A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Archives for December 2008

Rockets & Retaliation

by 7 Comments

While the Russians have claimed that Hamas is willing to talk peace, rockets continue to rain down on Israel.

On the face of it, firing rockets into populated areas seems like a clearly immoral action. However, I have had enough debates about such matters to know that some people regard such tactics as morally acceptable. Outside of academic types, clearly the people who are involved with firing the rockets find their behavior acceptable. Either that or they are somehow overcoming any moral reluctance they might feel. It is worth considering what arguments might be used to morally justify such acts.

One main argument is that the rockets are being fired in retaliation for Israeli wrong doings. As such, the rockets are intended as punishment. In general, punishing people for their misdeeds is morally acceptable and can be argued for in terms of deterrence and retribution (see John Locke’s arguments as good examples of this).

To counter this, punishment is something that should be directed at the guilty party and not randomly inflicted. After all, to punish the innocent would simply be to commit a crime against them and would not be an act of justice.

It might be replied that the people hurt by the rockets are (usually) Israelis and hence they are not innocent. However, being and Israeli seems to be a rather weak basis for justifying such attacks. To use a analogy, imagine that professor Sally is fired from her job at Big University so that the university President can give her boyfriend Sally’s job. Now suppose that, in revenge, Sally started randomly slashing the tires of students’ cars because they happened to be students of the university. While the students are associated with Big U, they hardly deserve her wrath. Likewise for the innocent civilians.

It could be argued that being a citizen comes with moral accountability such that each citizen is responsible for all that his/her nation does. So, the rocket attacks would be justified retaliation provided they killed only Israeli citizens (or other “guilty” people).

In reply, while citizens (at least in democracies) do bear some responsibility for the actions of their nation, such random attacks fail to take into account important distinctions. To be specific, surely not every citizen bears the guilt of every misdeed (or perceived misdeed) of a nation. For example, a random rocket attack could kill an Israeli who has worked for the good of the people of Gaza or it could kill a child. Surely such people do not deserve death.

Obviously, it could be argued that collective guilt somehow overrides all other normally relevant aspects (such as past actions).  However, the burden of proof seems to be on those who would make this claim. On the face of it, such distinctions seem very important everywhere else. Why should this situation be different?

In light of these arguments, such random rocket attacks (and similar acts of terror) can not be justified as legitimate retaliation or punishment.

The Magic Negro

by 13 Comments

Christmas is supposed to be the time that people come together and exchange gifts. But, one gift has served to create division.

Chip Saltsman gave out music CDs featuring the parody song “Barack the Magic Negro” as presents to members of the RNC. Not surprisingly, this has not gone over well with some people.

Political satire has a long tradition in the United States and can often be regarded as harmless or at least acceptable humor. Both the left and the right have put out multitudes of comedy songs over the years mocking the other side. It is all part of the game of politics and a legitimate avenue for comedy.

Naturally, there is little (or no) outrage or media drama when comedy songs mock white male politicians. However, the “Barack the Magic Negro” song has stirred up things quite a bit because the song is about Obama. Some folks on the left are outraged because, of course, the left is supposed to be outraged about such things. Some folks in the Republican party are also expressing their outrage at this song and Saltsman’s decision to distribute it.

No doubt, some of the Republicans are honestly upset about the song and Saltsman’s decision. After all, the song can be seen as racist and hence Saltsman could be seen as expressing racist views (or at least bad judgment).

Also without doubt is the fact that some folks in the Republican party are exploiting this for political advantage. Not surprisingly, Saltsman’s political rivals in the party have been leading the charge against him in this matter. After all, this situation provides an excellent means for them to gain an advantage over Saltsman. There is, of course, a certain irony in these Republicans exploiting a situation created by a song popularized by Rush Limbaugh. It is also ironic that Republicans are using racial sensitivity as a piece in a political game.

This situation also raises the issue of whether the song is racist or not.  On one hand, the song does include references to race and parodies both  Al Sharpton and Barack Obama.  The gist of the song is that Sharpton (in the parody) is saying that people will vote for Obama because he is a “magic negro” and not authentically black like Sharpton. As such, the song could be seen as racist and Saltsman’s gift could thus be seen as racist in nature.

On the other hand, the song is relatively tame and could be seen as bringing up the matter of race in a way that is legitimate political satire. In fact, a case could be made that the song is mocking the left for being so concerned about race. If so, it is ironic that some Republicans have become so suddenly concerned about the matter.

Lone Wolf & Cub D&D Feats

by 1 Comment

I thought of this a while ago when watching the Lone Wolf & Cub movies and finally got around to typing it up. To appreciate this, you’ll need to be at least vaguely familiar with D&D and the Lone Wolf & Cub movies.

Basket Hat (General)
You can wear a big basket as a hat.
Prerequisites: Having a head and  a big basket.
Benefit: You can function normally while wearing a big basket for a hat.
Normal: People normally do not wear big baskets for hats.

Cool Name (General)
You have a cool name.
Prerequisite: Having a character.
Benefit: You get a cool name, like “Lord of Death” or “Lord of the Basket Hat”
Normal: People normally just write down a cool name on their character sheet rather than wasting a feat on it.

