Chuggers, Sippers, Abstainers, and Bingers

The Onion: Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film as "Fun, Watchable"

2009-05-05T18:04:00.000-07:00

Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'

What do y'all think of this claim:

2009-04-28T17:12:00.000-07:00

Panic is great for the media. Ideally for media outlets, the population would be in a state of low-level panic at all times, punctuated only by frequent crises that boost us into a higher level of panic. Even news people who realize something is bullshit also know that Panic=Attention to News People.

Is there anybody out there? If so ...

2009-04-27T17:17:00.000-07:00

Check out Adam's interview of Jack Box.

2009-03-19T21:36:00.001-07:00

Recession's Hidden Virtues

2009-03-13T18:03:00.000-07:00

Optimistic article about the economy here.

2009-03-11T18:53:00.000-07:00

Fuck You, Penguin

2009-03-07T20:25:00.000-08:00

That's the name of this funny blog. It's "a blog that tells cute little animals what's what."

Husband, Wife Unaware They're a Comedy Team

2009-03-07T11:42:00.000-08:00

here

Maybe geneticists won't need to figure out...

2009-03-07T11:35:00.000-08:00

a way around using stem cells after all.

2009-03-01T17:45:00.001-08:00

Are Violent Video Games Adequately Preparing Children For The Apocalypse?

Converting Ordinary Skin Cells to Stem Cells

2009-03-01T15:59:00.000-08:00

Weren't we just talking about this? Very cool! Let's hope the progress from here is fast and steady.

The recession hits home:

2009-02-26T21:04:00.000-08:00

Here

Links to Biotech Articles

2009-02-23T18:24:00.000-08:00

Basic info. from the National Institute of Health.
Building new hearts in the lab.
Regenerating organs from ordinary skin (University of Wisconsin Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine Center's site)
Re-growing a human windpipe

biological engineering

2009-02-23T18:17:00.001-08:00

Hey SP, here's that video from the TED Talks I was telling you about. Skip ahead to about the 7 1/2 minute mark.

2009-02-18T23:22:00.001-08:00

The Church?

2009-02-08T01:30:00.000-08:00

I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church...says the nicean creed. what does the "church" mean to you? Please state your reasons.

Just Checking In

2009-02-07T11:28:00.000-08:00

How is everybody?

A Robot that Can Reassemble Itself

2009-01-30T15:31:00.000-08:00

Awesome.

The Stuff my Socrates Cafe is talking about

2009-01-15T22:43:00.000-08:00

95 Theses to the Evangelical Church of America
(on the 500 year anniversary of Martin Luther’s Wittenberg Door challenge)

Out of love for the truth and desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Socrates Café, under the direction of Michael, an ordinary learner along with the help of the rest of the Socratians. I request that those unable to be present and to debate do so through electronic means (blog, email, Facebook).
In the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
Study of the Church (Ecclesiology)
1. Jesus commands his church to act in unity and display love for one another which would include reconciliation between the Reform churches and the Roman Catholic Church.
2. A church community can grow too large to model what God had in mind for his people.
3. Like a snake shedding its skin, the church is always in the process of emerging from under its own shadow of mistakes and sins or it would die a premature death.
4. The church should find ways to cease intentionally or unintentionally marginalizing the divorced and the never married.
5. Corporate Christian gatherings are best held on Sundays because it is a clear and visible reminder of the day they are celebrating – the day Christ rose from the dead.
6. Women ought to be afforded full access to church leadership roles if they demonstrate giftedness and calling.
7. The church’s missionary efforts around the world should center on the training and supporting of national leaders in those countries that need or ask for it.
8. The church cannot focus on defeating evil when it is, at times, more hell-bent on endlessly dividing itself.
9. Authentic community is rare and this fact provides the church a great opportunity and responsibility to demonstrate one to the world.
10. Preaching is the art of communicating biblical truths through inspiration and honest reflection, not teaching from a position of authority allowing no room for questioning.
11. The regular reading of scripture by Christians cannot become obsolete or the church and the Gospel have a good chance of being rendered obsolete.
12. The Evangelical church is not consistent in its application of scripture; the Lord’s Prayer, the Beatitudes, and the Sermon on the Mount are clear evidence of that.
13. All Christian cults capture at least a small portion of the nature and character of the one true church.
14. The Evangelical church in America should acknowledge the fact it has done a good job at describing the King, but a poor job in explaining his kingdom.
15. Evangelical church leaders must teach what the scriptures say and do not say in the simplest terms possible without fear of retribution by its parishioners.
16. The Evangelical church must end its addiction of providing its parishioners services designed to satisfy their consumer tendencies.
17. The church is responsible for assisting God’s will move out of heaven and onto earth.
18. The proclamation of Scripture and the celebration of the sacraments, not entertainment and showmanship, are central to authentic Christian worship.
19. Prayer comes from a hungry and restless soul, the Evangelical church is fat and happy.
20. The church is always forgetting its battle is not against flesh and blood.
21. The treasure of the church is the Gospel which is contained in the church’s humanity that is flawed, sinful, and broken.
22. The evangelical church must end its addiction to pretending it is more holy and godly than it really is and accept its full humanity.

