will presume that a lifelong relationship is valid and continue in most cases to call it marriage even though feminists might prefer to amend the notion to a “partnership” (but to ensure completeness in another section I do get around to analyzing the compatibility of marriage and feminism). Also, when I use the term promiscuity, I mean to refer to the tendency to have multiple sexual partners and not intend to use it to denote a moral judgment.)

The effects of the sexual revolution are expansive —and not always desirable. Under the banner of liberation from oppression, attitudes towards sex have reformed beyond normalizing sex outside of marriage to abnormalizing abstinence. Far from advocating a reverse in the trend of promiscuity, I proffer a much weaker and individualistic thesis because of my perceived connection between promiscuity and a rising trend of divorce. It seems that the pluralistic approach towards sexual partners may not be as appropriate as advanced by popular culture. While typically a religious position (most notably advanced by Christianity), opposition to promiscuity does not need to come from theology for valuable support. Choosing a stance on moral issues does not require recourse into religion for justification, it may in fact evolve from purely amoral considerations. If promiscuity and divorce are directly connected as I propose, then someone who prefers a lifelong commitment to immediate gratification may rationally choose abstinence on these grounds.

Promiscuity does not necessarily increase the likelihood of divorce. While I am proposing a direct connection, I do not suppose that promiscuity is a necessary and sufficient cause for all failed relational commitments —obviously there are many cases where people engage in sexual activities with many different people and later have successful marriages. In the same vein, abstinence will not ensure success. While there may be a connection, this is also not a sufficient reason for choosing a side on the debate. Furthermore, there are also many other candidate causes for the same trend. For example, feminism’s undermining influence on the family unit might equally explain the phenomenon. However, rejecting feminism would be an inappropriate response; while feminists might seem to advocate the goodness of divorce since the ability is perceived as intrinsic for female liberty, the freedom itself is all that is necessary. Feminism does not entail that the act itself is good (or else feminists might seem to be arguing against relations altogether). Just to make sure I didn’t lose anyone in there, feminists can still have lifelong commitments (or at least their defense of divorce does not preclude it; there might be some who do not think a binding relationship is ever justified—equal or not). Presuming that an increased proportion of divorce is a side effect of freedom for women, the ability to divorce is justified as a necessary evil.

An alternative cause proposed to me is that there is that the mystique of marriage has been reduced and, subsequent to the decreased moral significance of ending such a contract, there is less security in it (Erin Bourne). This suggestion seems distinctly compatible with my thesis since the sexual revolution could easily be the cause of this reduced romanticization of marriage as well. However, (and from the same contributor) there could be a more powerful connection between liberty for women and causes of divorce; marriage as a form of securing inheritance claims and business transactions is certainly included in a complete account of history and when women’s rights movements removed this feature there was more freedom for women to end a undesirable union. As a result women also became more powerful in forming such a union. So, while people who actually liked each could get married for exactly that reason, it also introduced the modern notion that instead of a project marriage should always be congenial. It would seem a gross injustice to introduce the idea that we should “revert” to the notion that marriage can occur without some personal connection, but the notion of marriage as a project still seems valid. Since marriage is a permanent contract, it seems obvious that at some point people will disagree. But, since marriage is no longer perceived as permanent, there is a stronger appeal to separation —which is the feature my inquiry is attempting to diagnose.

This competing cause for the increase in divorce seems perfectly valid. But, it does not trump the effects of promiscuity I proposed. That women have the freedom to divorce should not entail that a marriage’s longevity is based solely on the continued mutual affection between the members. This attitude can certainly trace its roots back to women’s emancipation, but this does not mean that promiscuitous attitudes do not have a large effect (while feminism ensures the ability to divorce, it does not (at least inherently) provide grounds for it). Keeping in mind that this investigation is centered on appropriate solutions for augmenting the odds of successful marriage and (the idea from the previous section) that a permanent relationship is justified, if the attitudes of the partners themselves has the strongest effect on success then if premarital sex forms an attitude conducive to failure it seems that this effect is a valid concern.

Arranged marriages provide a supportive example, they are far more likely to be successful than the common western version —which is largely attributed to the fact that the people entering such a relationship know from the outset that it will be difficult. Since there is no guarantee that you will even like your partner, the presumption is that marriage is something you must work at; success is not presumed in the same way it is in western culture. Of course this does not mean we should run out and start arranging marriages. Since success in this instance is measured by the likelihood to not get divorced, this is a long ways from the western ideal of falling in love (which I presume everyone would like to maintain). The point is merely that cultural attitudes affect the chances of a partnership’s permanency.

I am assuming that someone interested in the original object of the investigation will not want to say that divorce is good. It seems that “looking into” a possible connection between promiscuity and divorce is likely motivated by a desire to have a successful –and permanent— relationship. The common view in favor of premarital sex includes the idea that sex is a necessary part of knowing someone fully; or rather necessary to guarantee compatibility—but this does not seem likely. When compared with a connection in moral values, life goals, personalities and general attitudes towards partnership the effects of a sexual encounter seem vanishingly small. While someone may object that although sex is less important it is nevertheless necessary, keep in mind that Christians have been abstaining from sex before marriage for a couple thousand years and yet have a very high success ratio. While sex is clearly not a necessary part of knowing someone, this by no means entails that no one should have sex before marriage.

