Bill Moyers & Michael Winship: It Was Oil, All Along

Bill Moyers does an excellent article relating oil with the War in Iraq:

Oh, no, they told us, Iraq isn’t a war about oil. That’s cynical and simplistic, they said. It’s about terror and al Qaeda and toppling a dictator and spreading democracy and protecting ourselves from weapons of mass destruction. But one by one, these concocted rationales went up in smoke, fire, and ashes. And now the bottom turns out to be….the bottom line. It is about oil.

Alan Greenspan said so last fall. The former chairman of the Federal Reserve, safely out of office, confessed in his memoir, “…Everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.” He elaborated in an interview with the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, “If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands, our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first gulf war.”

Read the rest here.

Do humans have a greater right to live than other animals?

An interesting question was posted on askphilosophers.com:

Do humans have a greater right to live than other animals? If so, would beings of much greater intelligence and perception hold that same right over humans?

Any thoughts?

Derrida on Forgiveness

A really interesting talk about forgiveness from the philosopher Jacques Derrida.  Forgiveness cannot happen if the object is forgiveable because it automatically applies that forgiving that someone is “too easy.”  I know I’m butchering it.  Thus, one can only forgive the unforgiveable, at least that’s “true” and proper forgiveness.  But that’s the paradox: how do you forgive someone that’s unforgiveable?

Artificially Grown Meat

Scientists have recently discovered a possible way to grow meat.  So here’s a question: would you eat it?

I’ve been wondering if vegitarians and members of P.E.T.A. would eat it.  I think if they didn’t eat meat for moral reasons, this may give them an out.  (However, if they don’t eat it because they have some moral repugnance of eating meat grown in a lab, that’s a different story.)

Good “Thinking” Books

A lot of people have been asking me, “Shaun, what’s a good book to read but that isn’t that deep?”  I’m guessing not too philosophical.  Well, I do have some books that I really enjoy and they are actually readable for the non-philosopher.

1.  The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant

This book set me on the path of philosophy.  I have known some friends in grad school that said that this book got them into philosophy.  I’ve even had a professor who said this book got him on the path to studying philosophy.  What I like about this book is that Durant knows how to use his words.  His rhetoric is filled with dynamism that it really feels like a story, or a novel of these great thinkers.  It’s really readable and I suggest to all.  People have said that he does spend too much time on Schopenhauer.  However, this book really got me to appreciate Schopenhauer more and more and whenever I think about Schopenhauer, I always return to this book.  It’s an excellent start and it’s always refreshing to come back to this book.  I always come back to this for a refresher and it captivates me more to study philosophy.

2.  Doubt by Jennifer Michael Hecht

This is also extremely readable.  I just wish it went into more details on each of the thinkers.  Hecht is a historian and she goes through history from the ancients to today wondering about people who have doubted.  More specifically, it’s mainly about religious doubt.  What were their reasons for doubt?  What were the doubts?  How did these doubts come about?  I was really impressed with the 19th century.  This almost reads like a novel, but it certainly does not feel like a textbook.  If I could, I would seriously consider using this as a textbook.  Hecht is very impressive and in the end, you come away with an appreciation for doubt and that doubt isn’t this aberration that everyone makes it appear to be.

3.  The Stranger by Albert Camus

Like all students, this book got me into existentialism, angst, depair, and the absurdity of life, but yet embracing it fully.  This complements the Myth of Sisyphus by the same author.  How can one find meaning in an uncaring, absurd universe?  Camus’ answer is shocking, yet it gives one a new look at the world with refreshing eyes.

4.  Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser

This makes you think about the whole fast food industry around the world.  You see the exploitation, the processing, the packing, the unpaid wages, the shit in the meat (yes, it’s true), and the E. Coli, just so that people can get their Happy Meal.  NOTE: the movie is horrible.  Just read the book.  You’ll never look at fast food places again.

5.  Singled Out by Bella DePaulo

I doubt people will read this, but I still recommend it.  Ever notice this: you aren’t “fully human” unless you’re in a relationship.  Oh, but it’s not a serious relationship until you get married.  Oh but wait, it’s not a “real” marriage unless there are kids.  It’s the culture of coupledom that our society has been indoctrinated into and with that, we view single people as inferior.  Well, no more.  DePaulo asks why? and I do too.  Why are single people seen as inferior and even discriminated against?  (If you don’t think so, look at tax deductions comparing single people to married people.  That’s just one example.  DePaulo provides more.)  It was nice to see someone doing a social analysis of single.  Here’s one of my favorites: when my friends (who are in relationships) go out, they always invite me.  I’ve never felt like the third or fifth wheel.  Why do I care?  They’re my friends regardless if they’re in a relationship with each other or not.  I really don’t care.  Why do people feel uncomfortable in being in a group where couples are involved?  Indeed, why are we obsessed with coupledom at all?

Anyways, these have been my favorites for a good general audience.  If any of you want to provide your top five books, do so.

Question: Does science make belief in God obsolete?

An interesting site that shows both sides of the argument. The info taken below is from Prelocutionary II website.

The Templeton foundation has published a 13 essay booklet on the topic edited by Michael Shermer.

On the “Yes” side

• Victor Stenger: Yes. Worse. Science renders belief in God incoherent.
• Steven Pinker: Yes, if by science we include secular reason and knowledge.
• Pervez Hoodbhoy: Not necessarily. You must find a science-compatible God.
• Stuart Kauffman: No, if we redefine God as creativity in the universe.
• Chrisopher Hitchens: No, but it should.
• Michael Shermer: It depends: belief no, God yes.

