Euthyphro

Let’s start with the Three-O God: omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenificient — all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good respectively. Now let us examine:

God commands right acts.

But does God command right acts because they are already right, or does His command make them right? Behold, from the days of Ancient Greek philosophy: The Euthyphro Dilemma. For, you see, a theist should not be satisfied with either option.

Firstly, if God commands right acts because they are right, then He is necessarily separated from morality: He is more of an intermediary, a communicator of moral good. It is no longer significant to say that God is the source of morality because, he is, as it were, merely passing morality along. Nor is it possible to say he is all-powerful, for he necessarily commands right acts, and is incapable of commanding evil. God has lost his qualities of omnipotence and omnibenificience.

Secondly, if God’s command makes otherwise-neutral actions right, then we could wake up tomorrow in a world where God commanded rape and torture for their own sake, and we would have to agree that they were good. What happens in such a case, in which God commands something which is a polar opposite to our moral intuitions? Certainly no theist would abide that anything and everything God commands will automatically be good because of His fiat.

So which is it?

No Jesus, No Peace

I saw a bumper sticker today: “No Jesus, No Peace.” I find it ironic that the only time anthropologists have been able to identify a period of complete world peace was under the Pax Romana, Before Christ.

And so it seems that the exact opposite is true: there was a brief two-hundred year flash of world peace before Christ came on the scene and, since, the world has been engulfed in turmoil of one kind or another non-stop.

A triumph of capitalism

After a recent spurt of Quizno’s commercials implicitly criticized Subway’s sandwiches for skimping on the meat, I’ve noticed my local Subways have started doubling the amount of meat they put on my sandwiches. From three slices to five, and then more recently, to six slices on a six-inch sandwich and twelve slices on a foot-long.

A minor triumph of capitalism, to be sure: a perfect example of how the consumer eventually benefits from two competing companies.

Upon further reflection, I wonder about the internal monetary effects of such a change in sandwich design: if I’m being given twice the meat for the same price, I wonder if Subway had to bargain down prices with its farming partners, or if it has cut the salaries of its distributors or other employees. I doubt that Subway had margins large enough to double the amount of meat it provided without changing the economics anywhere along the line.

Likely, someone is worse because of this newly implemented change. But, at least, the consumer has come out on top, and is blissfully ignorant of whatever’s going on behind the scenes, and whomever is causally worse off because of their benefits.

Patrick McHenry

Representative McHenry has been alleging, with a nudge and a wink, that the Democrats are somehow behind the timing of the release of information that led to the Mark Foley scandal. On Wolf Blitzer:

Wolf: “Do you have any evidence [that the Democrats were involved], Congressman?”
McHenry: “Do you have any evidence that they weren’t involved?”

Nothing says America like ‘guilty until proven innocent.’ I suppose McHenry never realized that the burden of the proof rests on the prosecution and that the fact that Democrats are refusing to testify under oath is not proof they had anything to do with the timing of the scandal.

Stay the Course

Raise your hand if you’ve heard Bush insist that the right thing to do in Iraq is to “stay the course.”

Now everybody put your hands down, because according to him, he’s “never been ’stay the course.’” Kudos to ThinkProgress for assembling a short list of instances that directly contradict Bush’s denial. At this point, I’m simply aghast at this man’s audacity. Does he actually think the American public is that stupid?

Without Representation

I find it ironic that, here in the United States, our representatives are doing a decidedly poor job of actually representing public opinion. For example, eighty-six percent of Americans disbelieve some aspect of the 9/11 Commission Report — but there is clearly no organized effort by our Representatives to open a new investigation. (Why did Congress spend more than ten times as much money investigating Bill Clinton than they did 9/11? I can’t ask that question enough.)

Three-quarters of Americans think it is time for the United States to leave Iraq — that is, they think we have “done enough” and that it is time for the Iraqis to start ’stepping up’ and taking care of their own country. And that’s a Fox News poll.

A majority of the Americans think Congress should impeach President Bush if it can be shown he deliberately misled the nation into the Iraq war. And: fifty-eight percent of Americans actually do believe Bush misled us into war. (Which means five percent somewhere believe he misled us, but that Congress should not investigate him.)

Why are none of these thoughts mirrored by the very people elected to represent the public opinion?

Lying to the public

The point was made that lying to the public is an Impeachable offense, and one brought against Nixon. It’s certainly lamentable and morally reprehensible, but I don’t know if it’s a high crime or misdemeanor, as the Constitution specifies. Nevertheless, Nixon lied about the Watergate break-in, as well as invading Cambodia and the death toll figures for Vietnam.

Bush has lied to the public on several occasions – “I didn’t think anyone anticipated the levies would break,” and “We do not torture,” and “Anytime you hear anyone talking about wiretapping, we’re getting a warrant” – but I think stronger charges to bring would concern the actual illegal programs or gross incompetence Bush was attempting to hide in each of those instances. Namely, appointing a horse judge as FEMA Chief and then congratulating him for doing “a heck of a job;” outsourcing interrogation to private unaccountable civilians and condoning their wanton abuses of human rights; blatantly overstepping Executive bounds and ignoring procedures already in place for wiretapping…

Fifty-three percent of Americans want Congress to Impeach Bush if it can be shown that he deliberately mislead the public into war. That poll is pretty old. I would guess the number has only gone up as the situation has worsened. If only we lived in a proportionally represented democracy, it’s possible we would see some action on Congress’ part. Why did Congress spend forty million dollars to investigate Clinton?