Dramatic Flair (General)
You have dramatic flair.
Prerequisite: None (you do not need to be gay).
Benefit: Your actions and words are marked with dramatic flair. When you swing a sword or throw a punch, it makes a dramatic sound. When you talk, sound effects accent your speech. You have your own theme music.
Normal: Most people lack dramatic flair, though some do have pieces of flair

Dying Monologue(General)
You can keep saying useless and senseless things when you should be quietly dying.
Prerequisite: Dramatic Flair
Benefit: When dying (-1 hit points or less), you can spew out a monologue until you are actually dead. If you are dead, you get one round to monologue. The monologue must have no game effect nor can it convey any useful information or commands. It should be something like this: “The wind blows in trees. The rain falls in the East. I’ve been stabbed through the face, so I’ll be food for the beast. Justice shall be done by the power of the right. The sun will shine though it is the middle of the night. Ice, ice, baby.”
Normal: People who are busy dying usually shut the hell up.

Fountains of Blood (General)
When you stab or cut living things, they bleed a lot.
Prerequisite: The ability to stab or cut living things like people and monsters.
Benefit: When you do damage with a slashing or piercing weapon, the target fountains blood from its wounds. This does no additional damage, but looks gruesome. All creatures who can see this will say “holy s#$t, look at all the blood!” as a free action.
Normal: When characters stab or cut living things, they bleed. Just not quite so much.

Merry Christmas!

by 4 Comments

Merry Christmas to all! Peace on earth and good will to everyone.

While getting gifts is nice, for me the best part of Christmas is the hope for peace’ love  and goodwill. A world of hope and love would be, as Leibniz said, the best of all possible worlds. And, of course, the best gift ever.

I do appreciate those who have sincere faith and hope that the holiday brings them joy. I also appreciate those who are unsure about the theology, but who still love Christmas. That is, those who love more than just the gifts, cookies and eggnog. Of course, all that is pretty good, too.

It is, to be corny, a time to be with those we love and to think about loved ones we cannot be with. Whatever our particular faith or lack thereof, this is surely something we can all share.

PETA & Vick’s Pits

by 5 Comments

The other day I saw a brief bit on CNN about Michael Vick’s rescued pit bulls. As most people know, Vick got into considerable trouble for his horrible treatment of dogs. He and some associates trained and fought them. The dogs that lacked the desire to fight were killed, often in rather brutal ways.

When the dogs were rescued from Vick, PETA and the Human Society took the position that the dogs were beyond rehabilitation and that it would be a poor use of resources to try to do so. The bit I saw yesterday showed a PETA spokeswoman restating that view: although the rehabilitation worked in some cases, the dogs should have been euthanized and the money should have been spent to help other animals.

While this view struck me as heartless, a case can be made for her position. She is, of course, presenting a standard utilitarian approach: the action that should be taken is the one that generates the most good. So, if the resources spent to help Vick’s pit bulls could have helped many more animals, then the money should have been spent on the other animals.

This approach does match the commonly accepted principle of triage. Put a bit simply, it is the principle that medical resources are to be spent saving the most lives. This can mean allowing some people to die, but this is justified because saving more lives is better than saving fewer lives. The situation with the dogs can be looked at as a form a triage: while it would be best to help all animals, if all cannot be saved, then we should save more animals even if these means that some are not saved. On this view, PETA is correct.

Of course, there are ways to take issue with PETA in this matter.

First, there is the fact that the PETA view is that the dogs should have been euthanized. As such, it is not a case of letting the dogs die in order to save more dogs. It would be a situation in which the dogs would be killed. In this sort of case, our moral intuitions tend to change. For example, consider a (possibly) similar situation: suppose you have five patients who need organ transplants immediately or they will die. You could kill a sixth person to save them, but most people would regard that as morally wrong. Perhaps the same is true in the case of the dogs.

Of course, it could be replied that the dog situation is a bit unusual. Unlike the organ case, the dogs would not being killed to take their organs to save other dogs. They would be killed because that would be regarded as more merciful than keeping them locked away. But, it could be replied that the two cases are alike. The pit bulls would be killed to take something from them that others need: the money and resources. As such, the cases seem alike in the relevant way. Intuitively, such killing seems wrong.

Second, there is the concern that acting in this way (euthanizing the dogs to free up resources) would have serious negative consequences. For example, to do so would (as Kant argued) tend to harden people’s hearts and make them more inclined to cruelty. Then again, perhaps it would not.

Third, there is the moral concern that the dogs are owed restitution for the wrong done to them. While the resources could have been used to help more dogs, Vick and his fellows wronged those dogs. As such, there is a debt that must be paid to those dogs and the evil done to them should be countered.

To use an analogy, imagine that a defect in a product maims dozens of people and that a law suit awards a large sum of money in damages. The money could probably do more good if it were spent to help other people. It could, perhaps, be used to fund preventative medicine. After all, it is far cheaper to help people avoid illness than it is to treat people who have been seriously maimed. By PETA’s principle, the money should not be wasted on the maimed people but spent so as to do the most good. This, however, seems wrong.

As such, to kill the dogs would have been one last crime against them. It would be analogous to murdering rescued survivors simply because it would be expensive to help them. That would be monstrous.

It might be replied that dogs lack moral status and hence cannot be wronged and cannot be owed a moral debt. Of course, this view would undercut the whole notion of treating animals ethically by making them morally irrelevant.  As such, it would not seem to be a viable option for PETA.

From a practical standpoint, it seemed unwise of PETA to issue a statement saying that the dogs should have been euthanized. When I heard the PETA spokeswoman, my intellectual reaction was to consider the ethics of the matter. But, when I saw the photos of the rescued dogs with their families, my emotional reaction was to think “what a horrible thing she said” and I thought much less of PETA at that moment. Naturally, the news segment was calculated to do just that. I am sure other people felt as I did and that certainly does not help PETA.

Yes, the money could have probably done more good if it had been spent elsewhere. But here is some practical advice for PETA: never tell dog owners that it would have been better to kill a good dog. That does not go over well. Not well at all.

%d bloggers like this: