Wednesday, February 18, 2004

"Ethics Missionaries"

Interesting article in The Chronicle entitled “Before Teaching Ethics, Stop Kidding Yourself." Written by Gordon Marino, who is a professor of philosophy and director of the Hong Kierkegaard Library at Saint Olaf College.  The piece explores the profusion of ethics workshops and professional ethicists, i.e. ”...bioethics, medical ethics, legal ethics, computer ethics, and so forth." From the article.

"Ethics missionaries are driven by the assumption that improving our moral lives is a matter of developing our conceptual understanding and analytical acumen. The fantasy seems to be that if up-and-coming accountants just knew a little more about ethics, then they would know better than to falsify their reports so as to drive up the value of company stock. But sheer ignorance is seldom the moral problem. More knowledge is not what is needed. Take it from Kierkegaard: The moral challenge is simply to abide by the knowledge that we already have."

Via Arts & Letters Daily.

Posted by John Venlet on 02/18 at 08:56 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

It's Just a Piece of Paper

This whole marriage thing is getting out of hand, which would be fine if it was the state’s hands the marriage thing was getting out of.  I mean, seriously, does the piece of paper individuals are prancing around with in San Francisco, with looks of ecstasy in their eyes, “legitimize” the happiness and commitment two individuals pledge between each other?  All hail the state, which, in its infinite goodness, has recognized our union.  Amen and amen.

The only real issue here is in regards to property rights.  Do I, as an individual, have a right to designate another individual, as the beneficiary of my property which the state or a financial institution holds in my name?  The state holds my property, monies taken, unjustly, in the form of taxes because the state does not think I can manage my financial affairs judiciously enough to benefit myself until the time I am unable to provide for myself through my labors.  If I and my spouse don’t have a piece of paper from the state which acknowledges our union, upon my death, my spouse would be denied access to monies owed me by the state.  Is that just?  In the private sector, I can designate monies accumulated to whomever I desire.  The state has no control, which is as it should be.

Health insurance coverage, though for many people is supplied through private business arrangements, is, in actuality, simply an arm of the state.  Health insurance carriers, for the most part, will not cover any partner I may choose to cohabitate with unless I have that piece of paper from the state.  Shouldn’t health insurers only basis for extending coverage to an individual be, can the individual afford the premium based on the risk factors the insurer establishes?  There is no reason for the insurer to bend their business practices to the vagaries of the state.

It is interesting to read various individuals’ responses to what is currently happening in San Francisco.  John Derbyshire quotes Samuel Johnson on martyrdom.  Arnold, supports the rule of law, and Micha Ghertner at Catallarchy offers real insight into this.  Andrew Sullivan views the happenings in San Francisco as “classic civil disobedience." Which I would agree with, which in turns means Andrew should think this is classic civil disobedience.

Thinking about this while walking last night, I kept returning to this email that Sullivan posted from a reader.

"I’d been mulling over this option and although Valentine’s Day isn’t the most opportune time to suggest it, I took advantage of a long car ride this morning to run something past my wife. “If they passed the FMA or if Colorado (where we were married) or Virginia (where we now live) passed some same sex marriage ban, would you consider opting out of our marriage in favor of a civil union.” Before I could explain my rationale she answered, “Oh, absolutely.” Reminded for the 10,000th time why I married her."

So, this morning, I took the marriage license, which legitmizes, in the eyes of the state, my union with the lovely Melis out of the fireproof box.  I sat down with Melis and said, “Let’s burn this.” When she asked “Why?,” I said to her it means nothing to us, it is simply a chain which has been attached to us by the state to legitimize their theft of our dollars for our supposed benefit in our old age.  The only benefit of that piece of paper is to enable Melis or I to petition the state for our property, which the state holds, unjustly, to conform us to the state’s idea of how we should live.  She agreed.  Burn your marriage license.

Marriage is not contained in a piece of paper.

Posted by John Venlet on 02/18 at 05:42 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

A Very Good Idea or a Very Bad Idea?

Godless, at Gene Expression, looks at talk that is floating around in regards to “The War Corps." The idea is that The War Corps would be an all volunteer force, not to protect the interests of the U.S., but to “kill tyrants.” The idea has been mulled over by Wolfowitz, and Godless’ post has a link to Wolfowitz’s mulling.  Godless thinks this is a “very bad idea.”

If the state wasn’t involved in such an entities funding, it could be a very good idea.  I see similarities to the early Greeks and Romans.

Posted by John Venlet on 02/18 at 05:05 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Refusing to Answer

Here’s the basic question that SOTUS will be considering.

"The question before the Court is this: Did Dudley’s refusal to show ID give Deputy Dove the probable cause needed to arrest him? Or is is the Constitutional right of every American to just say ‘no’ when asked to produce ‘the papers’?"

Here’s a link to the Matt Welch post at Hit & Run which brought this to my attention.  Welch’s post has links to the video of the arrest, the “Hiibel-friendly” (Dudley) website, and a link to information on the defense in this case.

Posted by John Venlet on 02/18 at 04:42 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages