I just think the following is the best MSNBC web article title ever:
Robot Warriors Will Get Ethics Guide
And Scientific American has a really good article by Michael Shermer, author of Why People Believe Weird Things:
Why People Believe Invisible Agents Control the World
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Required Reading for Omnivores?
I haven't reached this stage of "meat-consciousness" yet. And I almost wonder, if it were a choice between just going veggie overnight (again) or attending the slaughter of each species of animal I ate, I would just go straight to veggie and skip the slaughterhouse field trip. Well, at least I'll admit to being a hypocrite, but I get the feeling that's only the first step away from meat-related hypocrisy.
Morality bites
I've also been meaning to read The Omnivore's Dilemma (a.k.a. the "All Americans Eat is Corn" book.)
Morality bites
I've also been meaning to read The Omnivore's Dilemma (a.k.a. the "All Americans Eat is Corn" book.)
Monday, February 11, 2008
Things that just aren't cool, in any culture...
... in my opinion. And I consider myself pretty darn tolerant.
Frying dolphins that have been inhumanely slaughtered. And frying dolphins, in general.
Countries having more than one set of laws. It seems like a slippery slope to me.
And I would say that even if sharia law didn't consider the testimony of two women equivalent to that of one man in a rape case.
Frying dolphins that have been inhumanely slaughtered. And frying dolphins, in general.
Countries having more than one set of laws. It seems like a slippery slope to me.
And I would say that even if sharia law didn't consider the testimony of two women equivalent to that of one man in a rape case.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Quote du Jour: ACLU Director Anthony Romero
"Sen. Craig has not always been a great friend of civil liberties, but you shouldn't have to endorse the civil liberties of others to keep your own," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero, alluding to Craig's history of voting against gay rights.
The ACLU, yet again proving it can be the bigger person, is supporting Craig by making a claim that his "bathroom bust" was unconstitutional.
I think their opinion is quite reasonable, and that a bit of light-hearted schadenfreude over the senator's shameful hypocrisy is probably preferable to inviting precedent for cops to spend their time hanging around airport bathroom stalls watching for foot signals.
It would be more satisfying, though, if the senator would just take this opportunity to cop to said hypocrisy, instead of holding onto his thoroughly transparent cover story and the self-hating bigotry that's already translated into discriminatory legislative positions.
The ACLU, yet again proving it can be the bigger person, is supporting Craig by making a claim that his "bathroom bust" was unconstitutional.
I think their opinion is quite reasonable, and that a bit of light-hearted schadenfreude over the senator's shameful hypocrisy is probably preferable to inviting precedent for cops to spend their time hanging around airport bathroom stalls watching for foot signals.
It would be more satisfying, though, if the senator would just take this opportunity to cop to said hypocrisy, instead of holding onto his thoroughly transparent cover story and the self-hating bigotry that's already translated into discriminatory legislative positions.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Contempt for the Bereaved: What Pat Tillman's family's up against
To me, one of the most revolting things about the cover-up surrounding Pat Tillman's death, discussed today in a House hearing, along with the military-hyped inaccuracies re: the Jessica Lynch rescue, were the disgusting atheist-bashing comments made to disparage the Tillman family by Lt. Col. Ralph Kauzlarich, which Chairman Waxman suggested should be considered conduct unbecoming an officer.
The comments, made by Kauzlarich during an ESPN interview, are excerpted in this article by Stan Goff.
The comments, made by Kauzlarich during an ESPN interview, are excerpted in this article by Stan Goff.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Interesting: the role of emotion in moral judgment
This article in New Scientist discusses research on why, apparently, both Kant and Hume may be vindicated by neuroscience with regard to how impaired emotional processing affects moral judgments.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Quote du Jour: Peter Pace, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
Can you guess what the general is speaking about in this quote from an interview with the Chicago Tribune?
Yep, it's the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy about exposing covert CIA agents -- I mean, about whether we let them torture people in secret prisons -- I mean, no, I guess it's about whether an Arabic linguist in the Army is gay or not. I forgot that "moral" has become an exclusive synonym for "heterosexual," losing any of the other meanings it previously held.
"I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.
Yep, it's the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy about exposing covert CIA agents -- I mean, about whether we let them torture people in secret prisons -- I mean, no, I guess it's about whether an Arabic linguist in the Army is gay or not. I forgot that "moral" has become an exclusive synonym for "heterosexual," losing any of the other meanings it previously held.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Unit 731
This article on Japanese biological warfare experiments on the Chinese during World War II makes me want to finally join Amnesty International, something I have been meaning to do for too long. This is truly horrifying (warning: the article is quite graphic) and one is always reminded in reading things like this that if they have been done at all by human beings, they could be done again, if power were to fall into the wrong hands. In parts of the world off this nation's radar, in fact, they could be happening now.
On that note, what's also horrifying is the fact that these war crimes, unlike those of the Nazis, were excused by the U.S. government in exchange for the research data (the Cold War mentality of getting a hold of it before the Soviets did.) And they were virtually unknown to the world community until after it was too late for the Chinese to seek legal redress for these particular crimes.
