SocratesVotes.com

The below is an unedited guest post from my colleague and friend, Court Lewis. –Matt–

If politics is a religion, then is it heresy to be politically active?  As a religious and politically active person, I’ve become increasingly disturbed by politics, political dialogue, media dialogue on politics, and the political activities of religious people and groups.  Based on my observations, it is no longer legitimate to discuss the separation of church and state because the state is a church.  It has its own mythology, it has its own deities, it has its own prophets, and it has its own followers (both thoughtful ministers and blind fanatics).  Politics has usurped the role of religion in the sense that it is the doctrine of beliefs that shapes our consciousness and defines our reality.  In other words, politics is now the edifice in which people devote their lives to service; it is the new religion.

If politics is a religion, set apart from and in competition with other religions, unless one is part of the religion of politics, then one should stand apart and be separated from it.  What implications does this have for the person who is concerned about the society he or she lives in and desires to be politically active, to ensure a just society?  That’s the question I’m struggling with.  Following and listening to political discussions feels like attending voodoo séances; voting feels like tossing coins to mysterious oracles that promise to make the ground fertile.  All of it seems antithetical to my religious convictions.  What is left to do?  I’m afraid the answer is “nothing.”

Gun control groups like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence argued for years that the notoriously ambiguous 2^nd Amendment only applied to the National Guard, leaving civilian gun owners at the mercy of state and local law. While the National Rifle Association has favored an interpretation that encompasses private citizens, they used the contested status of the Amendment to garner opposition to a slew of seemingly reasonable firearms policies, such as a national firearms owner registry, ballistics registration, and ammunition stamping – all of which could prevent violent crime and prosecute offenders – on grounds that any concession to gun control advocates would quickly lead to full firearms confiscation. If we let the state register our shotguns today, they argued, full confiscation is sure to follow tomorrow.

Today’s Supreme Court Decision renders that slippery slope argument null and void. Two summers ago the Court finally took a stand on the Second Amendment, ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that it protects private civilians’ right to own firearms in their homes for personal protection. Today’s McDonald v. Chicago ruling extends Heller beyond federal law, to state and local law. The rulings leave room for states to impose “reasonable restrictions,” the specifics of which are left for lower courts to decide. But the message is clear – universal firearms confiscation is a legal impossibility in the United States.

The implications for the NRA are devastating. While the 2nd Amendment was contested, firearms owners who bought into the slippery slope argument (fueled by statements like the one on the cover of the NRA’s political magazine above) had a self-interested reason to pay their membership dues and vote as the NRA dictated – which almost always meant Republican. But with the constitutional right of private citizens to keep and bear arms firmly and clearly protected, gun enthusiasts are free to set aside gun rights as a wedge issue, to earnestly reflect on the merits of particular gun policies, and to seriously consider Democrats for public office.

The NRA could renounce its former positions in light of the rulings, and reinvent itself — evenhandedly crafting policy solutions that balance access to effective personal protection with public safety. With a community of experts and the backing of  4.3 million members, who’s in a better position? Doing so might even regain the allegiance of reasonable firearms owners like myself. However, I’m not holding my breath, having long suspected that the NRA is a puppet of the firearms industry, not representing the true interests of regular gun owners, let alone the public at large. But I gladly welcome the opportunity to be proven wrong.

The NRA’s one practical hope for survival lies in the issue of concealed carry permits, which the Supreme Court rulings do not explicitly protect. Democrats and Republicans disagree over whether states should issue permits at all, to whom, and according to what restrictions, which may continue to tether some firearms enthusiasts to the GOP. However, even though Obama voiced opposition to concealed carry permits during his campaign, he has done very little (if anything) to restrict concealed carry, or firearms in general, calling the NRA’s pre-election bluff that he would be the most anti-gun president in US history. Maybe, just maybe, Obama took my open letter to heart

Switzerland JUST voted on a referendum to grant “domestic creatures” the right to sue in court. The vote is SO fresh (happened yesterday), even the Great Google doesn’t know the result! It’s too late to influence my Swiss readers, but what should the rest of us think?

Is cuteness a morally relevant feature?

“Treat like cases alike” is a meta-ethical principle penetrating virtually every moral tradition. It also undergirds legal systems, ensuring predictability and fairness. If Speeder A gets a $100 ticket for driving 70 in a 35, Speeder B, also doing 70 in a 35, deserves a $100 ticket too. Unless, that is, there’s a moral difference–like Speeder A was drag racing, but Speeder B was rushing to the hospital to give birth.

With that principle in mind, whether animals should have rights, and what sorts of rights, largely depends on whether they’re relevantly similar to humans.

