This Man Will Self-Destruct

Cookie fortunes

2004-10-21T22:35:00.000-07:00

With patience mulberry leaves will become a silk gown.

(Oh, 'patience' and some investment capital.)

You enjoy giving of yourself and it will be paid back tenfold.

(Darn right. Do you think I'd be doing all this for nothing?!)

Take full responsibility for your indulgences.

(Pay for your own liposuction.)

You have a friendly heart and are well admired.

(Suckers.)

Stick to what you know

2004-10-20T05:55:00.000-07:00

Hi. My name is Nicholas, and I am an appraiser of antique cabinets.

Now, I have never purchased any kind of cabinet before, nor have I ever crafted one, nor have I studied the art or the science of crafting cabinets. I know nothing about the history of cabinets or cabinet making. I do not have any experience with woodcraft, metalwork, paints, lacquers, design, or mechanics. I buy all my furniture at Ikea, and only rarely do I have trouble understanding the assembly instructions. I know nothing about the market for antique cabinets, and I don’t even think I know anyone who owns, or is interested in owning, an antique cabinet. However, I looked up the words 'appraise,' ‘antique,’ and ‘cabinet’ in the dictionary, and I have a firm grasp on the meaning of all three terms.

So, I would like to personally appraise the value of your antique cabinet. As an expert in the field, I will personally guarantee the accuracy of each appraisal, and will even help connect you to an interested buyer. In some cases, I may even offer to buy your antique cabinet myself.

Call now. This is an unlimited-time offer.

Save him from himself

2004-10-16T04:26:00.000-07:00

In a recent PEW Forum discussion on the pamphlet "Liberty and Power: A Dialogue on Religion and U.S. Foreign Policy in an Unjust World," a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution named Shibley Telhami proposed a principle of international ethics that seems highly questionable, and possibly self-serving.

In short, Mr. Telhami argued that, ethically, a state actor CANNOT unilaterally decide to perform an action that would have more pronounced and lasting effects on other nations than it has on the actor. Telhami held that in cases where other nations are affected by certain U.S. actions even more than is the United States itself, it is the ethical duty of the U.S. to include other nations in the decision-making process, with respect to those specific actions.

This general principle is untenable, and the reasons for this might be more readily understood if the principle were tested in an interpersonal arena, rather than in the international one. A useful counter-example is easy to construct: you see a grown man throw his own newborn baby into the shallow end of a swimming pool. The father then sits down and begins to read the newspaper as the helpless infant writhes and sinks slowly to the bottom. You are faced with a decision: jump in and save the baby, or don't? Surely this decision affects the baby in a more pronounced and lasting way than it affects you. So, Telhami, who do you consult before you act? The murderous father? The inaccessible and imperiled baby? Do you maybe call up your uncle to see what he considers the right course of action? Maybe you should take a poll.

Another, possibly more realistic, counter-example: trying to convince your friend to quit smoking. Do you first ask him whether he wants to be convinced? Maybe. What if he says 'no?' Leave it at that? Not if you care about him. Your decision to try to convince the friend to quit smoking may very well impact him in a more pronounced and lasting way than it impacts you, but what if no one else supports your effort? Does that make it unethical? Surely not. Doing what is right for others in the face of otherwise universal opposition is in some circles considered heroic. Sometimes even when you have to save 'the others' from themselves.

It seems clear, then, that Telhami's proposed principle of ethics is flawed.

That being said, it is possible that Telhami finds his own proposed principle so convincing at least in part due to the fact that if the principle were valid, it would allow for the moral condemnation of the current President's Iraq policy. If Telhami were looking for a way to justify condemning the Bush administration's Iraq policy, this proposed ethical principle would provide such a justification. If the principle were valid. Granted, this self-serving motivation behind Telhami's ethical stance is only suspected, not verified. It might instead be the case that Mr. Telhami is just a sloppy thinker.

Preaching to the choir

2004-10-14T23:07:00.000-07:00

After watching the third and final Presidential debate last night, several friends whined about the conservative bent to the cable news commentary that followed. Agitation grew so extreme that the night was saved only by decisive, crackshot remote control action. PBS, now that's more like it!

The prevailing reaction to what was perceived as conservative commentary was so sharp and sensitive that careful thinkers in the room were dumbstruck by the seeming inability of some friends to deal with perspectives, opinions, and biases contrary to their own. PBS was more palatable, and thus preferred.

Which raised the questions: would you rather discuss a controversial issue with someone who shares your position, or with someone who feels differently? Would you rather listen to someone who shares your biases, or to someone whose biases differ from yours? The response was startling.

Overwhelmingly, the friends responded that they would prefer to listen to commentators who shared their respective biases.

ARGH!!

Lazy! Don't let others do your thinking for you! The simple fact is that listening to commentary biased in your direction encourages passive acceptance and undermines the development of your own critical thinking. If your natural inclinations are never challenged from the outside, then your growth and potential for improvement are tragically stunted. Seek out challenge! Listen to those who disagree with you in reason and reflex, and test your own reasons and reflexes. If you find that change in yourself is necessary, then be thankful for the opportunity to discover the true need. Become stronger as you recognize and remedy past delusion. If you find that change in yourself is not necessary, then be thankful for the opportunity to reinforce your reflexes and to make your reasoning more robust, more sincere, and more useful to yourself and others.

In short: challenge, and be challenged!

Fear and trembling

2004-10-14T16:09:00.000-07:00

It occurs to the careful thinker that fear is inherently selfish.

What causes fear? The expectation of the possibility of detriment to oneself or one's interests. That may be a very general and cold characterization, but it seems to encompass the range of the sentiment. If 'selfishness' can be broadly characterized as the desire to promote or maintain oneself or one's interests, then 'fear' is a direct symptom of selfishness.

So why isn't fear condemned in the same way as selfishness, or as a form of selfishness itself? Certainly fear is condemned in some circumstances, but it is accepted more widely that selfishness in most mundane, everyday interpersonal relations. For example, most outside observers would not fault parents for humanely punishing their children for acts of unusual or unreasonable selfishness. Yet it seems that the same outside observer would be likely to frown on punishing the same child for acts of unusual or unreasonable fear. Isn't fear just a manifestation of selfishness?

Now, clearly 'fear' and 'selfishness' are not equivalent. But what is the moral difference? There seems to be one, and the subtlety seems worth exploring.

Matters of life and death

2004-10-14T09:58:00.000-07:00

To have a consistent and sustainable perspective on questions related to the morality of life and death in modern America, one must develop a single, coherent account for at least the following four political issues:

o Capital punishment
o Euthanasia
o Suicide
o Abortion

Each of these complex matters certainly deserves its own discussion, but before delving into the details it is vitally important to recognize that any reasonable person who wishes to have his or her opinions on these issues respected must present a consistent front. That is, the logic of one's position on each individual issue must not conflict with the logic of one's position on any of the others. We must be careful, and deliberate.

Disclaimer

2004-10-14T09:43:00.000-07:00

ThisMan would like readers to note that any views expressed herein do not represent the opinions of the author, and only reflect the objective reality of the issues at hand.