Study of God (Theology)

23. No human souls are currently held captive in a purgatory state awaiting release by the church, but if they were, only Christ could release them.
24. Miracles can happen anytime God’s plans and people’s faith cross paths.
25. The penal substitutionary death of Christ has been overemphasized in evangelical church teachings, eclipsing other equally emphasized components of the atonement.
26. The kingdom of heaven has been under emphasized in evangelical church teachings.
27. Nearly all religions capture at least a small portion of the nature and character of the one true God.
28. Systematic theology is flawed only because God is not so systematic.
29. The Holy Scriptures ‘alone’ cannot contain all that God has said or wants to say to mankind.
30. The Scriptures do not have to be an inerrant witness, merely a reliable witness, to require Christian’s complete devotion to its truths and instructions.
31. The church should be at the forefront of explaining the problem of evil in our world through theodicies that explain God’s actions but still require faith in him.
32. The church should be at the forefront of exposing the mystery of goodness in the world as a reality every bit as perplexing as the problem of evil.
33. Eternal life does not begin in heaven but when people believe and act on the Gospel here on earth.
34. The kingdom of heaven is anywhere the Father, Son and Spirit manifest themselves.
35. Work is not a curse, but a blessing from God.
36. The teaching of scripture by the church is critical for all Christians so they do not lose the knowledge, understanding and application of it to their own lives in this world.
37. What God knows and does not know about the future pales in importance to his followers’ ability to trust him with their futures.
38. God is not bound by his own laws, only his own character.
39. The meaning of suffering cannot be explained, only experienced, and if there is an explanation it can only be found in the cross of Christ.
Study of End Times (Eschatology)

40. The secret ‘rapture’ as distinct from the second coming of Christ is a false and destructive eschatological church teaching in evangelicalism.
41. God never intends to destroy the old heaven and earth, only to renew and merge them.
42. Jesus did not commission the church with a task that could not be accomplished or at least taken seriously, so it should stop teaching self-destructive eschatologies.
43. Heaven will not have death, pain, suffering or sorrow; everything else we experience now could still be on the table.
44. The church has the responsibility to teach and show the world a better kingdom existence now, not collect people into a salvation lifeboat bound for heaven later.
45. Moral ebbs and flows throughout societies and generations and nations are not always in a negative direction.
46. The anti-Christ, as described in the book of Revelation, lived in the first century A.D., so far as we know.
47. Armageddon, as described in the book of Revelation, happened in the first century A.D., so far as we know.
48. The church should work in partnership with any religious or secular organization willing to promote the principles of the kingdom of heaven.
49. The meek shall inherit the earth so the church should be working on promoting them into their future positions right now.

Study of the Moral life (Ethics)

50. Pre-emptive war strikes by individuals or nations goes against the New Testament teachings of Jesus.
51. Socrates taught rhetoric to be both intoxicating and useless if not tied to straight-forward truthfulness; religion and politics should take heed.
52. All Christians are called to practice both the theological virtues of faith, hope and love as well as the cardinal virtues of wisdom, justice, courage and moderation.
53. The 21st century evil in America is greed and the evangelical church, in particular, is not immune from this vice.
54. All things considered, the world is becoming a better place to live.
55. Abortion, euthanasia and infanticide are almost always mistreatments of humankind.
56. The church and state should teach that you can have both too little and too much tolerance.
57. The church can think of particular, limited situations where euthanasia can be morally acceptable.
58. The new Samaritan outcast thrust before the 21st Century Church is the homosexual community.
59. Same–sex marriage rights should never include the right to have children who will not, by design, know both their biological mother and father.
60. Both the church and medical science need to show more humility concerning the question of when a person begins through the human reproductive process.
61. The Evangelical church has reduced the virtue of moderation to alcohol consumption.
62. The Evangelical church must teach generosity as a timeless virtue because it is rarely taught elsewhere and it does not come easily to many.
63. The Evangelical church has reduced the virtue of courage to acting rude and obnoxious to those who do not know Christ, apparently losing the virtue of humility along the way.
64. The church and the state should defend the human rights of every individual, particularly the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
65. The wealth of America will be lost in vain if we do not share it generously with the poor.
66. The church should not try to encourage or block the use of capital punishment by the state when done humanely and with dignity.
67. There is no reason for any orphaned child in America to go without both a mother and a father, but if they exist, Christians should fill that void.
68. The church should stand against physician-assisted suicide as should the medical community who are called to ‘do no harm’.
69. The Evangelical church should be at the forefront of elder care abuse and assist in dismantling the practice of housing the elderly together unnecessarily.
70. Aristotle the pagan and Jesus the prophet both agreed the quality known as ‘goodness’ is what humanity was uniquely made to express on this earth.