Peter Singer famously argued that non-human animals are relevantly similar to humans in that they can experience pleasure and pain. Orgasms are equally enjoyable, and broken bones equally painful, whether they’re experienced by humans or hippos. Singer concluded that it’s therefore “speciesist” to arbitrarily rank creatures based on their biological category, just like it’s “racist” to arbitrarily rank humans based on their race. Neither DNA nor ethnicity is all that important when it comes to assigning moral worth. It’s the ability to feel pleasure and pain that really counts. And on that metric, humans and non-human animals are equal, and so should be treated equally. Since we wouldn’t harvest and kill humans simply to enjoy the taste of their flesh, we shouldn’t harvest and kill non-human animals simply to enjoy the taste of their flesh either.

Tom Regan settled on a similar conclusion, but used different premises to get there. He argued that whether a creature is a “subject of a life” was the important question to ask. That is, a thing has moral standing if it has emotions, thinks, makes decisions, has a sense of personal identity, and has some sense of time. Since all normal adult mammals are subjects of a life, they should be granted legal protections on par with those humans enjoy. The result would be a complete prohibition on hunting, factory farming and animal testing.

Both Singer and Regan make strong cases. But notice that neither prioritized the capacity to engage in higher reason–precisely what distinguishes humans from non-human animals. Giraffes make decisions–that’s clear enough. But as far as we can tell, they don’t ponder the nature of the universe. The question is, is being able to ponder the nature of the universe morally relevant?

Being able to engage in higher reason is morally relevant in that it allows a creature to be part of what Allen Fox calls a “moral community.” Pondering the nature of the universe isn’t a big deal, but being able to make ethical decisions–distinguish right from wrong, be motivated to do what’s right, and then act according to what’s right–is. It’s important because it enables a sort of reciprocity and mutual respect. Dogs and humans are similar in all the ways Singer and Regan mention. But this one key aspect sets us apart. Dogs can be good natured and obey their masters, but they can’t think through tough ethical quandaries or be motivated to act simply for the sake of acting rightly.

However, that doesn’t mean non-human animals lack any moral standing at all. It’s pretty clear that Singer and Regan’s arguments give us reason to take seriously the interests of non-human animals. Being able to feel pleasure and pain, having a sense of identity, experiencing emotions and the like do carry moral weight. But that key difference gives us good reason to place humans on a higher plane.

So, should animals have rights? Of course! Rights to natural habitat? Rights to bodily integrity? Rights to sue in court? I’ll leave that to the Swiss voters to decide! But I think it’s pretty clear that non-human animals do in fact deserve a strong degree of legal protection due to all the morally relevant similarities they share with humans. It’s appropriate to distinguish ourselves as full members of the moral community, but we should never be so arrogant as to treat thinking, feeling and loving animals as mere things.

Would-be mothers sometimes have compelling interests in aborting—to keep a job or continue college or maintain a marriage. But unborn developing humans (UDHs) have great moral value—they’re potential persons, and in the later stages of pregnancy, already possess many of the features of personhood (consciousness, ability to feel pleasure & pain, ability to form rudimentary relationships, ability to experience emotions, etc). Since ending pregnancy has traditionally meant ending a life, policies have had to prioritize one party’s interests over the other. But what if the tension could be resolved?

"Artificial Womb 1" by Janalee Robinson

Ectogenesis—incubating unborn developing humans with advanced neonatal technologies or genetically altered non-human hosts—promises to do just that. Imagine if anytime a woman decided she didn’t want to continue a pregnancy, doctors could simply remove the UDH and incubate elsewhere. Abortion debate solved. Almost.

One concern is how to do it. Sweedish philosopher Stellan Welin entertains the possibility of transferring UDHs into genetically modified pigs. And given success transplanting pig organs into humans, this sounds technologically promising. But it also sounds gross! Growing UDHs in pigs might be preferable to termination, but who wants their baby’s momma to be a bona fide swine?

More palatable would be advanced neonatal technologies. With the viability date inching earlier every year, machines that can grow a UDH from conception to 9 months may simply be a matter of time.

Another concern is whether a UDH’s genetic mother should have a say in whether it lives or dies. Assuming the woman does indeed have a prima facie right to control her body, does that right extend beyond simply having a UDH removed and into decisions about whether it’s subsequently nurtured or terminated?

I say no. Just as every serious person in the abortion debate recognizes that women sometimes have serious reasons to abort, they also recognize that UDHs possess great moral value. They’re not simple clumps of cells—they’re potential persons. Were ectogenesis an option, relieving a potential mother of the burden of pregnancy would no longer require termination. With her interests intact, I see no reason why the genetic mother should be empowered with life and death authority. Authority over her body, yes. But not over the UDH’s life.

