Archive for the 'Ethics' Category
September 28, 2009
by Gene Callahan
I’ve long been chagrined about the fact that, whenever someone points out that it was wrong, say, for the United States to annihilate a quarter of a million civilians in Japan in 1945, that person is accused, by some “patriot,” of “moral relativism,” as if condemning an act equally whoever does it is “relativism”! So I was very happy to see Glenn Greenwald making the same point today:
“Perhaps the ultimate confusion is that ‘the Left’ has long been accused of ‘moral relativism’ for pointing out the use of these terms when the essence of ‘moral relativism’ is judging an act not based on what it is, but on who is doing it. It’s the adolescent self-love of believing that ‘X, by definition, is good when I do it and bad when you do it.’”
Posted in Ethics, philosophy | 12 Comments »
Tags: Greenwald, moral relativism
September 16, 2009
by Mario Rizzo
In a recent article in the Financial Times Joseph Stiglitz argues for a more comprehensive measure of social well-being than Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
As all principles of economics students know, GDP leaves out many interesting things. When I was a student the prime example was: When a man marries his paid housekeeper GDP falls. I am not sure how to adjust this if the housekeeper is also a man and they move to a state with gay marriage. Humor aside, you get the point. GDP misses stuff.
Nevertheless, Stiglitz has bigger fish to fry. This is just a sample:
“What we measure affects what we do. If we have the wrong metrics, we will strive for the wrong things. In the quest to increase GDP, we may end up with a society in which most citizens have become worse off. We care, moreover, not just for how well off we are today but how well off we will be in the future. If we are borrowing unsustainably from this future, we should want to know.”
Did I get all the “we’s”? Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Economics, Ethics, paternalism, political philosophy | 14 Comments »
Tags: happiness, Joseph Stiglitz, welfare
August 16, 2009
by Mario Rizzo
President Obama is complaining that the “special interests” are threatening his as-yet uncertain healthcare proposals. (Recall there is no Senate bill and nothing says that House bill won’t change significantly.)
There is an interesting lesson here. What is meant by “special interests” and “general interests”? Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Ethics, Public Choice, medical care, political philosophy | 11 Comments »
August 14, 2009
by Mario Rizzo
In this final installment of my analysis of the papal encyclical letter Caritas in Veritate I turn my attention to Benedict XVI’s positive ideas on globalization. (I put the encyclical section numbers in parentheses.)
Do not expect clear-cut statements or precise recommendations for policy. Do not even expect consistency. (There are actually some good parts as in Sections 57 and 58.)
The encyclical bears the mark of a committee’s work, presumably approved by the pope. There are individual sections that stress different, and contrary, attitudes so it is difficult to come away with a clear picture. Anyone looking for real guidance will have to seek it elsewhere.
Nevertheless, a certain grand vision is revealed about society. The pope seems to be an enemy of the idea of beneficial spontaneous ordering forces. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Development, Economics, Ethics, Institutions, Religion | 4 Comments »
Tags: Pope Benedict XVI, Encyclical
August 3, 2009
by Mario Rizzo
Throughout Pope Benedict XVI’s enclyclical (“Caritas in Veritate”) he stresses that scientific knowledge is not enough when trying to determine appropriate government policies or even individual actions. This is quite true.
He fails, however, to appreciate in many specific instances and arguments the importance of the fact that that moral or ethical knowledge is also insufficient to determine appropriate government policy or individual actions. He pays lip service to this idea (Sec. 9, 30) but it rarely constrains him in practice, as we shall see.
Now consider a specific issue.
The pope is worried about the effect of globalization on the traditional welfare state. (Sec. 25) Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Development, Economics, Ethics, Religion, Welfare State, law | 10 Comments »
Tags: globalization, justice, Pope Benedict XVI
July 29, 2009
by Mario Rizzo
The healthcare debate is bringing out some interesting ideas. Consider what the philosopher Peter Singer (Princeton) had to say in the New York Times:
“The death of a teenager is a greater tragedy than the death of an 85-year-old, and this should be reflected in our priorities. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Ethics, Hayek, Welfare State, medical care, political philosophy | 15 Comments »
Tags: Peter Singer, utilitarianism
July 28, 2009
by Mario Rizzo
Recently Pope Benedict XVI issued a papal letter (“encyclical”) called “Caritas in Veritate” [CV] or “Charity in Truth” which is largely about economic issues relating to globalization. While there have been some commentaries on it, two prominent ones (here and here) in the Wall Street Journal do not reveal how truly bad it is. It may be that the pressures of journalism are such that people read such documents too quickly. I am being charitable. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Development, Economics, Ethics, Religion | 3 Comments »
Tags: Bastiat, ethics-and-economics, Pope Benedict XVI
May 11, 2009
by Gene Callahan
I just ran across the work of Professor Saul Smilansk, who is making a splash in ‘free will’ discussion circles. Professor Similansk apparently argues that:
1) Free will is an illusion; but
2) It is a necessary illusion in order to preserve social order, because
3) If people came to believe that they don’t have free will they would choose to act immorally; so
4) We should choose to maintain this illusion.
How does someone even manage to hold these various thoughts in their head at the same time?
Posted in Ethics, philosophy | 7 Comments »
Tags: free will
May 11, 2009
by Gene Callahan
In a blog discussion, I recently ran across, yet again, an extremely odd and quite empty argument against morality being objective. “Ha,” the poster proclaimed, “morality is just a product of evolutionary selection!” At this point, it’s supposed to be obvious that moral principles aren’t “real” but are merely some sort of illusion fostered on us by natural selection to promote survival of the species.
Well, no doubt evolution had something to do with our ability to formulate and comprehend moral principles. But so what? Evolution also selected for our ability to both build and perceive chairs! Does it somehow follow from this that chairs are “just an illusion” foisted on us by evolution?
Posted in Ethics, evolution, science | 17 Comments »
Tags: natural selection