Culture War?
A couple of weeks ago, my dad challenged me. He thinks of me as, at best, a fence sitter, and at worst, a California tree-hugging liberal. He proudly told me how he listens to both sides of the story: NPR and Bill O'Reilly.
Up till now, I have spent most of my time listening to NPR. While there may be a left slant to NPR, I feel that they do a better job of presenting stories in enough depth (compared to TV sources) that I can get as much understanding as I need to figure out how much slant there is. But I haven't really given the conservative guys a chance.
So, I got an audio copy of Bill O'Reilly's Culture Warrior from audible.com. Bill himself reads his book. I'm 4 hours into it.
Bill is a blowhard, that's for sure, and I think he knows it. I recently saw him call a 16-year old student a "pinhead" because he didn't agree with the student's viewpoint, even though I know he'd never tolerate any of his guests calling him a name on his own show.
However, Bill has some interesting points. Enough that I am certain that more is going on than I am aware of in the world through any news channels: NPR, or Bill's show, or anywhere.
The ACLU defends NAMBLA. I had to think about this one. I am nauseatingly disgusted with NAMBLA, and I cannot imagine a single valid reason why it exist, let alone be defended. And yet I do know that the purpose of the ACLU has merit. Without a vigorous defense of the accused and alleged wrongdoers of this world, we would quickly degenerate to the ways courts used to work. Merely accuse someone of wrongdoing. If the accused cannot prove their innocence, then execution is summarily rendered. Swift and deadly. And not just.
So how do we achieve justice, while not allowing groups like NAMBLA to legally exist? How do we reach the aims of restorative justice while still satisfying our seemingly innate desire of make the punishment fit the crime?
About 15 years ago, I took a course in philosophy. The final exam for this course was to write an essay arguing for a resolution to an ethical dilemma. I struggled with this assignment, and finally reached a decision. I decided that I don't believe that it is ethical to propose a resolution to general ethical dilemmas, because general ethical dilemmas never actually happen. Specific ethical dilemmas happen, and each one carries with it a unique set of people with interest in the matter, and a unique history, and unique challenges to which the resolution must be addressed. How could any general resolution be made to fit? Some could of course, but so what? How would you know whether you should apply the general resolution?
So, I declined to write the essay, explaining my reasoning to my professor. He accepted my reasoning, and asked me to write a different essay. I forgot what I wrote (I think I proposed a global monetary measurement), but I received an "A."
Now, it's 15 years later, and I'm revisiting my thoughts. I still believe that general resolutions to ethical dilemmas are unethical, while I understand that that is an impractical point of view upon which to rest.
Is it possible to come up with a code that works? Ethics that can be useful and not merely academic or, as we see too often today, misapplied to unjust ends?
I decided to try. I am certainly no expert on the matter. But this doesn't stop Scott Adams from trying. And I don't have to worry about thousands of commenters telling me how wrong I am, so I might actually be able to make some headway.
Let's start with the thing that throws a lot of people. The Constitution. This thing is not a sacred cow, friends. It was not carved into stone by The Finger of God. It was written by a bunch of smart guys, sure, who, surprise, could not predict the future.
I love the Constitution. It is a damned fine piece of writing. That the principles it supports have endured this long with this much reverie is a certain testament to their resonance with whatever passes for an innate sense of justice on this planet.
But, for example, the whole notion of the separation of church and state. The principle that was founded on the 1st Amendment. What should it have meant? That the government should encourage secularism? That it should forbid displays of religion? That it's okay to pray in public schools? I'm not sure, even though I know people on both sides of this issue see it very clearly — only differently from each other.
One thing I've always been pretty good at is figuring out things that look different from different perspectives. I'm going to start thinking about stuff like this to see whether I can write up a new code, only maybe this time, maybe a little more future-proof.
And yes, I do have a big head; why do you ask?