Yesterday I posed a hypothetical ethical dilemma sent to me by my son; briefly, it outlined a situation where a friend would be attacked by a bear, his injuries not known, but they could range from life-threatening to superficial. The only way to save him (her) from that fate was to accept a fate of your own, which was to live the rest of your life in rain. Here is the answer that I sent him:
This is the sort of vexing question that seems to have no right or wrong answer. In considering the seemingly selfless option of saving your friend from an uncertain fate, you must also consider the consequences of that act of altruism against the misery that you will inflict, not only on yourself, but on those around you. For example, if you were married, would it be fair to consign your partner, who presumably had no say in your choice, to a lifetime of rain? Indeed, wouldn't that lifetime of rain also have an effect on everyone around you, perhaps sending them into deep depression, disability or even death through suicide?
When you think about it, the dilemma involves all of your neighbours, friends, and fellow citizens. Because of the related nature of the world, none of the choices we make are truly made in isolation, so the premise of the original question is flawed. Is it more altruistic to save your friend, or is it more altruistic to consider the possible repercussions of your act on a much wider range of people?
Reminds me of the saying that no good deeds go unpunished.
I will return to this in my next post as to why recognizing this inter-relatedness is vital if there is to be any hope for humanity's future.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Sunday, July 17, 2011
An Ethical Dilemma
Although the following might seem rather tangential to what I usually discuss on this blog, an email recently sent to me by my son is, I think, highly relevant for a number of reasons, which I will discuss tomorrow.
Here is the ethical dilemma:
Think of someone who is your friend (do not select your best friend, but make sure the person is someone you would classify as "considerably more then an acquaintance"). This friend is going to be attacked by a grizzly bear. Now this person will survive the attack; that is guaranteed. There is a 100 percent chance that your friend will live. However, the extent of his injuries is unknown; he might receive nothing but a few superficial scratches, but he also might lose a limb (or multiple limbs). He might recover completely in twenty-four hours with nothing but a great story, or he might spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair. Somehow you have the ability to stop this attack from happening. You can magically save your friend from the bear. But his (or her) salvation will come at a peculiar price: if you choose to stop the bear, it will always rain. For the rest of your life, wherever you go, it will be raining. Sometimes it will pour and sometimes it will drizzle-but it will never not be raining. But it won't rain over the totality of the earth, nor will the hydrological cycle de disrupted; these storm clouds will be isolated, and they will focus entirely on your specific where-abouts. You will also never see the sun again. Do you stop the bear, accepting the lifetime of rain?
He sent me the response given by a friend of his, and closed the missive with the following:
Dad, what would your response be?
I sent him a response, but won't post it until tomorrow in case anyone would like to weigh in on this scenario.
Here is the ethical dilemma:
Think of someone who is your friend (do not select your best friend, but make sure the person is someone you would classify as "considerably more then an acquaintance"). This friend is going to be attacked by a grizzly bear. Now this person will survive the attack; that is guaranteed. There is a 100 percent chance that your friend will live. However, the extent of his injuries is unknown; he might receive nothing but a few superficial scratches, but he also might lose a limb (or multiple limbs). He might recover completely in twenty-four hours with nothing but a great story, or he might spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair. Somehow you have the ability to stop this attack from happening. You can magically save your friend from the bear. But his (or her) salvation will come at a peculiar price: if you choose to stop the bear, it will always rain. For the rest of your life, wherever you go, it will be raining. Sometimes it will pour and sometimes it will drizzle-but it will never not be raining. But it won't rain over the totality of the earth, nor will the hydrological cycle de disrupted; these storm clouds will be isolated, and they will focus entirely on your specific where-abouts. You will also never see the sun again. Do you stop the bear, accepting the lifetime of rain?
He sent me the response given by a friend of his, and closed the missive with the following:
Dad, what would your response be?
I sent him a response, but won't post it until tomorrow in case anyone would like to weigh in on this scenario.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
The Ever-Increasing Importance Of Alternative Media
After reading Rick Salutin's column yesterday about the very real limitations of Canadian journalism even when juxtaposed against the scandal engulfing Rupert Murdoch's publishing empire, I had the opportunity to read a story from rabble.ca that confirms the need for the independent voices working in alternative media. Entitled CUPW: A cautionary tale of union-busting, with a little help from the media, the article underscores the frequently lazy journalism practised in MSM while amply demonstrating how the conservative forces in our country use it to propagate and perpetuate its message.
The following excerpt provides a brief overview of a few of the fictions about Canada Post promulgated by those eager to whet the newly-awakened appetite for union-busting rife in North America:
...as the strike loomed, Canada Post announced that it had calculated the union's demands would cost $1.4 billion. When the union demanded an explanation of this eye-popping figure, management refused. But the figure appeared in many media stories.