And one last worry concerns money. If there were ever an imperative to pursue a technology, this is it. But research isn’t cheap.

Solution? Given the state’s obligation to promote current and future citizens’ interests, this is clearly something Uncle Sam ought to fund. (Sorry NASA—this takes priority.) Also, if they only knew about it, I suspect religious organizations would fight over the opportunity to throw money at this. Pro-life groups–spend your money here, not on distasteful posters.

Special thanks to colleague Dustin Nelson for initially broaching the subject, to Stellan Welin for the inspiring article “Reproductive Ectogenesis: The Third Era of Human Reproduction and some Moral Consequences,” and to my Fall 09 Professional Responsibility students at UT for thinking through this issue with me. And if anyone out there knows of researchers taking this possibility seriously, put us in touch–especially if they need a new PR agent.

It’s health reform crunch time and the propagandists are busily at work. Increasingly louder are cries that government “death panels” will oversee end of life care, eager to pull the plug on grandma to cut costs. Advocates of a government option quickly dismiss the idea as a shameless scare tactic, something no civilized people could ever entertain. Life is sacred, and of course we’ll gladly extend human life as long as technologically possible. But is it OK for us to ask our fellow citizens to bear the costs of an excessively long death? Is it even OK to ask our families to bear those costs–the emotional and financial burdens of stretching death for weeks? Months? Out of respect of our loved ones, John Hardwig says no, and here I apply that same logic to the bigger picture, extending his “duty to die” onto anyone receiving healthcare at the taxpayers’ expense.

It is these connections that can, tragically, generate obligations to die as continuing to live takes too much of a toll on the lives of those connected to us.–John Hardwig from Is There a Duty to Die?

Hardwig famously (famously within bioethicist circles, anyway) argued that sometimes, perhaps often, we have a duty to die–to refuse life-extending treatments or even actively kill ourselves, rather than slowly waste away. 

“Our individualistic fantasy about ourselves sometimes leads us to imagine that lives are separate and unconnected, or that they could be so if we chose. If lives were unconnected, then things that happen in my life would not or need not affect others. And if others were not (much) affected by my life, I would have no duty to consider the impact of my life on theirs… But this is morally obtuse. The fact is we are not a race of hermits — most of us are connected to family and loved ones. We prefer it that way… But being with others is not all benefits and pleasures; it brings responsibilities as well. For then what happens to us and the choices we make can dramatically affect the lives of our loved ones. It is these connections that can, tragically, generate obligations to die, as continuing to live takes too much of a toll on the lives of those connected to us” (Is There a Duty to Die?, 2000: page 14).

If his argument works, wouldn’t similar logic also saddle recipients of government healthcare with a similar duty to die? The emotional burden would be absent, for I am unaware of countless strangers suffering their final days at this very moment. But the financial burden is very real, though not as direct. Funds used to extend their lives aren’t taken directly from my savings account, and the bill isn’t mailed directly to my home. But my and your tax dollars are indeed used to pay the doctors and the hospitals that keep them alive, perhaps at some point excessively and unnecessarily so.

What do I mean by “excessively” long deaths or people kept “unnecessarily” alive? I have in mind those with qualities of life so diminished that their existence is hardly recognizably human. I’m not talking about an otherwise healthy and young person, with much of their lives in front of them, who suffers some tragedy and needs time to heal. Those folks can actually get better, and so resources used for their benefit seem well spent. But in cases where there is little or no hope for recovery (especially for the elderly, with little life left to live, even if they do recover), and a daily routine that consists of little more than pain and delusion, not only is the individual left to suffer, but so too are their familial witnesses. The case is even stronger when a person permanently loses consciousness. Extension of such a life seems pointless–even harmful–and thus unnecessary and excessive.

But keep in mind–Duties and obligations are not absolute. They never exist in isolation, and are rarely powerful enough to compel action on their own. Particular duties must be balanced against other competing duties before we can decide what we all-things-considered should do. So even if it’s the case that I may someday have a duty to my fellow citizens to refuse life-extending treatments out of concern for the federal budget, that doesn’t mean this duty couldn’t be overridden by supervening obligations to a grandson–to see him graduate high school, to my wife–to see her through our 75th anniversary, or to my readers–to complete one last blog post. Thus, the duty isn’t all-powerful or in all cases reason enough to pull the plug. All I am arguing is that the duty to die is real and sometimes powerful, and that not only does it obtain out of respect for one’s family, but sometimes out of respect for one’s fellow citizens.

