Bigthink - Category Features and Ideas Feed

Right to Divorce

Bigthink — Thu, 15 May 2008 04:53:52 +0100

I have just read an article about a Woman in New York (state) filed for divorce from her husband. the court enied her the divorse because she failed to prove, adultery, serious mistreatment, or absence for a year or more. Basically they sent her back to live with her husband against her will.

The question is is this at all justified? Lets say he did not abuse her or cheat on her, what does that matter? She clearlly did not want to be with him, how can something like this be forced upon a person.

Just wondering if anyone thinks the court, or rather the new yourk state law is fair and just?

Shady Lurkers of the night? I think not.

Bigthink — Tue, 13 May 2008 11:25:33 +0100

Here's a question for all of you intellectuals out there. Where do bees go at night? I have pondered this question for many a year now and am seeking advice from those around me.

Now, seriously consider this question. Where do our furry friends place themselves when the sun departs? Where do they slumber after the day has vanished? Not once have I ever seen a bee at night. And I can safely say to you that if I were to walk outside now, there would not be one bee in sight.

So, does a bee sleep with the birdfolk in the trees? Possibly underwater as our marine friends do? Or maybe they prefer the quiet life, dwelling in the ground with the majestic creature- the humble ant?

I don't know, that is why I am asking this information of you. And, upon asking this puzzling complexity, another question is poised- where do flies go at night?

How do you know when someone is telling you the truth

Bigthink — Tue, 06 May 2008 01:21:36 +0100

Despite our best intuition, there is almost no way to tell when someone is telling you the truth without some degree of skepticism-even though that degree may be minute-even when we know them and even when a person has no reason to lie.

Do you believe that? If you do, how do people convince you to believe them?

If you do not believe that, how do people convice you to believe them?

cars

Bigthink — Mon, 05 May 2008 12:40:42 +0100

: increase cars of the future

FEATURE: Shakespeare and the Law

Bigthink — Thu, 01 May 2008 05:00:42 +0100

Yale legal scholar Kenji Yoshino makes the connection.

Affiliation and Morality

Bigthink — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:46:01 +0100

: The Anglo-Saxon members of the motley "Coalition of the Willing" were proud of their aircraft's and missiles' "surgical" precision. The legal (and moral) imperative to spare the lives of innocent civilians was well observed, they bragged. "Collateral damage" was minimized. They were lucky to have confronted a dilapidated enemy. Precision bombing is expensive, in terms of lives - of fighter pilots. Military planners are well aware that there is a hushed trade-off between civilian and combatant casualties.

This dilemma is both ethical and practical. It is often "resolved" by applying - explicitly or implicitly - the principle of "over-riding affiliation". As usual, Judaism was there first, agonizing over similar moral conflicts. Two Jewish sayings amount to a reluctant admission of the relativity of moral calculus: "One is close to oneself" and "Your city's poor denizens come first (with regards to charity)".

One's proper conduct, in other words, is decided by one's self-interest and by one's affiliations with the ingroups one belongs to. Affiliation (to a community, or a fraternity), in turn, is determined by one's positions and, to some extent, by one's oppositions to various outgroups.

What are these "positions" (ingroups) and "oppositions" (outgroups)?

The most fundamental position - from which all others are derived - is the positive statement "I am a human being". Belonging to the human race is an immutable and inalienable position. Denying this leads to horrors such as the Holocaust. The Nazis did not regard as humans the Jews, the Slavs, homosexuals, and other minorities - so they sought to exterminate them.

All other, synthetic, positions are made of couples of positive and negative statements with the structure "I am and I am not".

But there is an important asymmetry at the heart of this neat arrangement.

The negative statements in each couple are fully derived from - and thus are entirely dependent on and implied by - the positive statements. Not so the positive statements. They cannot be derived from, or be implied by, the negative one.

Lest we get distractingly abstract, let us consider an example.

Study the couple "I am an Israeli" and "I am not a Syrian".

Assuming that there are 220 countries and territories, the positive statement "I am an Israeli" implies about 220 certain (true) negative statements. You can derive each and every one of these negative statements from the positive statement. You can thus create 220 perfectly valid couples.

"I am an Israeli ..."

Therefore:

"I am not ... (a citizen of country X, which is not Israel)".

You can safely derive the true statement "I am not a Syrian" from the statement "I am an Israeli".

Can I derive the statement "I am an Israeli" from the statement "I am not a Syrian"?

