The Rhetoric

Doug Lloyd

I read an interesting article in the New York Times a few days ago about a vegan chef in NYC. The article wasn’t especially interesting to me as its focus was preparing delicious vegan dishes. What is interesting is the vegan lifestyle. Veganism is, according to the Vegan Society:

A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. [In dietary terms the society defines Veganism as] The practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.

While I have great respect for those who promote worthy causes such as the environment and the ethical treatment of animals, veganism is too extreme for me and in many respects overshoots the mark. Simply put, a dead animal does not suffer. The cow who’s flesh is my burger and skin is my shoes does not suffer with each bite and step.  Food animals can be raised and slaughtered without cruelty.

The passion vegan zealots have for animals is admirable.  The problem is that they throw their nets too wide.  Nature, quite simply, is cruel. If heterotrophs stopped feeding on animals in lower trophic levels and the food chain became a dissociate collection of independent creatures, biomass transfer would cease and mass extinctions would occur in days. Many animals survive by exploiting other animals. Humans are no different.

Most vegans have no desire for eagles to stop eating fish and fowl and adopt an autotroph diet. The point I’m trying to make is that it is not morally objectionable to hunt deer, eat sushi, or wear a silk tie.

In the New York Times article Isa Chandra Moskowitz is quoted as saying, “I would love to live in a world where I knew the eggs came from happy chickens.” So would I. But I doubt chickens are capable of such complex emotions as happy and sad. I understand Ms. Moskowitz’s point. To the degree we can reduce animal suffering we should. Factory farming should be abandoned and animals required for research should be treated in a way that minimizes suffering.

Humans have always been on the winning side of our relationships with other animals. There is an urgent need to stop the cruel treatment of animals.  People who mistreat animals should be dealt with harshly.  We need to be sensible in our dealings with these animals and create–where possible–symbiosis. Vegans do their part to reduce unnecessary dependence and exploitation of other animals. Their voices, however, are muted by their fanaticism. We can have our cake (with butter, eggs, and milk) and eat it too if we are responsible, ethical, and minimize suffering.

philosophy

The leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Warren Jeffs, was arrested in August 2006 on felony charges for accomplice of rape for allegedly arranging the marriage of a 16-year-old girl to a married man. This raises interesting questions about religious freedom. Can you do whatever you want in the name of religious belief with impunity? The answer, gratefully, is no.

In a very well thought-out and well-written blog post (subscription required), Stanley Fish explains the position the courts have taken on these types of issues.

In that case [Reynolds v. The United States (1878)], the Supreme Court finessed the free exercise question by privatizing the right. The core issue, then as now, was plural marriage. George Reynolds, like Warren Jeffs, argued that as a Mormon he believed that “it was the duty of male members” of the church “to practise polygamy,” and that the penalty for refusing what he took to be a command “of divine origin” would be “damnation in the life to come.” The court accepted the sincerity of Mr. Reynolds’s religious convictions and assumed the authority of the free exercise clause, but asked, what exactly “is the religious freedom which has been guaranteed?”

The answer it gave (with help from James Madison and Thomas Jefferson) was that the freedom being guaranteed was the freedom to believe or think something, not the freedom to do something: “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief, they may with practices.” You can believe or say anything you like – including that God wants you to have plural wives – but you can’t act on it. That is to say, free exercise stops at the brain and the mouth.

The benefits of this interpretation should be obvious. If people were allowed to do whatever they desired with impunity by invoking First Amendment protections our government would be little more than a straw man.

The laws of the government should always protect its citizens from persons who would infringe their basic rights. No religious exceptions should be granted to generally applicable laws. I am refreshed to learn there are ample precedents limiting the actions of the religious in the name of their religion.

philosophy, religion

I’ve never understood why Christians who believe God created humans in his image could also find that very creation disgusting, vulgar, and shameful. The line dividing church and state is becoming less and less clear.

My February issue of Playboy Magazine arrived today. In it is a beautiful pictorial of Michelle Manhart, a US Air Force staff sergeant and military training instructor at Lackland AFB, Texas. I was not aware Playboy Magazine has a blog until I read an article in the issue that mentions it. I was disappointed to learn in one of the posts that Michelle has been relieved of her duties while an investigation is conducted by the Air Force.

The Washington Post reports that Oscar Balladares, a spokesman for Lackland Air Force Base, stated:

“This staff sergeant’s alleged action does not meet the high standards we expect of our airmen, nor does it comply with the Air Force’s core values of integrity, service before self, and excellence in all we do.”

Posing for Playboy does not exhibit a lack of integrity nor does it harm the US Air Force, the US government, or any American citizen. To reprimand Michelle in any way should be viewed as a violation of her basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution. I hope those who are in a position to decide this will have the sense to restore her to her previous position and apologize publicly for this egregious action.

philosophy, politics

Sam Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation is only ninety-one very small pages long. I started it last night and finished tonight although it could easily be read straight through in one evening. The letter is written to Christians who wrote Sam letters in response to his much larger volume, The End of Faith. While it doesn’t contain any new arguments against religions and their unsupported dogmas, it is significantly shorter.