On that note, what's also horrifying is the fact that these war crimes, unlike those of the Nazis, were excused by the U.S. government in exchange for the research data (the Cold War mentality of getting a hold of it before the Soviets did.) And they were virtually unknown to the world community until after it was too late for the Chinese to seek legal redress for these particular crimes.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
The Kiesling letter
This is a bit dated, as John Kiesling turned in his resignation to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell in February of 2003, but it was brought to my attention (I keep up with things more nowadays than I did three years ago) when quoted in this morning's National Press Club conference of the Council on American-Islamic Relations re: Arab and Muslim views of the Iraq Study Group report.
It definitely bears repeating.
Apparently Kiesling has a book out, published in August.
It definitely bears repeating.
Apparently Kiesling has a book out, published in August.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Good on Them: Nobel Committee Recognizes Role of Poverty in Violence
... in their nomination of Bangladeshi economist Muhammad Yunus, the so-called "Banker to the Poor," for the Peace Prize.
"Asle Sveen, a Norwegian historian who closely follows the Nobel Prize, told AFP: 'It is the first time that the fight against poverty has been rewarded in itself.
'There were enough good nominations in the area of conflict resolution in the strictest sense but the Nobel Committee is increasingly taking the fight to the fundamental reasons for which war is waged.
'It is not enough to make peace, this peace must be a just peace and the causes of war, such as hunger and poverty, must be treated at their roots.'"
The selection of Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk for the Lit prize is also controversial and has been criticized as being political, since Pamuk is a moderate voice in Turkey who has urged his country to own up to the Armenian genocide.
That criticism may be valid, assuming one can separate politics from literature, but how could the committee possibly separate politics from the international selection process? By choosing "mainstream," "apolitical" (read "Western") writers only, and shying away from any, like Harold Pinter, last year's choice, who are critical of American foreign policy?
In some parts of the world, where writers are either mouthpieces of the state or literally prosecuted for their views, as Pamuk was, it's pretty much impossible not to be political.
If either of these selections were political choices, I think the committee could have done worse. And maybe, just maybe, the work of each laureate, if examined on its own terms, outside a Western context, would speak for itself.
"Asle Sveen, a Norwegian historian who closely follows the Nobel Prize, told AFP: 'It is the first time that the fight against poverty has been rewarded in itself.
'There were enough good nominations in the area of conflict resolution in the strictest sense but the Nobel Committee is increasingly taking the fight to the fundamental reasons for which war is waged.
'It is not enough to make peace, this peace must be a just peace and the causes of war, such as hunger and poverty, must be treated at their roots.'"
The selection of Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk for the Lit prize is also controversial and has been criticized as being political, since Pamuk is a moderate voice in Turkey who has urged his country to own up to the Armenian genocide.
That criticism may be valid, assuming one can separate politics from literature, but how could the committee possibly separate politics from the international selection process? By choosing "mainstream," "apolitical" (read "Western") writers only, and shying away from any, like Harold Pinter, last year's choice, who are critical of American foreign policy?
In some parts of the world, where writers are either mouthpieces of the state or literally prosecuted for their views, as Pamuk was, it's pretty much impossible not to be political.
If either of these selections were political choices, I think the committee could have done worse. And maybe, just maybe, the work of each laureate, if examined on its own terms, outside a Western context, would speak for itself.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
The Justice Cortex
Interesting...
Based merely on the study as it is summarized in this article, though, should the region of the brain that apparently evaluates fairness be associated with "morality" (in the form of righteous indignation) or simply delayed gratification?
(Although I believe some have argued that delayed gratification is synonymous with morality, so maybe that's a moot point.)
But a long-term strategist somewhere back in our evolutionary history may have been clever enough to punish unfair division of resources by refusing his or her sliver of woolly mammoth meat with a huff and roll of the eyes -- maybe even a prehistoric temper tantrum -- cunningly wagering that it might be worth it in the long run if, next time, it paid off with a bigger share of the pie.
I also wonder if self-conceived notions of where one stands in a group hierarchy might play into one's reactions to being apparently cheated.
Based merely on the study as it is summarized in this article, though, should the region of the brain that apparently evaluates fairness be associated with "morality" (in the form of righteous indignation) or simply delayed gratification?
(Although I believe some have argued that delayed gratification is synonymous with morality, so maybe that's a moot point.)
But a long-term strategist somewhere back in our evolutionary history may have been clever enough to punish unfair division of resources by refusing his or her sliver of woolly mammoth meat with a huff and roll of the eyes -- maybe even a prehistoric temper tantrum -- cunningly wagering that it might be worth it in the long run if, next time, it paid off with a bigger share of the pie.
I also wonder if self-conceived notions of where one stands in a group hierarchy might play into one's reactions to being apparently cheated.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
So what's up with all these shootings?