Study of Civic Life (Law/Politics)

71. Torture should never be used in any circumstances by any individual or civilized nation.
72. No one political party in America can contain the complete teachings of Jesus Christ, so the church should resist any political party allegiance.
73. The church should promote democracy because, as defined by Aristotle, it is government by the poor.
74. Jesus’ teachings contain both capitalistic and socialistic principals that he expects us to follow.
75. Jesus’ teachings contain both liberal and conservative ideologies that he expects us to follow, that’s why he has always given us prophets and priests.
76. The church is not the morality police, only morality teachers, the state has the police.
77. The church has authority only over Christians; the state has authority over all its citizens.
78. The state has a huge responsibility in the consistent practice of justice, the church a huge responsibility in the consistent practice of grace.
79. A country where only the rich can be elected to rule cannot be called a democracy at all and this form of government is not found in the American Constitution.
80. A ‘more perfect union’ can best be summarized by Jesus’ descriptions found in the Beatitudes.
81. The church should protect motherhood in the 21st century by insisting government oversight of stem-cell research, surrogate mothers, invitro-fertilization and cloning.
82. The church should continue to challenge the thinking behind the right to privacy argument used to establish Roe v. Wade through legal means.
83. The church should use natural law arguments when defending moral positions within our own civic government.
84. Patriotism and nationalism is often as blinding to societies as racism is to individuals.
85. The church better be careful of supporting government regulations that oppress the poor through excessive immigration policies.
86. Both the church and the state have a moral responsibility to assist the poor.

Study of Nature (Science/Arts)

87. Beauty, art, and design are everywhere in the natural world and they scream for the existence of a great artist of the wildest and most imaginative kind.
88. Christians should re-establish themselves into all of the Arts so as to help express the height and breadth of God and his creation.
89. Both the church and the state have a responsibility to nurture and protect the earth.
90. Requiring the belief in the six literal days of creation drives an unnecessary wedge between theology and science while marginalizing serious study in the natural sciences.
91. The church should team with the scientific community to construct a comprehensive creation model theory that borrows any good ideas from evolutionary models.
92. The church should only refute the theory of evolution when it strays from being scientific to making philosophical truth claims such as the non-existence of God.
93. The ability to engage in science is part of the image of God in humanity.
94. The church should encourage questioning by parishioners and non-parishioners alike because it can only help lead people to the truth.
95. However humanity got here, it certainly could not have been by accident because our nature and being are not that easily explained away.

The Onion: Apple Introduces Revolutionary New Laptop With No Keyboard

2009-01-08T00:51:00.000-08:00

Apple Introduces Revolutionary New Laptop With No Keyboard

The Onion: 'Warcraft' Sequel Lets Gamers Play a Character Playing 'Warcraft'

2009-01-08T00:47:00.001-08:00

'Warcraft' Sequel Lets Gamers Play A Character Playing 'Warcraft'

'Clusterfuck' defined...

2009-01-04T22:00:00.000-08:00

...here:

1. (vulgar) A chaotic mess that might be compared to group sex, in which participants are so intertwined and intermingled that they might penetrate each other rather than their intended target. Its more precise usage describes a particular kind of Catch-22, in which multiple complicated problems mutually interfere with each other's solution. The looser usage, referring to any chaotic situation, probably prevails.

I especially like the less offensive initialism in NATO phonetics: 'Charlie Foxtrot'.

Ontario's Future?

2009-01-03T15:35:00.000-08:00

This doesn't seem to fit the current economic situation. Right?

Good Bye 2008

2008-12-31T13:41:00.000-08:00

Anyone Feel They Had a Bad Christmas?

2008-12-27T14:17:00.000-08:00

Check this out.

2008-12-26T21:12:00.000-08:00

I believe Jesus is who he says he is. Having said that, I think he might find this song funny. I think it's hilarious.

Merry Chistmas

2008-12-24T14:15:00.000-08:00

God rest ye merry gentlemen
Let nothing you dismay
Remember, Christ, our Saviour
Was born on Christmas day
To save us all from Satan's power
When we were gone astray
O tidings of comfort and joy,
Comfort and joy
O tidings of comfort and joy

Hit Bush with a shoe

2008-12-18T18:27:00.000-08:00

Play "Sock and Awe" here

hyper link

2008-12-17T16:05:00.001-08:00

hey how do you hyperlink a web sight again.

