Feb
29
Iran and Proof that Bush is Officially a Dangerously Stupid Person
Filed Under Mindful Ideas | Leave a Comment
The National Intelligence Estimate is intended to be a policy-guiding document for the American President. Normally, when this document says that something is the case, the President has taken this to be true. Not so with our current mental giant, George W. Bush, who chose to ignore the official report that Iran is no longer actively engaged in a nuclear weapons program. Rather than act accordingly and acknowledge his rhetorical errors over the past several months with regard to Iran, Bush chose to spin this revelation into proof that, because Iran did have such a program at one time, they could start it again and thus remain a major threat to US security.
What does this have to do with ethics? A great deal actually, as it represents a common mistake and a lingering source of conflict for applied ethicists. Often, ethical disagreements are actually arguments over the facts. Gun control is a prime example. The debate over whether we ought to allow widespread gun ownership is quality fodder for considering social policy ethics and individual rights. However, this often breaks down into what the Bill of Rights actually says about this issue, as though this document tells us what we ought to do.
The problem, with regard to Bush’s inability to recognize that his views on Iran are flawed, is that it becomes difficult to determine what we ought to do when there is persistent disagreement over what is the case. Analogously, we cannot decide what we ought to do with regard to abortion if we cannot agree on the status of a fetus as either a full-fledged person or something less.
A further issue raised by Bush’s obstinate position on Iran concerns our ethical responsibility to change our views based upon relevant information. For example, suppose I hold the view that lying is always wrong, no matter what. My good pal, the ethical philosopher, provides me with numerous instances when lying may have been a positive thing. Perhaps he is a consequentialist who is focused on the outcome of certain benevolent lies. I might continue to hold the view that lying is always wrong, but I am obligated to consider my friend’s perspective and give some plausible reply to his concerns. Otherwise, my own position becomes suspect.
Bush has utterly failed to do this throughout his presidency, and his unwavering stance on Iran is yet another example of this ethical shortcoming. Close-minded stubbornness, especially in light of factual information, is not only frustrating and annoying, it is morally wrong. A president should set an example of good leadership, and good leaders listen to intelligent people and act accordingly. Bush does not do this, and the result is both poor leadership and a lousy example of appropriate conduct.
Perhaps the one bright spot of this ugly scenario is the example that Bush is providing for all of us. We often think of “setting an example” in a positive light, but many examples are not positive. They remain helpful to us because they show us, quite clearly, who we do not want to be and why we do not want to be a particular way. Thus, Bush is giving us a clear example of why we should be open-minded and use our reasoning to make important decisions. Otherwise, we risk following the example of our leader, which is clearly not what we want to do.
Feb
28
What are we really supporting? That question came to mind last week when reading about the upcoming Summer Olympics in Bejing, China. There is much concern over this event, for a number of good reasons. China has some of the worst air pollution anywhere in the world, and they are currently trying to figure out how to clear the smog in time for the games. In addition, they are frequent violators of human rights laws, and they account for two-thirds of the world’s executions, according to Amnesty International. I have to wonder, when these games are going on, should we be participating?
This is a question for big government, and I honestly doubt that the United States will boycott the Beijing Olympics. But this situation does raise another important question, one that we do have some control over. In the course of our lives, we act in particular ways, buy certain products, and advocate views on a variety of topics. What is it that we are supporting, and it consistent with our own vision of who we want to be? By watching the Beijing Olympics, am I supporting all that is wrong with China?
Our choices shape us. You could argue that they define us. My own experience is that I don’t always represent myself in the way that I want to, but it’s often difficult to know how to get it right. For example, I don’t like that China is a gross polluter, that they don’t respect human rights, and that they kill people for trivial offenses. However, I do like the sense of global community associated with the Olympics, and I love watching athletes who have sacrificed so much just for the opportunity to compete. My favorites are those from tiny countries, sometimes representing their entire nation single-handedly. These athletes have to know that they aren’t going to win, but they still show up and do their very best. This is inspiring, and I’m not sure if I want to give up witnessing it because China has some practices that I don’t like very much.
I think that balance, to reference the Buddha, or moderation, to quote the ancient Greeks, has a role to play in helping us make good choices that reflect who we are. We have to choose between bad consequences and good consequences, seeking positive values despite the presence of negative ones and trying to know when the bad outweighs the good. I am a firm believer, despite my philosophical training or perhaps because of it, that reason is not the tool by which we make these choices. The British philosopher David Hume believed, and I agree, that reason is ultimately subservient to the passions. I contend that this is as it should be. Simply, listen to your heart. If something internal tells you to buy free-range chicken or turn off the Beijing Olympics, listen to that something. It is probably much smarter than your rational faculties could ever hope to be.