Considered hedonistically –which should not carry any reprehensible connotations— there is still a powerful reason to have sex. It can clarify the issue immensely when the actual motivation is revealed but although the value of sex is mostly derived from the pleasure experience, this does not mean that the reason for having sex should be perceived as mere pleasure contrasted with the value of a successful marriage. In an analogous sense to my Christians and abstinence example, atheists, agnostics and people of disparate faiths have been having sex outside of marriage for just as long, yet “miraculously” they too can have successful marriages. Keeping in mind that this is an individualistic debate, the reasons for sex are context sensitive: you could have a very strong reason to have sex just because your partner desires it. The reasons themselves do not have to be objectively justified; the pleasure is as valid a concern as a possible effect on the longevity of marriage. The only objective conclusion we could possible draw from this debate is that a universal prescription on the subject is impossible.

However, certain conditions will provide a means of rationally investigating the value of either choice. For example, given his or her priorities a devout catholic should not even have cause to enter into the debate. Since catholic dogma asserts that everyone who wants to have sex should get married, the only valid consideration is whether the person considers sex or his or her faith to be most valuable. But, it is not always so clear; though all Christians may seem to have the same immediate answer, since the evangelical version of this faith is inherently individualistic such a Christian is supposed to have investigated the question (though arguable they most often don’t). For example, since being a feminist and a Christian is not incompatible, this may entail that “marriage” as traditionally defined is not justified (as explored in the previous section) –yet clearly a Christian can still have a relationship, and sex. But this may of course just be a semantic difference since “a lifelong commitment” will undoubtedly remain (“fooling around” however, is much more clearly—no). So although the answer for all Christians looks the same, committing to a choice without the appropriate explanation is unjustified. To sum up the argument: while it is sometimes easy to decide which is the strongest duty or preference, further inquiry is often required.

Since this is an exercise in applied ethics, it seems appropriate to respond to the objections people are likely to raise. Doubtless someone will respond that “you need to get laid,” and “quit worrying about it” — as if sex imbues some fundamental change in one’s psyche. As things now stand, that action already presumes a difference opinion since the object of this inquiry is the value vs. problems of sex itself; someone seriously contemplating the issue would already have to be different to just “get laid” without first resolving them. Consequently, a person presenting this objection must misunderstand the nature of the inquiry.

The fundamental worry I am pointing out is linked to the idea that promiscuity seems like practice for divorce. Although the level of physical intimacy is the same in premarital sex (unless someone wants object that you “do it” different when married (a notion proposed by Chris Rock)) when things get bad it is perfectly acceptable to leave. Instead of practicing intimacy it seems much more likely that people will get good at giving up when the difference between a close relationship with sex and an actual lifelong commitment is blurred. We earlier established that attitudes towards relationships are the most important and fundamental factors in a successful marriage; however, it seems that an attitude towards a relationship with sex and a life-term commitment is extremely difficult to distinguish because they both have a high level of intimacy. In fact it does not seem extremely controversial to suppose that a relationship with sex should have many similarities with marriage. Generally (though arguably not always) it is agreed that a “one night stand” approach to relationships is not as healthy as someone who forms deep connections. So it seems that we agree that there is something about sex that makes it more appropriate between somewhat connected people —but this is the same feature that makes a sexual relationship mimic aspects of marriage and, consequently, someone used to having sex with multiple partners less likely to have a good attitude towards a lifelong commitment (in case of confusion: attitude in this sense does not refer to someone’s feeling about the notion of marriage, it means their personality or, more directly, their experience).

So, surely we are not going to count someone’s experience with intimate commitments as something irrelevant to their aptitude for marriage? But then someone used to having intimate relations without commitment cannot be expected to suddenly change their personality when the relationship progresses past the usual point. It is not as though when the relationship becomes more serious their previous experience is immaterial. However, we can expect an objection along the lines that if someone only becomes sexually intimate in serious relationships, then they must be learning how to be intimate and serious. E.g. instead of “one night stands,” some people only connect physically with people they are committed to… But, this starts to look exactly like how marriage often works in our culture. It is perceived as a commitment –sure— but one that can be dissolved. It seems that marriage is just a natural progression in the post sexual-revolution version of relationships; it is more secure than just a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship, but not the “until death do us part” version of absolute security. But how can we expect absolute security from a process that from the beginning allows for the people to engage in the expression of extreme intimacy without commitment?

There are many other concerns that may be more relevant in a specific case, but the comment “there is no reason to deny the pleasure” is completely mislead. Just as clearly, there is no universal prescription that applies in favor of either alternative –sex or no sex is intrinsically subjective. However, contrary to the dominant attitude, the effects of physical intimacy on relationships are significant and worth of consideration. Prevalence does not instill any increased security in an opinion’s validity and this mass unity lends credence to my belief that the only form of truly individualistic expression that remains lies in morality.