Honestly, Who Throws a Shoe?

2008-12-14T16:54:00.000-08:00

Family Guy Presents Blue Harvest: 'Save The Couch' Clip

2008-12-14T14:42:00.001-08:00

This one's pretty awesome, too.

2008-12-13T17:21:00.001-08:00

This is ~~pretty good~~ , ~~genius~~ , clever.

Scope, Commitment, and Evidential Standards

2008-12-09T22:14:00.000-08:00

1. Scope
1.1 Claims can have a wider or narrower scope:
1.2 One? Some? Many? Most? All?
1.3 Example: All men are pigs vs. most men are pigs vs. many men are pigs vs. some men are pigs vs. one man is a pig

2. Commitment
2.1 Claims can also have a weaker or stronger degree of commitment
2.2 Certain that P? Probable that P, Plausible that P? Possible that P, etc.?
2.3 Examples: It is certain that Steve's a pig vs. I know Steve's a pig vs. it's probable that Steve's a pig vs. It's plausible that Steve's a pig vs. it's possible that Steve's a pig

3. Scope, Commitment, and Evidential Standards
3.1 The wider a claim's scope, the harder it is to justify it
3.2 The narrower a claim's scope, the easier it is to justify it
3.3 The stronger a claim's degree of commitment, the harder it is to justify it
3.4 The weaker a claim's degree of commitment, the easier it is to justify it

4. Morals, part I: When arguing your own position
4.1 When arguing your position, don't make a claim with a wider scope than is absolutely required to justify your position
4.2 When arguing your position, don't make a claim with a stronger degree of commitment than is absolutely required to justify your position

5. Morals, part II: When others are arguing with you
5.1 It's common for a person to "cheat" by mischaracterizing their interlocutor's claims (cf. the straw man fallacy)
5.2 A common way to do this is to mischaracterize the substance of one's claim or position
5.3 This sort of mischaracterization is often easy to notice
5.4 However, another sort of mischaracterization occurs when a person mischaracterizes the scope or degree of commitment of their interlocutor's claim
5.5 Thus, a person will characterize their interlocutor's claim as having a wider scope, a stronger degree of commitment, or both
5.6 In doing this, they unfairly raise the evidential standards for their interlocutor to make their case

How to Use Strikethrough on Blogger

2008-12-07T12:53:00.000-08:00

That's ~~a totally useless function~~ a very helpful and practical blogging tool.

2008-12-06T21:42:00.000-08:00

Happy feast day of St Nicolas!! Dec 6 is the feast day of merry old St Nick! St Nick is know for saving the poor, raising the dead, confessing the faith during the great Diocletian persecution, and slapping the Arius during the council of Nicea for things he said about Christ. His holy remains were transfered from Myra in modern day turkey to Bari in Italy in the 11th cent. In Myra and in Bari his bones produce 50ml of oil(manna) a year up to this day which is collected diluted then used for anoiting the sick which has been credited for helping in healing the sick for centuries.

Here is a hymn for this blessed st

You were revealed to your flock
as a measure of faith.
You were the image of humility
and a teacher of self-control. Because of your humble life,
heaven was opened to you.
Because of your poverty,
spiritual riches were granted to you. O holy Bishop Nicholas
we cry out to you:
Pray to Christ our God
that our souls may be saved.

Antiochian Orthodox

So.... Bored....

2008-12-05T17:39:00.001-08:00

Autistic Artist

2008-12-03T00:01:00.001-08:00

I wish I had his memory. Then again, the costs for having it are pretty high....

The Onion: Metal Council Convenes To Discuss 'Metal Hand Sign' Abuse

2008-12-02T23:51:00.001-08:00

Details here.

Litter Critters

2008-12-01T01:45:00.000-08:00

Old Glory Robot Insurance

2008-12-01T01:24:00.001-08:00

For the easily amused...........

2008-11-27T17:05:00.000-08:00

Happy Thanksgiving!

2008-11-27T13:09:00.000-08:00

Just wanted to wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving!I am thankful for all of you and grateful that you are all in my life.God bless you all.Love ya lots,Soraya

For Those Who Remember My Oldest Son

2008-11-27T09:42:00.001-08:00

He was a baby when you knew him. He's now 19 and a sophomore in college. Here's a link to his blog. He's been wrestling with issues of faith and belief.
http://askquestionsbutnotforanswers.blogspot.com/2008/11/thoughts-on-truth.html

Great book recommendation

2008-11-26T19:52:00.000-08:00

Just finished reading "Three cups of Tea"By Greg Mortenson and David Oliver Relin. It was a great book !I highly recommend it.It was a bit slow at first and then about the middle of the book it got better and better.If I could pick a few words to describe the book and the man behind the book I would say"Inspirational,amazing,a true humanitarian and a hero".If I can do a fraction of what he did with his life with my life I would be happy.Do not believe people when they say "one person alone cannot accomplish anything"that is not true and certainly not true in this case.Greg Mortenson was a mountaineer who drifted into a impoverished village in Pakistan after a failed attempt to climb K2.Moved by the people he vowed to build them a school.He has done that and a thousand time more.Amazing and inspiring.Read it and you will see.For all you educators out there you will love this story for sure.

