To the Dogs
-
Posts
40 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by To the Dogs
-
-
This is a very common college course. The things that bug me about it as it's usually taught:
1. The first day or two is often devoted to "motivating" the students by raising a lifeboat scenario and leading the students through a discussion that is supposed to introduce them to what it means to "think ethically." Read Rand's "Ethics of Emergencies" to see what's wrong with this.
2. The line between ethics and politics is often blurred in these classes.
3. Most professors offer Kant and Mill as the main alternatives in ethics. A few offer others, but only rarely do they offer Rand, which is the third basic alternative. (My advisor at USC, in her version of this class, offered Nozick/Locke to defend a "libertarian" position. But, unlike in her presentation of Kant and Mill, with respect to them she focused mostly on politics which, of course, made the libertarian view look amoral at best.)
So, if you could steer clear of the lifeboat scenarios, and present enough basic ethical theory to give the students the tools they need to address contemporary moral issues in terms of the three main ethical theories, this sort of course isn't half bad.
-
Looking back, I think I should have been clearer about exactly what I meant by my book being a mature readers one, and been a little more explicit as to why I chose to go that route from my first post.
I also could have dealt with the quick dismissal of my book based on a few profane pages better than I did, and I will admit that I got defensive pretty fast because if there's one place I feel at home, it's with Objectivism and Objectivists.
For my part, I could have started by asking a question, e.g.: "Was the amount of profanity on those few pages representative of the book as a whole?" (It wasn't.) Or the more basic, "Why did you choose to use profanity in the book?" If I did that, perhaps Bosch wouldn't have gotten his hackles up right away. ("That's too bad....for you." ha) I did use the frown emoticon, probably as a softening element, but Bosch isn't big on computer-generated emoticons and so probably tuned it out.
Anyway, we definitely got started off on the wrong foot 4 years ago, but I'm glad we got a second chance.
-
The way Bosch and I connected on FB is a good story in and of itself. Not quite serendipitous (in its literal meaning), but it definitely involved some elements of luck.
Isn't life funny sometimes, with its startling serendipity! -
Sorry, I should have thanked *Ash* as the one who decided not to delete this.
-
FWIW, I heard that Rand used to say it was a mistake to try and "convert" your parents. On the other hand, if they are truly asking for a recommendation because they'd like to understand you, I would vote for TF.
-
Live and learn?
Here's what Bosch wrote to me about _Table for One_ on Sept. 11 of this year, a day after I "met" him on FB:
"Thanks, looking forward to your thoughts on it. I don't know how you feel about profanity, but the book's profane, it was a choice of mine to keep it true to itself, to my experience in the restaurant business, a sometimes very ugly place. Some are turned off by it, some aren't."
And here's what I wrote back:
"I'm not big on profanity, but if it seems natural in the context then of course it's OK. I'll see what I think."
Both of us had forgotten that we "met" on this board 4-1/2 years earlier, but obviously we both took something from that exchange. A few weeks ago Bosch Googled us and found this thread. Too funny!
Anyway, thanks for not deleting it, Ryan, because it's given us a good laugh!
-
What exactly constitutes an "enemy civilian"? The definition of a civilian is a noncombatant. So how are you to say they are your enemy? What's to say they have anything to do with your military opponent?
Here I am following Yaron Brook, who wrote at great length on this issue in The Objective Standard. In essence he wrote that, if we are fighting a proper war of self-defense, then we are justified in doing whatever is necessary to eliminate the threat to ourselves, with minimal loss of life on our side (civilian and military). While no sane person advocates *gratuitous* killing of enemy non-combatants (why waste the resources?), if some of them are killed in the course of our taking justified actions in self-defense, then their being killed is the responsibility of the aggressor nation. In the course of a proper war (Iraq is not one of these, unfortunately), our military should not be taking on unnecessary risks to themselves, in the course of completing proper military missions, in order to avoid civilian casualties.
-
After reading Objectivism, I've become very negative about the world(and I've read this usually happens). Now, since I was and still am considering army service in Israel, the thought came up about fighting an enemy for an enemy.
