Day: October 16, 2025

 

James O’Gara, a resident of my adopted state of Florida, sent a postcard to Florida CFO Blaise Ingoglia with the handwritten message “You lack values.” In response, officers from our state’s Department of Financial Services (which is overseen by Ingoglia) were sent to his house to question him. Ingoglia’s communication director Sydner Booker was asked about the incident but declined to explain why the postcard was considered a threat. She also declined to answer questions about how many other people had been investigated and how much it cost to send the agents. Mr. O’Gara and his wife Cathy have been critical of both the Trump and DeSantis administration.

A rational assessment of the postcard and O’Gara’s history (the agents expressed knowledge that he served in the infantry during the Vietnam war) would obviously reveal no threat. And, of course, while “you lack values” might sting a bit, it is clearly no threat. As such, there seems to be no justification for the visit, and the best explanation is that this was an effort at intimidation by the state. The media coverage in Florida is likely to serve an intended purpose of the visit: to spread the word that criticism and opposition to the regimes  of Trump and DeSantis can, and will, result in a visit from agents of the state.

This is consistent with the current ruling ideology of “free speech” in Florida, in which free expression is protected when it is in accord with the values of the right and suppressed when the rulers of the state dislike it or see an opportunity for intimidation. In the past I might have said this was un-American, but now I will simply state that this is immoral. I’ve argued at length in defense of free expression (including for those on the right) and will not repeat my arguments here. In addition to the primary concern about free expression and the coercive power of the state being misused, there are other concerns.

As Republicans pretend to care about state spending and fighting crime, there is a reasonable concern about the cost of sending agents to, it seems, intimidate citizens. These resources would be better spent dealing with actual crimes in Florida. To be fair, while my home state of Maine has America’s lowest crime rate, Florida has a lower crime rate than many other states. But the rate is not low enough that officers have nothing better to do than “talk” to citizens about innocuous postcards.

Another concern is that while the interaction between the agents and O’Gara seemed cordial, there is always the possibility that interactions between police and citizens can go very badly. For example, from 2017 to 2023 at least 800 people were killed in traffic stops. One reason for this is the cultivation of the warrior mentality in police. “Under this warrior worldview, officers are locked in intermittent and unpredictable combat with unknown but highly lethal enemies. As a result, officers learn to be afraid.” Having taught critical thinking for decades, I am aware of the effects of fear on how a person perceives other people and situations. Put simply, while vigilance is wise, fear is unwise. Innocent actions can be seen as potential threats, items such as cell phones or wallets can be perceived as being guns, and any defiance or disrespect can be interpreted as evidence of violent intent. As such, even if an officer has good intentions, unnecessary violence can arise from fear. If, for example, O’Gara had gotten into a heated exchange with the agents then things could have turned out very differently. There is also obvious concern with race in the context of law enforcement.

Someone more cynical than I might claim that certain state officials might be pleased with a violent encounter for two reasons. One might be that the violence could be used as “evidence” that the investigation was justified (much how ICE seems to be trying to provoke violence to justify its violence). Another reason might be that fear of being killed by law enforcement sent to “investigate” threats would deter people from exercising their moral right to criticize the rulers of Florida.

Speaking of free expression, because the rulers of my adopted state of Florida hold it as so precious that they must decide who can exercise it and how one may do so, I must always state that I condemn the use of political violence between Americans

Having a pet imposes morally accountability upon a person, the life of a pet is in one’s hands. When I took my husky Isis to the emergency vet in 2016, she was in such rough shape that I thought I might need to choose to end her suffering that night.

While some dismiss philosophy as valueless in real life, my experience as a philosopher was useful in dealing with the decline of my beloved husky. Having studied and taught ethics, I learned a great deal that helped me frame the choices I had to face

When I brought Isis to the emergency vet, I knew that it would be expensive. When the vet showed me the proposed bill, I was not surprised it was around $600. I am lucky enough to have a decent job and fortunate enough to have made it through the last time the rich wrecked the American economy. While worried about her, I also worried about people who are less well-off yet love their pets as much as I do. They could face a terrible choice between medical care for their pet and having the money for some other essential expenses, such as their own medical care. Or they might not have enough money and hence cannot even make a choice. The Big Beautiful Bill will make this even worse and I am sure that pets will be among the many indirect victims of that act of political cruelty.