On the “No” side

• Mary Midgley: Of course not, belief in God is not a scientific question.
• Kenneth Miller: Of course not. Science expands our appreciation of the Divine.
• William D. Phillips: Absolutely not! Belief in God is not a scientific matter.
• Robert Sapolsky: No. Belief offers something that science doesn’t.
• Jerome Groopman: No. Not at all.
• Keith Ward: No.
• Christoph Cardinal Schönborn: No.

You may read all the essays online, order a copy of the booklet, or download a PDFs.

Politics and the Brain

A recent study came out which you can read here. Basically, the recent brain-imaging study shows that our political predilections are a product of unconscious confirmation bias. In other words, we first come up with an opinion (for example, being Democrat or Republican) and then we try to find evidence for the already existing belief. Here’s the quote from the article:

During the run-up to the 2004 presidential election, while undergoing an fMRI bran scan, 30 men–half self-described as “strong” Republicans and half as “strong” Democrats–were tasked with assessing statements by both George W. Bush and John Kerry in which the candidates clearly contradicted themselves. Not surprisingly, in their assessments Republican subjects were as critical of Kerry as Democratic subjects were of Bush, yet both let their own candidate off the hook.

Indeed, the part of the brain that lights up has nothing to do with rationality and instead deals with emotions. So we are political animals not because of some rational argument, but because of some emotional connection.

So what do we do? What does the article recommend? Interestingly enough, it recommends politicians having a peer-review system where politicians check up on each other and perhaps even make opposite cases. Seems like skepticism gets away from this confirmation bias.

All Scholarships are a form of Affirmative Action

Not really, but hear me out.

Let’s ask what’s the point of affirmative action.  Well, it started with Johnson’s presidency and the purpose was

1. to rectify previous injustices, and
2. to disestablish institutional racism.

Now, the applications of this have been tremendous, especially when it pertains to obtaining a job or going to school.

Critics of affirmative action have been:

1. it’s the previous generations that have been wronged, not this one.  So why should this minority generation get the benefits when this majority generation didn’t do anything about it?
2. it could cause resentment of the majority group against the minority groups because it seems that the minority group would get the upper hand, in which case it doesn’t get rid of racism, but seems to bolster it.
3. people cannot choose their (skin color, nationality, race, sex, creed) so the government shouldn’t propose a program on which an arbitrary factor played into their lives.

Now, I’m not interested whether affirmative action is justified or not, at least not in this post.  What I want to focus on is critique number three: namely that we can’t choose our outward appearances.

Let’s suppose that the critics are right.  So then, affirmative action is wrong and we shouldn’t be “lenient” toward races and genders just because of the fact that they are a certain race or gender.  We treat everyone equally regardless of race or gender.  So then, the argument goes, we should get rid of scholarships that has a race or gender determining factor behind it.  (Actually, I doubt that the schools actually give scholarships based on race or gender, but programs and memorials use the schools to give them away, but let’s ignore that for now.)  Again, remember that we cannot choose our race or gender, so why should we get a “leg up” in life on something that we didn’t choose anyways?

Well, hold on there.  What about academic scholarships?  Basically, these scholarships are given out based on one’s intelligence, and we think that this is a fair way to give out funding because this person earned it or “worked hard for it.”  Well, I’m not so sure.

How is life planned out?  It’s done through two ways:

1. biology (so basically, genes and DNA)
2. environment

Now, here’s the rub.  We didn’t choose either of those.  So if one is intelligent, let’s say, then it was just in that person’s genes, just like someone’s race or gender was in someone’s genes.  Simple enough.

But what about environment?  Well, I didn’t choose to live in Utah.  I didn’t choose to live in a surrounding where I had the opportunity to get an education.  I didn’t choose my class or economic standing.  Thus, based on my environment, I was given the education that I had.  If I was born in a ghetto, I would have likely (but not absolutely) not gone to high school, let alone college.  So the environment does have a factor.

Now, I could imagine the reply being this: “but it’s what you do with the environment or the genes.  One still has a choice.  So with the child being born in the ghetto example.  That person still has a choice of raising him/herself up, or still chooses to live life in bad circumstances.  But it’s still that individual’s choice.”  My problem with this sort of reply is that I think it was that person’s genes or environment that “helped” or gave the individual the opportunity to choose.  The environment and biology speak for a lot and it does factor one’s intelligence.

So, just like race and gender aren’t chosen, neither is intelligence.  So then, this is why I wanted to claim that all scholarships are a form of affirmative action because we don’t choose our intelligence, achievements, environment, or biology.

What’s the solution then?  There are two:

1. Give out no scholarships because they are unfair anyways,
2. Everyone has the opportunity to get a “scholarship,” thus make college more or less free or at least cheaper.

Now, I’m opting for the second option.  France is doing this and it seems to be working.  They have many public intellectuals and in the philosophy scene, they are actually leading the world (at least in Continental Philosophy, as far as I can see).  I know that I will have many replies to this, so I’ll just leave it at this and see what the replies will be.

Sacredness of Life

So here’s a question I’ve been thinking about: is life sacred?

Many people consider life (especially human life) sacred, but what does that mean? If life is sacred, why is it sacred?

UPDATE: Perhaps the word “sacred” is a bad word to use in this context so let me try again. How about valuable?

So then here’s the question: does life have intrinsic value? If so, why? Many people consider life (but perhaps humans exclusively) having intrinsic value. But why? Why does life have intrinsic value?