As a soldier, I don't understand how one could fight for any "free" government in this day. Terrorism needs to be fought, but how do you handle the fact that when your away from home your fighting terrorism which threatens your life, but when your back home you need to fight a government which robs your money and may even be continuing on statist trends(environmentalism, taxes, "Free healthcare", "free education")? Does this not encourage you to say 'f*ck em both'?
Actually the biggest worry I would have about serving in today's military is about the rules of engagement, courtesy of the Just War Theory. If you join, you will be taught that the life of an enemy civilian is more valuable than your own, and that you should expose yourself to significant risk of death or bodily injury in order to save the lives of enemy civilians.
I don't know how much of that teaching is actually put into practice in the various armed services, here or abroad, but I know it's being taught in the service academies, and I know that the media is judging the actions of militaries -- both foreign and domestic -- accordingly.
So be careful all of you...
-
I do consider it immoral for someone who seeks an acquaintance to tell me things that their actions inevitably disprove. We do indeed live in a complex social world full of all sorts of contexts and extenuating circumstances, but I still think it is dishonest to try and start a friendship with someone you're not really interested in starting a friendship with.
I don't know the whole situation, but I'm wondering if you are dealing with a person who either (1) changed his mind (for what reason, who knows) or (2) isn't in touch with his real emotions. It doesn't seem rational to not want to be someone's friend and yet waste one's time going through the motions. I guess he might also just be trying to be polite?
-
FWIW, I heard on the radio today that the shooter (same shooter at both the mission and at New Life) had been rejected from the mission program and was writing the mission hate mail. New Life Church has involvement with the mission, hence his going to shoot more people there hours after the first incident.
-
There is a related question of the unsolicited social obligation to speak. If someone asks you "Are you dating Bobby" and you are but you don't want them to know, it's perfectly acceptable to say "I prefer to not answer those kinds of questions". You can also stare at them blankly; what you should not do is actually lie (again, assuming nobody has a gun to your head).
[ed: Dang, English requires object pronouns]
In OPAR, on page 276, Leonard Peikoff writes, "[L]ying is necessary and proper in certain cases to protect one's privacy from snoopers." He doesn't elaborate there, but what I recall he has in mind is a case in which saying "I prefer not to answer" will be taken as "yes." If someone is snooping, and anything but a "no" will be taken as meaning "yes," then it is morally acceptable for you to say "no."
Always go back to the principle: are you trying to fake reality in order to obtain a value? When criminals and snoopers are putting you in a position where you must lie to protect a value from unjustified attack, then lying is OK.
I agree with what others have been saying on this thread more generally: one need not state everything on his mind in order to be honest. This comes up a lot when I deal with colleagues. I ask myself, "Do I need to say something in order to not be taken as agreeing with whatever monstrous thing is being said at the moment?" My colleagues know my views fairly well, so it's only occasionally when I think I must speak up. What you *want* to do at a particular moment might be irrelevant.
-
As I said before, I have some other problems with how the officer handled the situation, but they are not so much about the use of force issue. And if anyone is wondering, I probably would have handled it differently myself, but I'm not sure that would have garnered any different response from the driver. He was pretty adamant about being in charge of the situation and not submitting to lawful authority.
Based on my viewing of the tape, I agree with you. As I said in a prior post, if the officer wasn't too clear at the beginning, he was quite clear at the point when he pulled the taser and repeated his order for the guy to put his hands behind his back. Still, no compliance. And I think I recall the guy saying "don't taze me" (don't really want to watch it again, but I guess I would if I had to). If so, then there was no legitimate fear that lethal force would be used.
I also don't see how he could reasonably think they were going to walk back to look at a traffic sign. Assuming it takes some time to get pulled over, they were probably very far from the sign in question. Would they really walk that whole way?
-
Yeah, it looks like CNN is updating the story at the same URL. There was no name when I first posted the story. Later in the story (as it appears now, at this moment, until they rewrite it again) it says that *police* have yet to identify him, so I guess the news agencies have found a source willing to name names earlier. In any event, the guy showed up armed when he asked for lodging, so I am still interested to hear what they'll have to say about motive later. Asking for a place to stay might just be a way to gain admittance to the facility.