Since there are many systems of ethics, there are many ways to approach the moral decision of costly (in money or time) pet care. The most calculating is a utilitarian approach: weighing the costs and benefits to determine what would create the greatest utility. In my case, I could afford such care and the good for my husky vastly outweighed the cost to me. So, the utilitarian calculation was easy for me.

Others are not so lucky, and they will face a difficult choice that requires weighing the well-being of their pet against the cost to them. While it is easy enough to say that a person should always take care of her pet, people have other moral obligations, such as to their children and themselves. In addition to the ethics of making the decision, there is also the moral matter of having a society in which people are forced to make such hard decisions because they have been denied the financial resources to address the challenges they face. While some might say that those who cannot afford pets should not have pets (something also said about children), that is just another evil. While I would not say that people have a right to pets as they have a right to life and liberty, a system that gives rise to such a view is an unjust system. Naturally, some might still insist that pets are a luxury, like adequate education, health care and basic nutrition.

Another approach is to set aside the cold calculations of utility and make the decision based on an ethics of duty and obligation.  Having a pet is analogous to having a child: the choice creates a set of moral duties and obligations. Part of the foundation of these obligations is that the pet cannot make their own decisions and cannot care for themselves. As such, taking an animal as a pet is to accept the role of a decision maker and a caretaker.

An analogy can also be drawn to accepting a contract for a job: the job requires certain things and accepting the job entails accepting those requirements. In the case of a pet, there are many obligations, and the main one is assuming responsibility for their well-being. This is why choosing to have a pet is such a serious decision and should not be entered into lightly.

One reason having a pet should not be taken lightly is that the duty to the pet imposes an obligation to make sacrifices for the well-being of the pet. This can include going without sleep, cleaning up messes and making the hard decision about the end of life. There are, of course, limits to all obligations and working out exactly what one owes a pet is a moral challenge. There are certainly some minimal obligations that a person must accept, or they should not have a pet. These include providing for the basic physical and emotional needs of the pet. The moral discussion becomes more complicated when the obligations impose greater burdens.

When Isis was at her low point, she could barely walk. I had to carry her outside and support her while she struggled to do her business. When I picked her up, I would say “up, up and away!” When carrying her, I would say “wooosh” so she would think she was flying. This made us both feel a little better.

 She could not stand to eat or drink and had little appetite. So, I had to hold her water bowl up for her so she could drink and make special foods to hand feed her.  I found that she would eat chicken and rice processed into a paste—provided I slathered it with peanut butter and let her lick it from my palm. At night, she would cry with pain, and I would be there to comfort her, getting by on a few hours of sleep. Sometimes she would not be able to make it outside, and there would be a mess to clean up.

I did all this for two reasons. The first is, of course, love. The second is duty. My moral obligation to my husky required me to do all this for her because she is my dog. If I did not do all this for her, I would be a worse person and, while I can bear cleaning up diarrhea at 3:23 in the morning, I cannot bear being a worse person.

I am no moral saint and I admit that this was difficult (though it obviously pales in comparison with what other people have faced). It did not reach my limits, though I know I have them. Sorting out the ethics of these limits is a significant moral matter. First, there is the moral question of how far one’s obligations go. That is, determining how far you are morally obligated to go. Second, there is the moral question of how far you can go before your obligations break you. After all, each person also has duties to herself that are as important as obligations to others.

In my case, I accepted that my obligations included all that I mentioned above. While doing all this was exhausting me (I was dumping instant coffee mix into protein shakes to get through teaching my classes), Isis recovered before my obligations broke me. But I had to give serious thought to how long I would be able to sustain this level of care before I could not go on anymore. I am glad I did not have to find out.