Rereading a book

2008-11-24T19:03:00.001-08:00

I'm rereading a book called Resident Aliens by Stanley Hauerwas (a Christian ethicist) and William Willimon (former chaplain from Duke).

I ran across this quote which i vehemently disagreed with when i read it years ago. Now I'm not so sure. What do you all think?

"The theology of translation assumes that there is some kernel of real Christianity, some abstract essence that can be preserved...Yet such a view distorts the nature of Christianity. In Jesus we meet not a presentation of basic ideas about God, world, and humanity, but an invitation to join up, to become part of a movement, a people" (p. 21).

"Apologetics is based on the political assumptions that Christians somehow have a stake in transforming their ecclesial claims into intellectual assumptions that will enable us to be faithful to Christ while still participating in the political structures of the world that does not yet know Christ" (p. 22).

They definitely have an anabaptist slant, which can be more isolationist. Yet they seem to have a point that whenever Christians get overly entangled in culture, especially political structures, we go astray.

A Universal Method for Evaluating Arguments: The ARG Method

2008-11-23T20:01:00.000-08:00

The following is an outline of the key points in ch.3 of Govier, Trudy. A Practical Study of Argument, 6th ed. (Wadsworth, 2006).

1. The ARG Conditions
-Evaluating arguments amounts to evaluating (i) the acceptability of the premises, and (ii) how well the premises support the conclusion
-These two steps can be further broken down into three:
-Acceptability of the premises: is it reasonable for the target audience to believe the premises, given their background evidence?
-Relevance of the Premises: do the premises have any bearing on/connection to the conclusion? Or in other words, could the premises support the conclusion if it should turn out they're true?
-Adequacy of Grounds: do the premises, when taken together, make the conclusion more probable than not (i.e., above 50% probability)?
-This is called the “ARG” method for evaluating arguments.

2. The ARG Conditions and Cogency
-An argument is cogent one if, and only if, it meets the ARG conditions:
-The premises are acceptable
-The premises are relevant to the truth of the conclusion
-The premises, when taken together, provide adequate grounds for the conclusion
-Cogent vs. sound arguments: compare and contrast
-Sound deductive arguments must deductively entail their conclusions; cogent arguments need not – they just need to strongly support it
-Sound deductive arguments must have all true premises; cogent arguments need not – they just need to be rationally acceptable
-Thus, cogency applies to more types of arguments – inductive, deductive, abductive, etc.) Than just deductive arguments, unlike soundness (which just applies to deductive arguments)
-Thus, all sound arguments are cogent, but not all cogent arguments are sound

3. Using the ARG Conditions to Evaluate Arguments
-Evaluating arguments for cogency is a reliable, fairly mechanical process
-Start with A: are the premises rationally acceptable, given the evidence you have?
-If no, then explain why not. Once you’ve done that, you’re finished evaluating that argument – you’ve shown that it’s not cogent
-If yes, then go on to the next step
-R: are the premises relevant to the conclusion? Do they have any bearing on the conclusion at all? If it should turn out that they are true, could they support the conclusion?
-If they aren’t deductively, inductively, analogically, or conductively connected to the conclusion, then they’re not relevant to the truth or falsity of the conclusion. Once you’ve pointed this out, you’re done -- you’ve shown that it’s not cogent
-But if they are either deductively, inductively, analogically, or conductively connected to the conclusion, then they are relevant. If so, then go on to the last step
-G: do the premises, when taken together, provide adequate grounds for the conclusion? I.e., do they demonstrate the conclusion (as in a sound deductive argument), or make it more likely than not (as in a good inductive, analogical, or conductive argument)?
-If no, then explain why not. Once you’ve done that, you’re done – you’ve shown that it’s not cogent
-If yes, then you’re done – the argument has acceptable premises that are relevant to the conclusion, and when taken together, they demonstrate that the conclusion is true or probably true –it’s cogent!

A. Failing on the (A) Condition
-Sample passage: “There can be no meaningful reconciliation of science and religion. I’ll tell you why. For one thing, their methods are diametrically opposed. Science admits it has no final answers, while religion claims to have them. And furthermore science, despite its excesses, has gone far to liberate the human spirit; religion would stifle it.”