I could quote the entire book in this single entry but I’ll let you check it out at the library or purchase it the store of your choice. You may be asking, “Why does it matter? Can’t we all just get along?” Sam answers this in the opening note to the reader:

Our country now appears, as at no other time in her history, like a lumbering, bellicose, dim-witted giant. Anyone who cares about the fate of civilization would do well to recognize that the combination of great power and great stupidity is simply terrifying, even to one’s friends.

The truth, however, is that many of us may not care about the fate of civilization. Forty-four percent of the American population is convinced that Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead sometime in the next fifty years. According to the most common interpretation of biblical prophecy, Jesus will return only after things have gone horribly awry here on earth. It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen: the return of Christ. It should be blindingly obvious that beliefs of this sort will do little to help us create a durable future for ourselves–socially, economically, environmentally, or geopolitically. Imagine the consequences if any significant component of the U.S. government actually believed that the world was about to end and that its ending would be glorious. The fact that nearly half of the American population apparently believes this, purely on the basis of religious dogma, should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency.

Do yourself and humanity a favor: read this book and consider its arguments with intellectual honesty.

philosophy science

robbroccoli

Time Zones are unnecessary. The primary reason for these different zones is so everyone around the globe can wake up in the ante meridiem (a.m.) and retire in the post meridiem (p.m.). This is an obstacle that shouldn’t be too difficult for intelligent people to overcome.

The world used to be a very big place and time zones weren’t necessary. The early nineteenth century brought us the railroad and telegraph which resulted in the shrinking of the planet. Aircraft today crisscross the globe in hours while contacting someone halfway around the world is instantaneous. The world we live in today is a very small place.

When researching this post I discovered that the few people who seem to care enough about eliminating time zones to be vocal are computer nerds. I think there are two reasons for this. First, they’re smarter. Second, they have to constantly deal with calculating local time from an offset of UTC.

The problem with time zones today is simply that the confusion cost is greater than the benefit of having everyone wake up around the world at a similar local time.  There’s a better way of doing it. A lot of confusion would be avoided if everyone around the world would set their clocks to the same time. There is exactly one longitude where it is mid-day and one longitude on the opposite side of the Earth where it is mid-night at any instant. Does mid-night have to be 12:00am? Can the middle of the night just as well be 04:00 or 21:00? Time is set by a standards body. In the United States the official time is measured at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder, Colorado.  They measure time and give us something to synchronize our watches to.

I call our customers all over the planet as part of my “real” job. It is important that I’m sensitive to their local time so I don’t wake them from their sleep or disturb their evening meal. Eliminating time zones wouldn’t solve this problem. But it would allow my customer to say something like, “call me tomorrow at 10:00″ and I’d know exactly when to call them without having to wonder if they meant my time or theirs.

Does this all sound rather geeky and unnecessary. Consider that the aviation industry, the world’s militaries, and computer programmers all use universal time. I’ll admit that getting the world to abandon its time zones would be even more difficult than getting the United States to move to the metric system but wouldn’t it be nice if we did? A grassroots effort wouldn’t work.  It would certainly be simpler without having to calculate local time or having to always declare the zone.

I’ll save the daylight savings mess, twelve hour clocks, and the date format used in the United States for later.

Let me know what you think.

philosophy science

Scott Beveridge

The biggest problem with illegal drugs is that they’re illegal. The war on drugs has cost billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money, countless law enforcement hours, overcrowded our prisons, and given rise to violent street gangs. In the state of Kansas, where I live, a person can be sentenced for up to one year imprisonment and a $2,500 fine for their first conviction of even the tiniest amount of marijuana (NORML). Have these draconian measures stopped drug use in America? Hardly.

Should drug use be stopped? Most would probably say “yes”. I disagree. The United States is supposed to be a free country. The Declaration of Independence states in the preamble that among our inalienable rights are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Why then does the government prohibit–at great expense–adult citizens from possessing, growing, or using harmless drugs like marijuana?

We experimented with prohibition in the 1920s and early 1930s when the government made it illegal to manufacture, transport, import, export, sale, and possess alcoholic beverages. This experiment was a disaster. Violent gangs and racketeering proliferated under these laws. The black market flourished providing illegal booze to those who wished to partake. These same things are now happening as a result of our war on drugs.

If drugs were legalized they could be taxed and regulated, violent criminals wouldn’t have to be released due to overcrowding, and violent street gangs would dwindle.

Marijuana is not addictive and hasn’t resulted in a single death. Alcohol, by these standards, is much more harmful yet is legal to manufacture, transport, sell, and consume. Marijuana deserves at least the same status.

I’d love to read you comments.

philosophy, politics drugs, justice, libertarian, prison, prohibition