Question - Is Dwarf-tossing Ethical?

Is dwarf-tossing ethical?

The question was raised in a forum at the St James Ethics Centre, but is one that, I believe, this forum should consider (if we have not done so already).

(I recall that juggling Brazilian midgets, in some ways similar to dwarf-tossing, was a pass time of the late Professor C Ooly McCool …)

Questions on Inequality

What is inequality and what are its origins? Is some form of inequality necessary for societies to function?

[A variation of these questions were once asked, leading to Rousseau’s Discourse on Inequality. I have been thinking about them recently and thought I might raise them in the broader forum.]

Question On Mateship

Watching the ABC’s Difference of Opinion, I began to think about the concept of ‘mateship’ and how it differs from ‘friendship’.

This led to a question that needs more attention in Australia than it has possibly been given – what is ‘mateship’?

Question On Ethics And Schools

Yesterday the Sydney Morning Herald ran an article – ‘Call for ethics classes as alternative to religious teaching’ – on a call by the Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations of NSW for ethics classes to be provided in New South Wales public schools as alternative to the weekly scripture lessons that have been part of the public system for most of its history.

The questions I want to put forward are (i) should ethics classes have a place in the school system, and (ii) how should ethics be taught in schools?

For reference, the St James Ethics Centre’s proposal is available here.

Question On The Nature Of Ethics

Is it appropriate to consider an ‘ethic’ to be anything more than the schema of norms adopted by an individual in the course of ethical decision making?

[Thanks Bill for the post that got me thinking along this particular line.]

Question On The Rigour Of Analytic And Humanistic Philosophy

Thinking about responding to Mr Pender’s recent post – ‘On allegory and meaning’ – I considered the use of allegory and analogy (I’ll agree that, as techniques, they have their place, though I often wonder if they are used when other techniques may conveyed their message more precisely [which seems to imply that I think less of them than other techniques, though I can think of no legitimate basis for this position]).

This set me wondering on a different question; why is it that ‘analytic’ philosophy is considered more rigorous? Perhaps this perception is purely subjective (it was part of my initial response to Mr Pender), but their seems to be a general view that analytic philosophy is more intellectually rigorous in its arguments and presentations than ‘humanistic’ (or Continental, if you will) philosophy. Is there that much of distinction – in terms of rigour – between high calibre works in either tradition? Or is it simply a bias on the part of the anglophile/Anglophone analytic tradition?

Ethical Hypothetical – On Disability, Voluntary Euthanasia, And Organ Donation

A hypothetical:

A, a young man of utilitarian persuasion, decides that life with a disability is not justified. A signs a statutory declaration to such effect, adding that in the case of an emergency where an operation could save his life though leave him disabled he refuses medical assistance other than that which will enable his organs to be donated.

A, after this declaration, is involved in an accident that leaves him unconscious and with a leg requiring amputation. Surgery to remove the limb will be uncomplicated, and enable A to live with a disability. Following A's instructions will involve the medical professions in the death of an individual who would otherwise have recovered, though his organs will be donated to numerous other individuals who will benefit from them.

[Cross posted at Epideixis, where comments have been enabled.]

[Comments, you may note, have been enabled here (MH 24/01).]

Question - What's Wrong With This Argument?

A couple of anonymous vistors have left us with some interesting observations of late. One left the following, here:

"does this work? and if not why not? and if so why so?
NOBODY IS PERFECT
I AM NOBODY
THEREFORE, I AM PERFECT

ONLY GOD IS PERFECT
THEREFORE I AM GOD
THUS I HAVE PROVED I EXIST

PROOF DENIES FAITH
WITHOUT FAITH, GOD IS NOTHING
THEREFORE, I DO NOT EXIST"

In the interests of answering anonymous' question, it is brought to the attention of the general reader. Anonymous, it is supposed, would be grateful for any thoughts or comments.

Question - On Lysis

Having re-read Plato's Lysis, yesterday, the question remains: can the neither-good-nor-bad be friend of the bad?

Question – On Public Censorship

You, Readers, may or may not have noticed the appearance of a little button on the top of the page marked ‘Flag’.

By pressing this button, a reader may flag a blog as ‘objectionable’. Those behind Blogger and Blogspot track the number of times a blog is flag and then determine whether action, such as unlisting the blog (though not deleting it), is apropos. There is more information on the process available from blogger.

The questions being raised are something of a side issue; how many objections to a ‘text’ (used here is the broadest sense) makes it offensive? Should the public be allowed to determined what texts are openly available, and which are not? Should the public discourse be regulated by any form of censorship?

Question On The Unexamined Life

Socrates is quoted, in Plato’s Apology, as saying “I tell you that to let no day pass without discussing goodness and all the other subjects about which you hear me talking and examining both myself and others is really the very best thing that a man can do, and that life without this sort of examination is not worth living”.

A recent discussion of this passage, among Contributors, lead to a discussion of whether the study of philosophy can be justified. Several Contributors were put on the spot; so, to give them and others a chance to develop considered responses, the question being put forward is can the protracted academic study of philosophy be justified? Further, is the unexamined life not worth living?

Question – On The Public Jury

There have been two court decisions in recent weeks that have been debated in the Court of Public Opinion. The first was the ‘Corby Verdict’, the second the ‘Jackson Verdict’. The announcement of the verdicts, guilty and innocent respectively, has turned every man and his dog into a ‘juror’, espousing verdicts of their own.

The question that needs to be discussed, especially in this age of the incredibly democratic ‘vox pop’, is whether anyone who has not been privy to the court proceedings and the deliberations of the jurors is actually in a position to comment on any court decision at all?

[It is requested, by The Editor, that contributors and commentators abstain from posting their own verdicts and concentrate on the issue of whether they are actually in a position to make such claims in the first instance.]

Question – ‘Oz’ And Ethics

In the episode of Oz that screened on SBS last night Keller confessed to ‘ordering the hit’ on Schillinger’s son. The order was made by Beecher, in retaliation for Schillinger’s son, Hank, kidnapping and murdering Beecher’s son, whom Schillinger suspected when Hank’s body was discovered. Schillinger’s suspicion led him to order the murder of all of Beecher’s family, which commenced with the stabbing of Beecher’s brother, and was only averted by Keller’s confession to a crime that he did not commit.

Was it noble for Keller to confess to a crime, that he did not commit, to prevent the retaliatory murder of innocents? Or should Beecher have been made to pay for his crime?

A Question Regarding Common Morality

Philip Stratton-Lake, in a review of Bernard Gert’s Common Morality: Deciding What to Do, writes: "In this book Bernard Gert aims to describe and justify common morality. Common morality, as he understands it, is the moral system that most thoughtful people implicitly use in arriving at moral judgements. According to Gert this system is based on five basic harms -- death, pain, disability, loss of freedom, loss of pleasure. From these five harms we get ten moral rules that capture the core of common morality: 1. Do not kill 2. Do not cause pain, 3. Do not disable, 4. Do not deprive of freedom, 5. Do not deprive of pleasure, 6. Do not deceive, 7. Keep your promises, 8. Do not cheat, 9. Obey the law, and 10. Do your duty. The first five rules prohibit inflicting the five basic harms directly, whereas the second five prohibit actions that cause those same harms indirectly. So the first five rules are basic, and the second five derivative (although Gert does not describe them in this way)."

Is there, really, anything more to ethics?