- Standardizing the argument:
1. Science admits to having no final answers, while religion claims to have final answers.
------------
2. The methods of science and religion are diametrically opposed.
3. Science has helped to liberate the human spirit, whereas religion would stifle the human spirit.
------------------------
4. Therefore, there can be no meaningful reconciliation of science and religion.

-The A condition: are the premises acceptable?
-Premise 1: is this really plausible?
-Notice the scope and commitment of the premise
-Universal scope
-Unqualified commitment: not tentative
-It is thus requires a lot more evidence than a premise of qualified scope and commitment
-Science never admits to having final answers?
-Religion always claims to have final answers?
-Premise 3:
-Notice that the premise is qualified and tentative this time
-It thus requires less evidence than an unqualified, non-tentative premise
-Still, the premise has problems:
-Some scientists have used scientific knowledge to control human beings, not liberate them
-Some religious leaders seek to encourage the liberation of the spirit, not to stifle it
-Thus, one or more premises are unacceptable
-Therefore, the argument is not cogent

B. Failing on the (R) Condition:
-Sample passage: “Some foreign publications are unduly critical of my country. I believe the U.S. was justified in withholding its U.N. duties. At least twice, the Soviets have withheld theirs when they did not approve of U.N. policies (peace actions in Korea and what is now called Zaire). The foreign press did not get very worked up about it. U.N. members have constantly found fault with the U.S. They abuse us on the one hand and expect handouts on the other. Parents of adolescents face similar problems.
I personally never insist on respect from anybody, but those who do not give it to me need not bother asking me for any financial help.”

-Standardizing the argument:
1. The Soviets have twice withheld U.N. dues when they did not approve of U.N. policies.
2. U.N. members have constantly found fault with the United States.
3. U.N. members who abuse the United States and then expect handouts are like adolescents.
------------------------
4. Therefore, the United States was justified in withholding its U.N. dues.

-The R condition: are the premises relevant to the conclusion?
-Notice that the premises aren’t linked – they’re supposed to provide convergent support
-Premise 1 is not relevant to the conclusion
-Facts about the Soviets withholding its U.N. dues is irrelevant to the U.S. and its obligations to the U.N.
-Nor is there any attempt to draw an analogy between the U.S. and the Soviet Union
-Premise 2 is not relevant to the conclusion
-That others criticize the U.S. is not relevant to whether the U.S. is justified in failing to fulfill a formal obligation
-Premise 3 is not relevant to the conclusion
-The issue is about a formal obligation to pay dues; it’s not about whether the U.S. should give the U.N. a “handout”
-Contractual obligations to meet certain conditions are not the same thing as handouts, which are not obligatory
-Thus, none of the premises are relevant to the conclusion, in which case they don’t support it
-Therefore, the argument is not cogent

C. Failing on the (G) Condition

-Sample passage: “We arrived at the park gate at 7:25 P.M at which time the cashier gleefully took money for admission. Upon entering the zoo and walking across the bridge, the loudspeaker was stating that the zoo buildings were closing at 8:00 P.M. We asked if we would not get a pass for the following day. The answer was no. In summary, it is easy to see that Calgary is anything but a friendly city, but rather out to rake off the tourist for all they can.”

-Standardizing the argument:
1. Some tourists were given unfriendly treatment at the Calgary zoo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Therefore, Calgary is an unfriendly city, out to exploit tourists.

-The G condition: do the premises give adequate grounds for accepting the conclusion?
-Premise 1 is certainly relevant to the conclusion
-It certainly provides some evidence for it
-However, it’s clearly not enough evidence for it
-The fact that some tourists, in a small region of Calgary, were treated unfairly doesn’t provide good evidence that the city of Calgary as a whole is unfriendly and out to exploit tourists
-Thus, the argument doesn’t provide adequate grounds to accept its conclusion
-Therefore, the argument is not cogent

D. Satisfying All Three Conditions
-Sample passage: “Freedom, in education as in other things, must be a matter of degree. Some freedoms cannot be tolerated. I met a lady once who maintained that no child should ever be forbidden to do anything, because a child ought to develop its nature from within. “How about if its nature leads it to swallow pins?” I asked; but I regret to say the answer was mere vituperation. And yet every child, left to itself, will sooner or later swallow pins, or drink poison out of medicine bottles, or fall out of an upper window, or otherwise bring itself to a bad end. At a slightly later age, boys, when they have the opportunity, will go unwashed, overeat, smoke till they are sick, catch chills from sitting in wet feet, and so on—who may nor all have Elisha’s powers of repartee. Therefore, one who advocates freedom in education cannot mean the children should do exactly as they please all day long. An element of discipline and authority must exist.”