I think it may have been in the other article where they were talking about the search of the residence (maybe Murray's?), and that the authorities were carrying out boxes of stuff. So maybe there's paraphernalia that will be related to a motive.
The first link you provided said his name was "Matthew Murray", they didn't name the woman who shot him, though, so that's maybe where the confusion came from. Further down in the article, it says he attacked the church in Arvada after he was refused lodging at their mission, so it really sounds like a solitary nut. -
An interesting tidbit from an ABC story written an hour ago:
"Haggard and the New Life Church had links to Youth With a Mission. The two groups worked together on a controversial missionary program that focused on converting people in Muslim countries to Christianity."
So, it could have been an Islamic fundamentalist, perhaps? I guess we'll have to wait until further facts are revealed. Right now they're not even releasing the identity of the gunman who was killed at New Life.
Here's a link to the ABC story:
-
Both were at religious institutions. The first was at a place that trained missionaries, located in a suburb of Denver. The second was at the notorious New Life Church in Colorado Springs.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado....ref=mpstoryview
-
Yeah, I don't envy the judge because, due to the attention this case is getting on the Internet, he will be under a lot of pressure to punish the cop. And I'm not sure it's justified to do so. The judge will likely come under attack no matter which way he comes out on the case.
You don't envy the judge? I don't envy the cop like this that probably has to put up with stuff like this on a regular basis. The practical implementation of the law requires that a policeman be able to arrest and detain someone when they do not comply with his orders (granted that his orders should be focused towards upholding the law).The citizen was behaving like the two of them were two well-aquinted individuals who could just discuss this matter. He didn't seem to understand that when you're speaking to an officer when the officer or oneself or both of you are involved in a situation, you're speaking to a representative of the law, who's job it is is not to negotiate with you, but to see that things are done to the book.
I honestly don't feel sympathy towards this man, although I do understand the errors he made. He was acting like more and more of an asshole throughout the video, "Hey man, you've gotta do this! Come here! Listen to me! I know more about your job than you do!". I'm more reading between the lines there.
-
I think the officer should have explained that signing does not mean an admission of guilt. And he should have said that, if the ticket is not signed, the guy will be placed under arrest. However, I'm not sure that would have made a difference to this guy. The officer told him to turn around and place his hands behind his back, and instead the guy continued to walk away from the officer and argue. Also, the officer pointed the taser, then repeated the order, and still the guy didn't listen. So what was the officer to do at that point? I don't think it's such a clear cut case. I do not envy the judge(s) who will be asked to decide it.
The police officer should be fired and have criminal charges brought against him. -
Well, just after I took those photos this morning, some new clouds rolled in, so I can no longer see the mountains. And it's COLD!!
Still quite pretty, though.
I envy you! I always loved the winter in Hungary, but here in England, it's as ugly this time of the year as ... well, all the rest of the year! -
-
The issue comes up whenever someone is in a position that requires evaluating the performance of another person. Certainly teacher-student, but also senior faculty - junior faculty could be an issue as well. In the medical profession, I hear, it's generally accepted that a surgeon should not do surgery on members of his own family. I assume it's because the emotions involved might prevent him from doing his job properly. So, if I owned a school, or were on the administration of an educational institution, I would make a rule that discourages the teachers from getting into a situation where they have to evaluate the performance of students about whom they feel strong emotions. Exactly how I would formulate that rule is something I'll leave until such time as I am asked (for purposes of my job) to do so. And that would apply to whatever kind of student you're talking about, insofar as there are grades that actually matter for someone's career. For a recreational class, say, dog agility or dancing or something, the same rules wouldn't apply to relationships between teacher-student. However, I, even as a recreational class teacher, might want to avoid looking like I am playing favorites with my students, so that I don't offend any of them. After all, they're my customers.
So, how's this for a principle: Avoid/discourage situations that require you to evaluate the performance of a person about whom you feel strong emotions, at least whenever such evaluation is important for that person's future career.