Not with any certainty.

The negative statement "I am not a Syrian" implies 220 possible positive statements of the type "I am ... (a citizen of country X, which is not India)", including the statement "I am an Israeli". "I am not a Syrian and I am a citizen of ... (220 possibilities)"

Negative statements can be derived with certainty from any positive statement.

Negative statements as well as positive statements cannot be derived with certainty from any negative statement.

This formal-logical trait reflects a deep psychological reality with unsettling consequences.

A positive statement about one's affiliation ("I am an Israeli") immediately generates 220 certain negative statements (such as "I am not a Syrian").

One's positive self-definition automatically excludes all others by assigning to them negative values. "I am" always goes with "I am not".

The positive self-definitions of others, in turn, negate one's self-definition.

Statements about one's affiliation are inevitably exclusionary.

It is possible for many people to share the same positive self-definition. About 6 million people can truly say "I am an Israeli".

Affiliation - to a community, fraternity, nation, state, religion, or team - is really a positive statement of self-definition ("I am an Israeli", for instance) shared by all the affiliated members (the affiliates).

One's moral obligations towards one's affiliates override and supersede one's moral obligations towards non-affiliated humans. Ingroup bias carries the weight of a moral principle.

Thus, an American's moral obligation to safeguard the lives of American fighter pilots overrides and supersedes (subordinates) his moral obligation to save the lives of innocent civilians, however numerous, if they are not Americans.

The larger the number of positive self-definitions I share with someone (i.e., the more affiliations we have in common) , the larger and more overriding is my moral obligation to him or her.

Example:

I have moral obligations towards all other humans because I share with them my affiliation to the human species.

But my moral obligations towards my countrymen supersede these obligation. I share with my compatriots two affiliations rather than one. We are all members of the human race - but we are also citizens of the same state.

This patriotism, in turn, is superseded by my moral obligation towards the members of my family. With them I share a third affiliation - we are all members of the same clan.

I owe the utmost to myself. With myself I share all the aforementioned affiliations plus one: the affiliation to the one member club that is me.

But this scheme raises some difficulties.

We postulated that the strength of one's moral obligations towards other people is determined by the number of positive self-definitions ("affiliations") he shares with them.

Moral obligations are, therefore, contingent. They are, indeed, the outcomes of interactions with others - but not in the immediate sense, as the personalist philosopher Emmanuel Levinas suggested.

Rather, ethical principles, rights, and obligations are merely the solutions yielded by a moral calculus of shared affiliations. Think about them as matrices with specific moral values and obligations attached to the numerical strengths of one's affiliations.

Some moral obligations are universal and are the outcomes of one's organic position as a human being (the "basic affiliation"). These are the "transcendent moral values".

Other moral values and obligations arise only as the number of shared affiliations increases. These are the "derivative moral values".

Moreover, it would wrong to say that moral values and obligations "accumulate", or that the more fundamental ones are the strongest.

On the very contrary. The universal ethical principles - the ones related to one's position as a human being - are the weakest. They are subordinate to derivative moral values and obligations yielded by one's affiliations.

The universal imperative "thou shall not kill (another human being)" is easily over-ruled by the moral obligation to kill for one's country. The imperative "though shall not steal" is superseded by one's moral obligation to spy for one's nation. Treason is when we prefer universal ethical principles to derivatives ones, dictated by our affiliation (citizenship).

This leads to another startling conclusion:

There is no such thing as a self-consistent moral system. Moral values and obligations often contradict and conflict with each other.

In the examples above, killing (for one's country) and stealing (for one's nation) are moral obligations, the outcomes of the application of derivative moral values. Yet, they contradict the universal moral value of the sanctity of life and property and the universal moral obligation not to kill.

Hence, killing the non-affiliated (civilians of another country) to defend one's own (fighter pilots) is morally justified. It violates some fundamental principles - but upholds higher moral obligations, to one's kin and kith.

Note - The Exclusionary Conscience

The self-identity of most nation-states is exclusionary and oppositional: to generate solidarity, a sense of shared community, and consensus, an ill-defined "we" is unfavorably contrasted with a fuzzy "they". While hate speech has been largely outlawed the world over, these often counterfactual dichotomies between "us" and "them" still reign supreme.

In extreme - though surprisingly frequent - cases, whole groups (typically minorities) are excluded from the nation's moral universe and from the ambit of civil society. Thus, they are rendered "invisible", "subhuman", and unprotected by laws, institutions, and ethics. This process of distancing and dehumanization I call "exclusionary conscience".