-Standardizing the argument:
1. Both younger and older children, left to themselves, can easily come to physical harm.
2. Older children, left to themselves, often are very annoying to adults.
----------
3. Therefore, children simply cannot be left to do as they please all day long.
------------------------
4. Therefore, there must be some element of discipline and authority in education.

-Evaluating the argument:
-The A condition: acceptable premises
-Premises 1 and 2 are clearly acceptable
-It’s common knowledge about the behavior of children
-This leads us to see if they are also relevant to premise 3
-The R condition: relevant premises
-Premises 1 and 2 are clearly relevant to premise 3
-The fact that children will harm themselves and others if left to themselves is relevant to whether we should leave themselves to do as they please all day
-The G condition: the premises provide adequate grounds
-Together, the premises give enough support to accept subconclusion 3
-Therefore, the subargument is cogent
-Evaluating the main argument:
-We’ve seen that the main premise – 3 -- is acceptable, since it’s cogently supported
-That leaves us with evaluating its relevance and grounds-adequacy for the main conclusion – 4
-But 3 is clearly relevant to 4
-And 3 clearly provides adequate grounds for 4
-Thus, the argument has acceptable and relevant premises, and they provide adequate grounds for accepting its conclusion
-Therefore, the argument is cogent!

4. The Significance of Argument Evaluation
-We need to be careful about what is shown when you demonstrate that an argument is not cogent
-You have not shown that the conclusion is false.
-After all, bad arguments can be given for true conclusions!
-Rather, you’ve just shown that, whether or not the conclusion is true, the argument offered is not a good reason to believe it.
-On the other hand, if you've demonstrated the cogency of an argument, you've found an objectively rational basis for accepting a proposition -- one that gives prima facie evidence that a claim is true or probable.

5. Rationality and argument
-Basing beliefs on cogent arguments
-Changing our beliefs when there are cogent arguments against them

-Confirmation bias
-Having low standards for claims support our existing views; having high standards for claims that conflict with our existing views.
-Paying attention to and remembering evidence that confirms one’s views; ignoring, disregarding, or forgetting evidence that disconfirms one’s views.
-The temptation to reject views when they conflict with ours, before evaluating the arguments for them
-Evaluating arguments via the ARG method can help us overcome confirmation bias

6. Evaluating Arguments and Constructing Your Own Arguments
-Three sorts of responses, after evaluating an argument
-Reasoned acceptance
-Reasoned rejection
-Suspending judgment
-If you reject or suspend judgment on the cogency of an argument
-Need to provide reasons why, exactly, you reject it:
(i) Unacceptable premise? If so, which one(s), and why, exactly?
(ii) Irrelevant premise(s)? If so, why, exactly, are they irrelevant?
(iii) Inadequate grounds? If so, why, exactly, are they inadequate?
(iv) A combination of any of (i)-(iii)
-This means that you’ll have to construct your own arguments
-And these will need to be cogent, if they are to support your rejection or suspension of judgment

Did You See This Footage of a Meteor in Canada on the News Yesterday?

2008-11-23T12:47:00.000-08:00

I'm reading...

2008-11-21T11:54:00.000-08:00

The Great Philosophers. In it, the author claims that Medieval philosophy hasn't gotten a fair shake in the university system. He says the reason has been an over-reaction to Christianity's "hold on thought". He disagrees and goes on to call some of the medieval philosophers "true giants".

I wonder if any of you in the education business have found this to be true.

When Are Premises Acceptable? When Are They Unacceptable?

2008-11-18T20:34:00.000-08:00

The following is an outline of the key points in ch. 5 of Govier, Trudy. A Practical Study of Argument, 6th ed. (Wadsworth, 2006).

1. When a Premise is Acceptable
1.1 There’s a cogent argument for it (the premises are acceptable, they are relevant to the conclusion, and they provide adequate grounds for the conclusion (i.e., they raise the probability of the conclusion above 50%))

1.2 It’s supported elsewhere
1.2.1 By something else the author has said that meets acceptability-conditions (to be explained below)
1.2.2 Reference (usually a footnote) to a text that that meets the conditions of a proper appeal to authority: a peer-reviewed book or article by a qualified expert in that field (see below for details for other conditions of proper appeals to authority)

1.3 It’s known a priori to be true
1.3.1 Propositions knowable a priori are those that, once you understand what they mean, you automatically see that they’re necessarily true.
1.3.2 They are often statements that are true by definition, or true in virtue of the meanings of their constituent words
1.3.2.1 example 1: all triangles have three sides
1.3.2.2 example 2: all bachelors are unmarried
1.3.3 Other examples of a priori propositions are the truths of mathematics and logic
1.3.3.1 example 1: 2+3=5
13.3.2 example 2: If A is taller than B and B is taller than C, then A is taller than C.
1.3.4 However, some a priori propositions seem to go deeper than language; we seem to have rational insight into whether one property or structure includes or precludes another.
1.3.4.1 example 1: all red things are colored things (being colored is a constituent of being red)
1.3.4.2 example 2: nothing could be red all over and green all over at the same time. (the property being red all over precludes the property being green all over)