Another widely used figure was a 17 per cent drop in mail volumes that supposedly occurred between 2006 and 2010. This number received massive media coverage and was cited to support the myth of financial crisis....Prior to the strike/lockout, the union was informed that admail and parcels were rebounding. Between 2006 and 2009, letter volumes decreased by 7 per cent, not 17 per cent. But the fake 17 per cent is still being bandied about by the media, despite union requests that this misleading figure be corrected. Nobody who reported the 17 per cent, including reputable academics and columnists, ever bothered to publicly correct their misleading statements, despite being contacted.
I hope you will take a few minutes to read the entire article. The more information we have from all sources, the more effectively we can think for ourselves - a much preferable option, in my view, than the Pavlovian slobbering the conservative agenda is designed to elicit.
The following excerpt provides a brief overview of a few of the fictions about Canada Post promulgated by those eager to whet the newly-awakened appetite for union-busting rife in North America:
...as the strike loomed, Canada Post announced that it had calculated the union's demands would cost $1.4 billion. When the union demanded an explanation of this eye-popping figure, management refused. But the figure appeared in many media stories.
Another widely used figure was a 17 per cent drop in mail volumes that supposedly occurred between 2006 and 2010. This number received massive media coverage and was cited to support the myth of financial crisis....Prior to the strike/lockout, the union was informed that admail and parcels were rebounding. Between 2006 and 2009, letter volumes decreased by 7 per cent, not 17 per cent. But the fake 17 per cent is still being bandied about by the media, despite union requests that this misleading figure be corrected. Nobody who reported the 17 per cent, including reputable academics and columnists, ever bothered to publicly correct their misleading statements, despite being contacted.
I hope you will take a few minutes to read the entire article. The more information we have from all sources, the more effectively we can think for ourselves - a much preferable option, in my view, than the Pavlovian slobbering the conservative agenda is designed to elicit.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Rick Salutin on Rupert Murdoch
For those exulting in the ongoing misfortunes of Rupert Murdoch (and I readily and enthusiastically admit to being one of them), Rick Salutin has a thoughtful column in today's Star warning us that we really have little room for self-righteousness when it comes to the state of journalism in Canada.
Offering a brief historical overview of the craft, Salutin calls into question the traditional notion of journalism as a noble calling. Considering the decline in news quality we have witnessed over the past several years, especially in CBC television news, I think the columnist is once more spot on.
Offering a brief historical overview of the craft, Salutin calls into question the traditional notion of journalism as a noble calling. Considering the decline in news quality we have witnessed over the past several years, especially in CBC television news, I think the columnist is once more spot on.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Tory Lite - McGuinty and Public Sector Cuts
Dalton McGuinty, the Ontario Premier who, as I mentioned in previous posts, will not be receiving my support in the October election over his shameless disavowal of any responsibility for the police abuses during last year's G20 Summit, has often been called Blue Lite, a reference to his conservative proclivities. Today, its seems that he has stolen a page from his rival Tim Hudak's 'Changebook' by announcing that between now and next March, 1900 public sector workers will lose their jobs.
As reported in The Star, the first round of cuts mean the province will stop verifying local social assistance distribution, reduce staffing that monitors collection agencies, and lay off 57 people with technical expertise in water safety and air quality in the environment ministry.
Not to worry, according to Environment Minister John Wilkinson, who says these 'staff reductions' will have no impact on the public, and that the cuts were the type of “pruning” people expected.
Orwell warned about the political misuse of language, including euphemisms, as a means of defending the indefensible, but I cannot help wondering whether this 'pruning' will have an impact on the McGuinty 'harvest' in October.
As reported in The Star, the first round of cuts mean the province will stop verifying local social assistance distribution, reduce staffing that monitors collection agencies, and lay off 57 people with technical expertise in water safety and air quality in the environment ministry.
Not to worry, according to Environment Minister John Wilkinson, who says these 'staff reductions' will have no impact on the public, and that the cuts were the type of “pruning” people expected.
Orwell warned about the political misuse of language, including euphemisms, as a means of defending the indefensible, but I cannot help wondering whether this 'pruning' will have an impact on the McGuinty 'harvest' in October.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
How The Harper Government Defines Efficiency At The CBC
While it will likely come as no surprise to many, the Harper Government has within its sights the CBC, the sometimes irksome public broadcaster that the right-wing so often loves to hate. As reported online in today's Globe, the Heritage Minister, James Moore, says that a 5% federal funding cut should not be onerous for the Corporation.
Perhaps part of the larger Tory agenda, not just for the CBC but the country as a whole, was revealed in the following statement by the Minister:
“The truth is the CBC is finding efficiencies. The CBC used to have nine unions. Now there are six. They’ve sold assets that, frankly, they weren’t using.”