The most recent examples are the massacre of the Tutsis in Rwanda, the Holocaust of the Jews in Nazi Germany's Third Reich, and the Armenian Genocide in Turkey. Radical Islamists are now advocating the mass slaughter of Westerners, particularly of Americans and Israelis, regardless of age, gender, and alleged culpability. But the phenomenon of exclusionary conscience far predates these horrendous events. In the Bible, the ancient Hebrews are instructed to exterminate all Amalekites, men, women, and children.

In her book, "The Nazi Conscience", Claudia Koontz quotes from Freud's "Civilization and its Discontents":

"If (the Golden Rule of morality) commanded 'Love thy neighbor as thy neighbor loves thee', I should not take exception to it. If he is a stranger to me ... it will be hard for me to love him." (p. 5)

Note - The Rule of Law, Discrimination, and Morality

In an article titled "Places Far Away, Places Very near - Mauthausen, the Camps of the Shoah, and the Bystanders" (published in Michael Berenbaum and Abraham J. Peck (eds.) - The Holocaust and History: The Known, the Unknown, the Disputed, and the Reexamined - Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1998), the author, Gordon J. Horwitz, describes how the denizens of the picturesque towns surrounding the infaous death camp were drawn into its economic and immoral ambit.

Why did these law-abiding citizens turn a blind eye towards the murder and mayhem that they had witnessed daily in the enclosure literally on their doorstep? Because morality is a transaction. As Rabbi Hillel, the Talmudic Jewish sage, and Jesus of Nazareth put it: do not do unto others that which you don't want them to do to you (to apply a utilitarian slant to their words).

When people believe and are assured by the authorities that an immoral law or practice will never apply to them, they don't mind its application to others. Immoral acts inevitably devolve from guaranteed impunity. The Rule of Law does not preclude exclusionary or discriminatory or even evil praxis.

The only way to make sure that agents behave ethically is by providing equal treatment to all subjects, regardless of race, sex, religious beliefs, sexual preferences, or age. "Don't do unto others what you fear might be done to you" is a potent deterrent but it has a corollary: "Feel free to do unto them what, in all probability, will never be done to you."

Nazi atrocities throughout conquered Europe were not a-historical eruptions. They took place within the framework of a morally corrupt, permissive and promiscuous environment. Events such as Dir Yassin, My Lai, and Rwanda prove that genocide can and will be repeated everywhere and at all times given the right circumstances.

The State of Israel (Dir Yassin) and the United States (My Lai) strictly prohibit crimes against humanity and explicitly protect civilians during military operations. Hence the rarity of genocidal actions by their armed forces. Rwanda and Nazi Germany openly condoned, encouraged, abetted, and logistically supported genocide.

Had the roles been reversed, would Israelis and Americans have committed genocide? Undoubtedly, they would have. Had the USA and Israel promulgated genocidal policies, their policemen, secret agents, and soldiers would have mercilessly massacred men, women, and children by the millions. It is human nature. What prevents genocide from becoming a daily occurrence is the fact that the vast majority of nations subscribe to what Adolf Hitler derisively termed "Judeo-Christian morality."

Why do people continue to commit acts of animal cruelty?

Bigthink — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:18:35 +0100

Why is it that just about everywhere you look, someone is commiting an act of animal cruelty? Is it inherent; an evolution of the hunter instinct of our ancestors? Because it seems as though that from childhood, we are taught subliminally to mistreat animals: to eat their flesh, to wear their pelts, to take them from their natural environments and use them as slaves, or merely another entartainment medium (such as a circus, a zoo). Why do we do it people, and what will it take to end the suffering?

Re: Re: Re: What is justice?

Bigthink — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:26:39 +0100

: The difficulty with justice is its variability in different spatial and temporal contexts .Today we call the burning of St.Joan a barbarous thing but at the time it took place not many consciences were disturbed. Similarly in the religious law practised in the Moslem countries ,several things which are shocking to another culture take place day in and day out and not many raise heir voices in those places. Does that mean that there is nothing called the absolute justice ,a kind of universal justice which applies to all places and times .The second issue is whether justice applies only to man's relationship with a fellow-human or whether man vs.other fellow-creatures justice is also to be thought of. Since we cannot decide all this we lapse into what we know best-a few cliches about universal brotherhood,humanism,etc.