Let me add that I agree with what Kendall said earlier as well. If I was a parent, I would never send my kids to an educational institution in which this practice was tolerated. I wouldn't want my kids to be improperly influenced in their choice of romantic partners. Also, even if there are a few cases in which such relationships are legitimate, I would guess that most aren't. So again, if I was in charge, I would make rules against this in order not to enable this behavior.
Seems reasonable at first blush, but what is the underlying principle? I know the name of the claim -- "no fraternization!" -- but what is the principle that says why "fraternization" is bad. When you say "too cloose", I have to ask "too close for what?" Why does this only apply to students (if that's what you're proposing). You don't have to reveal any details of your life, but my place sees the question generally, so it involves faculty on faculty relationships as well. My opinion is that if someone could actually show why it's bad, then it would be a lot easier to draw that line. Should there be separate rules for undergraduate students as opposed to graduate students? Should the principle be in terms of an "active relation", or does it also apply with equal validity to a prior relationship? Since as far as I can tell there is no real principle involved, I don't see any way that these questions can be answered. -
The real issue is fraternization. Developing too close a relationship of any kind with one's students should be prohibited by an educational institution. How and where to draw the line would be a problem, but certainly sexual contact would be included.
I agree that an ethical teacher or professor would recuse himself from grading a student for whom he has cultivated an active dislike. In cases where, sometime during the semester, I have discovered a student plagiarizing, I will often ask a colleague to give me a second opinion before I assign grades to subsequent assignments to make sure I am not being unfair.
I'm sorry to hear about your students. Anyhow, the problem with the question which this thread addresses is that it mixes too many different issues. There is the "sex with minors" issue, then there is the "sex with someone you have a professional relationship with" issue. Because the question was frames in terms of high school teachers, the question is pretty much decided solely on legal grounds. I think it would be more interesting to re-ask the question in terms of college teachers for example, where we have the presumption of sex between consenting adults rather than sex with a child. But then, I didn't propose the question in the first place.I don't actually understand the underlying presumption of restrictions on sex when certain kinds of non-sexual relations also exist, although I know the rules that are passed by institutions. What I find very amusing is that one is generally prohibited from having any evaluative or decision-making relation with another person in the institution if you have a strongly positive emotional relationship (sexual relation or documented crush), but the same does not hold if you have a strongly negative emotional relation (hate the guts of, was divorced from, broke up with). The presumption seems to be that there is a danger that you will give an unjustly positive evaluation to the person, but we don't need to be concerned about an unjustly negative evaluation. In terms of the university's general interest (rule 1 is to avoid getting sued), there is actually a much stronger reason to ban any evaluative / supervisory relations when there is hatred, than when there is love. If Smith hates Jones and votes against tenure or fails Jones on an exam, and where tenure or an A was really deserved, then the university is at actual risk of getting sued, when compared to someone getting an unjust A or undeserved tenure. Few faculty or students will sue a university for unjustly rewarding them. Hence I find university no-relationship policies to be generally incomprehensible.
A propos your "not part of the job description" reasoning. I would agree that a teacher should not get extra compensation for having sex with a student or colleague; it's also true that having lunch with a student or colleague is not part of the job description, and it's also not prohibited by rule.
-
Welcome back to the forum!!!
Yeah, of course I jump right in and express an opinion with no argument, but I hear that's OK in some online forums these days.
My reason (besides the personal taste one) is that having affairs with one's students is not part of the job description -- not what I was hired for. And if the relationship is really worth having, it would be worth waiting for until the time was right.
-
WOW! I like the first and last ones the best. Hard to believe those are paintings...
-
I am a college professor in her 30's, and I would certainly avoid any relationship with a student, so long as he was my student (and probably so long as he was a student at my institution). Moreover, these guys are just kids. Very few of them carry themselves in a way that is attractive anyway, so the temptation is rarely there.
Ethical Priorities
in Ethics
Posted
Thanks for the laugh, Jake. And of course we need not mention the fact that this thread was about a certain type of ethics *course*, not about the substantive ethical issues discussed in it.