So, it would seem that union-busting and asset sales form an important part of the long-term strategy of these self-proclaimed master managers of the economy.
One can only shudder when considering the future shape of this country.
Perhaps part of the larger Tory agenda, not just for the CBC but the country as a whole, was revealed in the following statement by the Minister:
“The truth is the CBC is finding efficiencies. The CBC used to have nine unions. Now there are six. They’ve sold assets that, frankly, they weren’t using.”
So, it would seem that union-busting and asset sales form an important part of the long-term strategy of these self-proclaimed master managers of the economy.
One can only shudder when considering the future shape of this country.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Critical Thinking: Do We Get The Kind Of Political Leadership We Deserve?
In many ways, I suspect that we get exactly the kind of political representation that we deserve. A population that is either largely disengaged from the political process or lacking in fundamental critical thinking skills invites our elected representatives to treat us with disdain, safe in the knowledge that few will rouse themselves to object. The effects of this kind of passivity and lazy thinking are most evident when politicos are campaigning for our vote, making outrageous promises and guarantees that show how little they really think of us.
Take, for example, Rob Ford's successful bid to become the mayor of Toronto, based almost exclusively on the promise to “end the gravy train” that was, according to the mythology advanced by the true believers, sapping the Big Smoke of its monetary resources and bleeding the taxpayers dry. So, in a mass Pavlovian response, the people elected the big fellow, only to now learn that the putative rich diet of the metaphorical locomotive never existed.
In an excellent piece by Roy James in today's Star entitled Rob Ford's gravy train running on fumes, we learn that, after spending $350,000 on a consultant telling them things they already knew, the City spends most of its money on core services, nary a gravy boat in site (forgive me for mixing my metaphors):
As on many other files, the civic leader was missing in action. So, too, was the anticipated list of huge savings to be found in bloated departments. And the hit list of waste and gravy.
It turns out that if Ford is going to find “savings” from the city’s water, garbage and transportation departments he will have to convince city council to keep the blue box out of apartments and condos, reduce snow clearing, cut the grass and sweep the streets less often, and end fluoridation of Toronto’s drinking water — all politically explosive issues.
For that — and a list of nickel-and-dime, nip-and-tuck manoeuvres — Toronto could potentially, possibly, save up to $10 million to $15 million in departments that spend $1 billion, one-third of which comes from taxes.
City councillors didn’t need to pay a consultant $350,000 to tell them where to find those “savings.” Council considers them every year — and often recoils from implementing them.
The mayor has fed the general expectation that the consultants from KPMG would use their fresh eyes to uncover bushels of low-hanging fruit that nobody had identified before — the “gravy.”
They haven’t.
Can this reality actually come as a surprise to the voting public? I would like to say no, but sadly, for the aforementioned reasons, the answer has to be yes.
I hope you will take a few moments to read the entire article.
Take, for example, Rob Ford's successful bid to become the mayor of Toronto, based almost exclusively on the promise to “end the gravy train” that was, according to the mythology advanced by the true believers, sapping the Big Smoke of its monetary resources and bleeding the taxpayers dry. So, in a mass Pavlovian response, the people elected the big fellow, only to now learn that the putative rich diet of the metaphorical locomotive never existed.
In an excellent piece by Roy James in today's Star entitled Rob Ford's gravy train running on fumes, we learn that, after spending $350,000 on a consultant telling them things they already knew, the City spends most of its money on core services, nary a gravy boat in site (forgive me for mixing my metaphors):
As on many other files, the civic leader was missing in action. So, too, was the anticipated list of huge savings to be found in bloated departments. And the hit list of waste and gravy.
It turns out that if Ford is going to find “savings” from the city’s water, garbage and transportation departments he will have to convince city council to keep the blue box out of apartments and condos, reduce snow clearing, cut the grass and sweep the streets less often, and end fluoridation of Toronto’s drinking water — all politically explosive issues.
For that — and a list of nickel-and-dime, nip-and-tuck manoeuvres — Toronto could potentially, possibly, save up to $10 million to $15 million in departments that spend $1 billion, one-third of which comes from taxes.
City councillors didn’t need to pay a consultant $350,000 to tell them where to find those “savings.” Council considers them every year — and often recoils from implementing them.
The mayor has fed the general expectation that the consultants from KPMG would use their fresh eyes to uncover bushels of low-hanging fruit that nobody had identified before — the “gravy.”
They haven’t.
Can this reality actually come as a surprise to the voting public? I would like to say no, but sadly, for the aforementioned reasons, the answer has to be yes.
I hope you will take a few moments to read the entire article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)