The Black Man vs. the 'Nigga'

Bigthink — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 07:58:25 +0100

Check it out, no disrespect for the African-American/Black Race here at all, this is gonna be a real inflammatory question. But I got a real good question for everyone.

So me being from the streets of the Bay Area, I've been raised in some cutthroat, bad neighborhoods. I've been hanging out with folk from all races and styles and whatnot since I was little. All this time I've been exposed to crackhouses and drive-bys and drug dealers and gunfights- most of which a 'nigga' was involved.

Now the difference between the Black Man and a 'Nigga' is simple: The Black Man is a man like everyone else, no difference except in skin color. A Nigga is someone who is born or raised in a bad neighborhood, has a partial grasp of the English language, is ignorant to wanting to leave these neighborhoods, has very little judgement over what is right and wrong, and generally commits crimes for any reason he wants to, especially money.

I have a bunch of friends I consider Black men and less friends I consider 'Niggas'. Because a Black man you can trust, and a nigga you can't let know where you live for fear of burglary. It's that simple.

Another thing is that 'Niggas' popularized street gangs and gang signs, and total disregard for human life and living standards. Especially through gangster rap. The African-American/Black race has infinite feats to their name, including Blues and Rock and Roll Music (no explanation needed). The 'Nigga' has Gangster rap, which undoubtedly promotes violence.

Now do you think that when Malcolm X and Martin Luther King spoke (I know, totally different philosphies, but for the same cause) do you think they would be fighting for the freedom of the Nigga as well as the Black man? Do you think that Black people are typically ashamed of the Niggas?

Do you think that the term 'Nigga' itself as a label for these hoodrats is wrong?

Privacy

Bigthink — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 21:03:24 +0100

: Judge Posner believes that as a social good, privacy is overrated because it means people are able to conceal things.

Constitutional Interpretation

Bigthink — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 21:02:19 +0100

: Posner first talks about the challenge of constitutional interpretation and how he believes that the entire body of constitutional law was created with free interpretation of the Constitution.

Interpreting the Law

Bigthink — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 21:02:10 +0100

: Judge Posner weighs in on what many see as Justice Scalia's "constructivism" and Justice Breyer's "active liberty" approach.

the war on drugs

Bigthink — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:18:24 +0100

: IMMORTAL TECHNIQUE LYRICS

"Peruvian Cocaine"
(feat. C-Rayz Walz & others)

[Intro: from the film "Scarface"]
[Host:] I've heard whispers about the financial support
your government receives from the drug industry.

[Guest:] Well, the irony of this, of course, is that
this money, which is in the billions, is coming from
your country. You see, you are the major purchaser of
our national product, which is of course cocaine.

[Host:] On one hand, you're saying the United States
government is spending millions of dollars to
eliminate the flow of drugs onto our streets. At the
same time, we are doing business with the very same
goverment that is flooding our streets with cocaine.

[Guest:] Mmm-hmm, si, si. Let me show you a few other
characters that are involved in this tragic comedy.

[Beat starts]

[Two Men Speak in Spanish]

[Immortal Technique - Worker]
I'm on the border of Bolivia, working for pennies
Treated like a slave, the coke fields have to be ready
The spirit of my people is starving, broken and sweaty
Dreaming about revolution (REVOLUTION!) looking at my machete
But the workload is too heavy to rise up in arms
And if I ran away, I know they'd probably murder my moms
So I pray to "Jesus Cristo" when I go to the mission
Process the cocaine, paced and play my position

[Pumpkinhead - Cocaine Field Boss]
Ok, listen while I'm out there, just give me my product
Before we chop off ya hands for worker's misconduct
I got the power to shoot a copper, and not get charged
And it would be sad to see your family in front of a firing squad
So to feed your kids, I need these bricks
40 tons in total, let me test it, indeed I [sniff]
Shit, this is good, pass me a tissue
And don't worry about them, I paid off the officials

[Diabolic - Peruvian Leader]
Yo, it don't come as a challenge, I'm the son of some of the foulest
Elected by my people...the only one on the ballot
Born and bred to consult with feds, I laugh at fate
And assassinate my predecessor to have his place
In a third-world fashion state, lock the nation
With 90% of the wealth in 10% of the population
The Central Intelligence Agency takes weight faithfully
The finest type of China white and cocaine you'll see