None of this is to say that the so-called “death panels” are necessarily a good idea. With limited resources and promotions on the line, I can certainly see the opportunity for abuse. But if we think sometimes people should just go ahead and die, and that lives aren’t always worth the cost of extension, maybe the idea isn’t as ludicrous as it first sounded. And if you buy that, there’s no reason to wait for socialized medicine to call your Congressperson–millions are already dependent on Uncle Sam for their end of life needs–just take a look at Medicare.

Hey, I was once a libertarian, and know some VERY intelligent people who still are–so no offense to sympathizers. But here’s a cute vid on libertarian magic dust. Thanks to Monica Whitley for forwarding.

Saudi Arabia did it. Venezuela did it. Heck, even Iraq did it. So why shouldn’t the US nationalize its untapped oil reserves too? Instead of letting a handful of undeserving private companies reap all those profits, why not use the money to fund healthcare, education, shelter for the homeless, food for the hungry–even to develop alternative, non-polluting energy alternatives? If it’s going to get used anyway, and if it’s just lying there, I say we the people should directly benefit, and at least this once kick all that “trickle down” nonsense to the curb.

When it comes to matters of private vs. public property, few people think EVERYTHING should be privately or publicly held. Even advocates of the most extreme communist society recognize that we still need our own personal tooth brushes–if for no other reason than hygiene. And even the most hard core Ayan Rand libertarian will agree that legislative buildings need to be publicly owned, even if they’re otherwise willing to auction off the commons. So almost everyone agrees that some middle ground needs to be struck. One that respects both our shared claim to what the earth freely provides, and our differing claims (at least partially) based on our differing degrees of sacrifice and exertion.

So notice that I’m NOT recommending the we comendere EXXON’s oil rigs. Somebody put forth some effort to build that company and just taking it over without invitation or consent wouldn’t be cool. But unlike communist confiscation of private property, nationalizing the natural resources just lying in the ground on federally owned land (or off the coast) can’t be said to disrespect anyone’s hard work, past investment or entitlement. Nobody did anything to make that oil–it’s just there–so pumping it, selling it and funneling the profits into the national coffers can’t be said to “steal” from anyone. In fact, private companies drilling on public land and selling our own oil back to us at an incredible profit seems more like thievery!

I’m not neglecting the benefits of the trickle down status quo. Oil companies reap profits, hire employees, invest money–which contributes to the tax base, creates jobs and fuels the economy. But if ALL the new profits from our reserves were pumped directly into the federal budget, not just the percentage Uncle Sam currently skims off the top, think of all the extra good that could be done. Thus, not only is nationalizing our untapped oil reserves off the coast and in Alaska in our best interests, it’s legitimate.

I had the opportunity to run the idea by McCain’s would-be energy advisor, former CIA Director James Woolsey, during the ‘08 presedential election. To say the least, he wasn’t interested! Didn’t even seem to register as an option, though to be fair, I didn’t have time to share the full argument. But for those of you who just read the full argument, even if you typically trust your gut level “CAPITALISM=AWESOME; SOCIALISM=EVIL” reaction, take a minute to reflect. Nobody’s property is being plundered, and we all have a whole lot to gain. So contact your congressperson today!

Some people are born with heart defects, some have pianos fall on their head, and some smoke and eat their ways into an early grave. It seems unfair for people who get sick through no fault of their own to have to absorb the overwhelming costs, but it seems equally unfair to force the rest of us to pay for couch potatoes’ poor choices. Therefore, if the government provided universal healthcare for all, it would be justified in banning cigarettes and mandating exercise!

Here’s the sort of argument those against socializing medicine usually assert: Unhealthy people are unhealthy due to their own poor choices (smoking, overeating, lack of exercise, etc). Therefore, unhealthy people deserve their unhealthy status, and society at large shouldn’t be expected to treat conditions people knowingly create. You smoke, you get cancer, it’s your problem—not ours.

Here’s what many proponents of universal healthcare say in response: Unhealthy people are the victims of either congenital physical defects or the psychologically overwhelming advertising of unhealthy industries (cigarette, fast food, sedentary entertainment, etc.). Therefore, unhealthy people do not deserve their ailments, and society at large should step in and rectify this injustice. It’s unfair that you were born with a heart defect and I wasn’t, or that you find Ronald McDonald especially persuasive, so the government should take care of you.

Here’s the actual truth: Some people are born with physical defects, and some people are born with unhealthy personality traits—both of which are out of their control and thus beyond blame. However, educated adults should know better than to smoke, eat unhealthy foods in excess and forgo regular exercise. Thus, since some some sick people aren’t to blame for their sickness (people born with health problems or even victims of non-negligent accidents), but some people are in fact to blame (smokers, the morbidly obese, the dreadfully unathletic), some deserve government-funded healthcare for certain ailments while others do not.