There is no question that Bush has lied to the public a number of times, about very serious issues.

“Now, when the President does something, that means that it is not illegal.” –Richard Nixon

Bush’s actions imply that he holds the same belief.

Iraq

Iraq is a mess and it’s no secret. Without having to calling it a “civil war,” the fact is that 100 people are dying every day, because of insurgent attacks that average only fifteen minutes apart. What would you think of your occupiers if your home city suffered attacks every fifteen minutes?

Iraq is clearly worse off than when we invaded – more than half a million civilians have been killed, according to a new study published in The Lancet. Twice as many civilians have perished at the hands of the United States as reported by the worst accusations made against Saddam. Much of the infrastructure is still crippled, and our moral ground on the world stage has been irreparably damaged. Eighty percent of Iraqis want us out.

What have we done?

I don’t propose to have the solution, but as the election approaches, it’s time to dedicate serious energy and thought to the options. Bush has said that when to pull out will be the next President’s problem. The Army plans to keep troops in Iraq through 2010, according to a new report. Are these viable options? At the current rate, that means we’re only halfway done, and that another half million civilians will die. When will the public wake up?

We do not need more partisan bickering – the time has come to agitate for a solution. This problem crosses the aisle and crosses the Earth’s oceans. We have decimated a country and a population; it is time to turn our heads to a solution. And fast.

A solution will require international cooperation, and our allies with interests in the region should understand that, although they may have had no hand in the destruction, it would behoove them to assist us in repairing the country. It is a concern of the entire world, now to fix Iraq. Things are only getting worse.

Oil and Coca Cola

An oil executive compared the price of oil to the price of Coca Cola, saying that $60 dollars a barrel was ‘really not that high.’ While the analogy may be telling, it warrants the examination of some relevant differences between the two commodities. Namely, oil is near vital for today’s economy to operate: as such, it has a distinct nature from the fetishized Coca Cola, which society could do very well without. One might as well compare oil to a Starbucks latté — both comparisons are equally absurd. Our society is not fueled by high-fructose corn syrup and carbonation.

Coca Cola is priced highly simply because it is a luxury (in comparison to oil) and, simply, people will pay for it. Though both commodities are subject to the same laws of supply and demand, oil is somewhat more rigid: society is at the mercy of undemocratic backroom meetings by conglomerates like OPEC when it comes to petroleum. Oil prices are not nearly as responsive to the buying habits of the public (both by their nature and by the fact that the public has yet to greatly alter those habits).

Though Coca Cola is more expensive, it is also inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. If the price of Coca Cola had tripled in the past 6 years, likely many people would have given it up. Our society, on the other hand, does not have the luxury of renouncing oil overnight, the role of crude being so integral to our lives.

So, when the exec goes on to say that the fact people are still buying SUVs and running their air conditioners on high is a sign that people don’t care about gas prices, he should think again. The wasteful habits of the moneyed bourgeoisie are no evidence for a societal acceptance of murder at the gas pump.

I dare say that a 16 oz bottle of Coca Cola gives us more pleasure than the convenience we get from an equal amount of gasoline (about 3 miles of travel on 25 mpg, which in itself is generous).

It is altogether unfortunate that our capitalist society drags its heels in the face of Peak Oil. I agree that oil will have to remain at above $4 or $5 before people in America will change their ways. There is no Peak Coca Cola, nor is Coca Cola ruining our atmosphere. The analogy is a poor one, at best, and grossly misleading at worst.

Moral truths

In my discussion with CaedJar on the post “Christian terrorism: possible?”, I argued that the Bible encourages chauvinism. In defense of the strict equality of the sexes, I said this:

Moral truths cannot arise from biological ones: the ability to give birth is no sanction for the reverence or reviling of women, miraculous as the act itself may be. [emphasis added]

That premise, made in haste, regrettably falls apart at the slightest prodding. Most moral systems begin with a groundwork of the nature of human beings. Classical Utilitarianism treats a creature’s ability to feel pleasure and pain as the deciding condition for moral consideration. Kantianism, the other exteme, considers all ‘rational agents’ as morally important. If the ability to feel pleasure and pain, as well as the characteristic of rationality are ‘biological facts,’ my reasoning falls to pieces.

I now must retreat: nearly all robust mainstream ethical theories contain some aspect that appeals to the [biological] nature of humans.

As a preliminary example: if a man breaks his leg, the fact that he feels pain gives him a morally legitimate claim to anesthetic. However, a man breaking his leg is not a biological fact about his existence, but more of a psychological state. Is there a significant distinction between biological and psychological nature? This is a bad example.

Revising my comment in the original discussion: what I meant to say was that the physical abilities of a creature inherent in its nature are no source of moral superiority: the ability to give birth, as it were, does not mean I should treat women better than I treat men, no more than I would ascribe special moral consideration to an Olympic athlete.

I, myself, am a defender of egalitarianism of the strongest kind: and anything that is not equal treatment and consideration is tantamount to sexism in my eye. That does not mean I lack chivalry or manners, but I also open the door for men, and occasionally pay for my male friends’ meals when out. These may seem like trivial details, but I am still unable to see women and men as morally distinct.

This is quite a philosophical pickle, as it were. Suffice to say that, beyond being frustrated by the ignorance of my original premise, I am unable to formulate a satisfying solution that equalizes men and women but allows for traditional moral theories to take hold… “Biological truths” are a decidedly poor factor… If there is a difference between psychological nature — the mind — and biological nature — the body — I may have my answer. Further inquiry is warranted… but that’s why I love philosophy.