Having grown up close enough to Pennsylvania Amish country that the sight of horse-and-buggies clopping down the street between cars and trucks was not a novelty, I could picture the scene of a national cable news convergence on a quiet Amish schoolyard even before it was conjured up on each of the major news channels, in one case with an unidentified white-bearded Amish man being interviewed in a split-screen shot alongside a scene of the schoolhouse.
I think I had fallen prey to the prevailing pessimism that's been brooding in the country, with yesterday's incident marking the third so-called "school shooting" in a week. What's going on here?
Tonight's NewsHour interview with forensic psychologist and juvenile violence expert Dewey Cornell shed a little light, as Dr. Cornell noted that, overall, violence at schools in the U.S. has gone down over the last several years, although there have obviously been a number of sensational cases that seem to suggest it is becoming some kind of epidemic. He made the point that coining and throwing around the term "school shooting" has the potential to create an arbitary category that may serve as a lure for desperate people looking for the maximum notoriety for their violent fantasies.
As someone who works, to cite my bio, in the communications/media industry, I'm certainly not one of those who believes the media is the root of all evil; certainly not in the sense that violent video games or pornography incite normal, well-adjusted people to violence. And I don't believe that 24-hour cable news channels are slowly devouring the brains of those who watch them (provided those viewers take occasional breaks to eat, sleep and other things essential to life in the three-dimensional world.)
However, I do think it would be productive to examine the larger implications of 24-hour, internationally broadcast cable news, whose bread and butter, is, to be brutally honest, the "big stories" (which never tend to be the warm and fuzzy kind) on psychologically unstable individuals desiring to write their pain in a large hand across the world they feel has wronged them.
When you have people, whether kids or adults, with violent tendencies, either due to childhood abuse, relationships gone bad, school bullying or simply unmedicated psychopathology, offering them the promise of posthumous gratification of a megalomaniacal desire for instant, worldwide notoriety, while it is far from the cause of such behavior (these are people who, unless they got help or found a way to help themselves, would inevitably act out in some way, at some time) but I'm just thinking that the lure of those 15 minutes probably doesn't help much.
I think I had fallen prey to the prevailing pessimism that's been brooding in the country, with yesterday's incident marking the third so-called "school shooting" in a week. What's going on here?
Tonight's NewsHour interview with forensic psychologist and juvenile violence expert Dewey Cornell shed a little light, as Dr. Cornell noted that, overall, violence at schools in the U.S. has gone down over the last several years, although there have obviously been a number of sensational cases that seem to suggest it is becoming some kind of epidemic. He made the point that coining and throwing around the term "school shooting" has the potential to create an arbitary category that may serve as a lure for desperate people looking for the maximum notoriety for their violent fantasies.
As someone who works, to cite my bio, in the communications/media industry, I'm certainly not one of those who believes the media is the root of all evil; certainly not in the sense that violent video games or pornography incite normal, well-adjusted people to violence. And I don't believe that 24-hour cable news channels are slowly devouring the brains of those who watch them (provided those viewers take occasional breaks to eat, sleep and other things essential to life in the three-dimensional world.)
However, I do think it would be productive to examine the larger implications of 24-hour, internationally broadcast cable news, whose bread and butter, is, to be brutally honest, the "big stories" (which never tend to be the warm and fuzzy kind) on psychologically unstable individuals desiring to write their pain in a large hand across the world they feel has wronged them.
When you have people, whether kids or adults, with violent tendencies, either due to childhood abuse, relationships gone bad, school bullying or simply unmedicated psychopathology, offering them the promise of posthumous gratification of a megalomaniacal desire for instant, worldwide notoriety, while it is far from the cause of such behavior (these are people who, unless they got help or found a way to help themselves, would inevitably act out in some way, at some time) but I'm just thinking that the lure of those 15 minutes probably doesn't help much.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
On the perils of being too nice
I caught Afghan President Hamid Karzai repeating the following sentiment on a "Late Edition" interview this afternoon with guest host John King.
Here is an excerpt from a Time Magazine article from earlier this month:
(and he goes on to offer a coherent argument, which is something in itself. Whether or not it's a valid one, I couldn't say. I'm no expert on Afghanistan. But I can't help but root for the nice guy every once in a while.)
Here is an excerpt from a Time Magazine article from earlier this month:
TIME: President Karzai, let me ask you about your own style of governance. A number of people have said that one of the best things about you is that you consult with a wide range of Afghans, people within your government, your cabinet...
Karzai: I am criticized for that.
TIME: At the same time there are a number of people who have said that is the wrong approach. You are too nice to be leading the country in this way in this time. Do you think you are too nice?
Karzai: Well it's not bad to be nice. It's a very good thing to be nice. But look. What was the problem in Afghanistan? Why did Afghanistan fall to terrorism and the trouble that caused you trouble as well in the rest of the world? The trouble was twofold.(and he goes on to offer a coherent argument, which is something in itself. Whether or not it's a valid one, I couldn't say. I'm no expert on Afghanistan. But I can't help but root for the nice guy every once in a while.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