[Tonedeff - American Drug Distributor]
Honey I'm home, nevermind why our bank account's suddenly grown
It's funny, we're so out of this debt from this money we owe
Woulda ya...mind if I told you I had two governments overthrown
To keep our son enrolled in a private school, and to keep ya tummy swollen
C'mon, our fuckin' home was built on the foundation of bloody throats
The hungry stolen of they souls, of course this country's runnin' coke
I took a stunted oath to hush the one's who know
But CIA conducts the flow of these young hustlers who lust for dough

[Poison Pen - Drug Dealer]
I don't work in the hood (Hit my connect)
Plus what's really good, they supply for the hood
These dudes fucking crack me up, scrutinize like we inferior
Petrified when we meet in my area (calm down)
My dude's'll shoot until I say so, got the loot?
Give me the YAY YAY like Ice Cube, so don't play with my llello
We won't stop for you bastards
Must choose (?), chop it and bag it

[Loucipher - Undercover Police Officer]
Taking pictures and tapping phones
Debating snitches and cracking codes
Past a couple, blast the fo',
Want any hustler stacking dough with probably crack the blow
And my overtime is where your taxes go
I gain your trust
Get you to hand weight to us because we paid up front
On the low with cameras taping ya
Getting pop away? The prison sentence is going to
Make the officer leave with two ki's out the evidence room

[C-Rayz Walz - Prison Inmate]
Out the evidence room [Said with Loucipher]
Went my fame, truck, boat or plane, they watching you
You think you got work? They copping too
We control blocks, they lock countries
Ya own companies, we had nice cars and sneaker money
Now there's players out there, talking 'bout the holding
With bugs in they house like they down South with windows open
Your dough ain't long, you wrong, you take shorts and (?)
Feds will be up in your mouth...like forks and spoons
So enjoy the rush, live plush off Coke bread
Soon you'll be in a cell with me, like Jenny Lopez
In school, I was a bully, now life is fully a joke
I keep a flow on a boat for Peruvian Coke
Players do favors for governers and tax makers
Fat Quakers smoke crack and sex acts with bad mayors
The walls got ears, you big mouths probably scared
Not prepared to do years like Javier

[Immortal Technique Speaking]
The story just told is an example of the path that
drugs take on their way to every neighborhood, in
every state of this country. It's a lot deeper than
the niggas on your block. So when they point the
finger at you, brother men, this is what you've got to tell them:

[Wesley Snipes - from "New Jack City"]
I'm not guilty. YOU'RE the one that's guilty. The
lawmakers, the politicians, the Columbian drug lords,
all you who lobby against making drugs legal. Just
like you did with alcohol during the prohibition.
You're the one who's guilty. I mean, c'mon, let's kick
the ballistics here: Ain't no Uzi's made in Harlem.
Not one of us in here owns a poppy field. This thing
is bigger than (Immortal Technique). This is big
business. This is the American way.

Bob Marley

Bigthink — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 01:59:43 +0100

I think they need to give more credit to Bob Marley. I mean come on he tried to change the world with his music and he isnt even in Black History Month. I just think that needs more credit then just another artist.

Is dialogue or debate a better medium for solving conflict; what is your proof

Bigthink — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:42:03 +0100

There are beneficial qualities to both mediums, but I am currently holding onto the opinion that dialogue (when properly defined) is the pinnacle in conflict resolution. Without first creating the forum for dialogue, there is no safe place for oppositional viewpoints to be discussed. In my own words, dialogue is the pursuit of truth through linguistically-exchanged ideas. Naturally, more than one person is required in order for the process to potentially discover something true (about the self or the self-society relationship). Finally I believe the process must be democratic, even at the expense of extending timelines--for projects which initially thought them necessary.

Michael Walzer on Just War and Humanitarian Intervention

Bigthink — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:02:33 +0100

: Someone has to intervene in Darfur, Michael Walzer says; not necessarily the U.S.

Michael Walzer on Just War and Terrorism

Bigthink — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:02:32 +0100

: Is terrorism ever justified?

U.S. Treatment of Enemy Combatants

Bigthink — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:01:45 +0100

: President Bush, Walzer says, has created a new category of prisoner.

Michael Walzer on Just War, 9/11 and Afghanistan

Bigthink — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:01:39 +0100

: Was 9/11 a declaration of war? Were we justified in invading Afghanistan? Walzer thinks we were.

Re: What is justice?

Bigthink — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:58:39 +0100

: Walzer equates justice with equality.