That seems to be the way government healthcare should be, so long as people are free to ruin their bodies. It’s in your hands, but if you choose to poop on your temple, you pay for it. But notice that this commits us to an interesting implication for universal healthcare. It’s only cool to kill yourself with saturated fat and nicotine now because (apart from your friends and family) you’re largely only harming yourself. But if everyone were guaranteed universal health coverage—if everyone received treatment regardless of lifestyle, and at our collective expense—the state would then be justified in outlawing unhealthy habits and perhaps even mandating healthy habits!

A person could of course “opt out”—sign some sort of release waiving their right to healthcare in exchange for the right to chain smoke and eat exclusively at McDonald’s. And maybe that’s the most reasonable approach on the front end–you get access to full government health coverage only if you’re willing to follow a healthy regimine. But insofar as every person is guaranteed extensive health coverage, we’d have good reason to be pissed at the willfully unhealthy, and have an interest in mandating (or at least forcefully encouraging) a healthy lifestyle.

“Too big to fail is the right size to regulate.” That quip from Representative Al Green, D-Texas, pretty much sums up my take on the new financial regulations suggested by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.

Not THAT Al Green

A quick, straightforward and successful argument–if banks, megainsurance conglomerates and other entities typically supported by private funds expect to receive (or actually receive, even if they don’t expect or claim to want to receive) public funds when times are tough because allowing them to fail would crash the US and world economy, that’s reason enough to regulate the heck out of them–ensure they’re pursuing long-term stability rather than risky short-term profits.

That argument’s good enough on it’s own. But we might also draw an analogy with theme park liability. If visitors expect to receive (or at least are legally entitled to receive, even if they don’t consciously expect to receive) compensation if they’re injured at Dollywood, it’s OK for Dolly to stipulate and enforce safety requirements inside the park.

Or we might articulate and test a general principle: When A’s behavior threatens not only to harm A, but B as well, B should be able to limit said behavior. Driving recklessly puts not only the driver at risk, but also other drivers, pedestrians, passengers, etc; thus it’s OK to regulate driving. Owning a tactical nuke puts not only the owner at risk, but also his neighbors (indeed, his extended neighbors), and even future generations; thus it’s OK to regulate tactical nuke ownership. Running one of these (apparently) essential financial entities poorly (apparently) not only puts investors at risk, but also THE WORLD economy; thus it’s OK to regulate their greedy corporate butts

So whether by way of Al Green’s argument, the Dollywood analogy, or the general principle, we arrive at the same conclusion: too big to fail = big enough to regulate.

As a college teacher, if I don’t understand the needs and desires of my customers, I can’t properly uphold my end of the bargain. Giving customers what they expect is a matter of professional integrity. And according to a recent conversation (thanks, Ed Gonzalez), I may not understand those expectations as well as I thought. So, dear college student–past, present or future–answer this short essay quiz to help me a) better serve my students and b) decide whether I need to more aggressively pursue critical thinking seminars/authorship/tutoring/the circus/etc.

Never mind that Ferris Bueler was in high school...

1. First, what’s the purpose of going to college, primarily? Is it to get a degree so you’ll be more marketable? To impress friends/potential mates or appease family? Or is it to enrich your mind, learn things you wouldn’t otherwise know, develop your ability to think for yourself? Is it about jumping through hoops to get that job so you can buy cooler toys, or is it about transforming your identity–becoming genuinely wiser?
2. Second, what’s a college teacher’s job? To convey information, enlighten, help students understand? Or is it to present and assess–to say “here’s some info” or a concept or a way of thinking, and then to quantify how well you pick it up with grades–grades eventually used to determine who gets what job, into which graduate program, into which law school, etc? Is the professor’s job to bring the slower students up to speed or to filter them out? If you’re not sure, ask yourself this: do you prefer a professor who assigns an easy A, but teaches you nothing, or a professor who blows your mind, but gives you a C+? The professor who makes the hoop big enough and low enough to walk through, or the professor who rejects hoops outright?
3. And last, is operating in a certification-based environment necessarily hostile to teachers who relish sharing their passion, but loathe assigning grades–who see grades only as a superficial motivator, and more of a barrier to true learning than anything? Do teachers who love their discipline necessarily dirty it with bureaucratic quantifications? Or can really good teachers use grades to their advantage while maintaining their integrity, as well as trust with their students?

Don’t worry–whether you want them or not, no grades will be assigned. Anonymous posts welcome, lest somebody is worried their professor will find out what they really think…