1.4 It’s a part of common knowledge:
1.4.1 Widely known, or…
1.4.2 Widely believed, and no widely known evidence against it
1.4.3 From our common experience, or …
1.4.4 From the “warehouse of accumulated knowledge” – the stock of facts that have been learned, disseminated, and passed down through human history
1.4.5 examples: stress and fatigue make a person susceptible to illness; a bike with unreliable brakes is unsafe to ride; travel by airplane is faster than travel by bicycle; racial discrimination has adversely affected people of color; Brazil is a South American country; mountain climbing is a sport requiring good health and strong muscles.

1.5 It’s based on acceptable testimony:
1.5.1 The claim’s not implausible: it doesn't conflict too much with our background knowledge of the world ("Once I held my breath under water for 15 minutes"; "I saw Elvis at Trader Joe's today")
1.5.2 The person or source isn’t unreliable
1.5.2.1 Known liar?
1.5.2.2 Bad hearing?
1.5.2.3 Biased/vested interest in the matter?
1.5.3 It’s restricted to the testifier’s experience and competence

1.6 It’s based on proper authority – i.e., expert testimony
1.6.1 The expert is reliable and credible in this context
1.6.2 Their claim falls within their area of specialization
1.6.3 The expert’s area of specialization is a genuine field of knowledge
1.6.4 The experts in that field agree about the claim in question[1]

1.7 Accepting premises provisionally:
1.7.1 When you don’t have enough evidence to show they’re acceptable
1.7.2 But they haven’t been shown to be unacceptable, either.
1.7.3 However, you might be interested in the logical implications of the premises – say, to know whether they have implausible consequences
1.7.4 If so, you can accept the premises “for the sake of argument”, in order to see what are their logical implications (“If the author turns out to be right, then that would mean…”)
1.7.5 Often, though, accepting premises provisionally plays a crucial role in evaluating risks and opportunities, and for planning
1.7.5.1 example 1: If a hurricane of such-and-such magnitude were to hit New Orleans, the levees will break. Therefore, we need to build them up and reinforce them
1.7.5.2 example 2: If I were to get certified in nursing, then I might well get a job that pays over 60,000 a year with full benefits, in which case I'd achieve the standard of living I want, and doing something I enjoy. Therefore, I'll go back to school.

2. When Premises are Unacceptable

2.1 Universal claims and counterexamples
2.1.1 A universal claim is one that claims to be true of all members of a class of things.
2.1.2 They are "all" and "every" claims
2.1.3 Often, though, a given universal claim doesn't explicitly contain an "all" word; rather, claims are assumed to be universal by default, and only assumed otherwise when qualified
2.1.2 examples: all women are weak; all latinos are lazy; men are pigs; etc.
2.1.3 Unfortunately (or fortunately?) universal claims are often false: they admit of exceptions
2.1.4 To state one of the exceptions of a universal claim is to give a counterexample to it
2.1.5 Thus, a universal claim is unacceptable if it admits of counterexamples

2.2 They’re known a priori to be false
2.2.1 self-contradictory claims (e.g.," all men are liars, but some are honest")
2.2.2 claims that contradict what it known a priori to be true ("e.g., some bachelors are married")
2.2.3 self-refuting claims (e.g., "I cannot write a single word in English"; "all English sentences are less than three words long"; "I know that only scientific claims count as knowledge")

2.3 They contradict one another; so at least one of them must be false
2.3.1 explicit contradictions ("it's raining now and it's not raining now")
2.3.2 implicit contradictions ("I know I'm in my house. Knowledge requires having evidence that's good enough to rule out alternatives to what you believe. My evidence for my belief that I'm in my house isn't good enough to rule out the alternative that I'm in the Matrix.")

2.4 They’re so vague or ambiguous that it’s not possible to determine what sort of evidence would make them acceptable or unacceptable
2.4.1 example: "Depression is widespread among young women."
2.4.2 Depression, widespread, and young are too vague in this context to know the conditions under which the statement would decisively count as false.

2.5 They depend on faulty/unacceptable assumptions
2.5.1 It’s unclear exactly what the relevant word or claim means, exactly
2.5.2 It could have more than one meaning, and it doesn’t specify which one
2.5.3 The claim or concept is “fuzzy” – it’s not clear what the conditions are that would make it true or false, or applicable/inapplicable
2.5.4 They’re not more acceptable than the conclusion
2.5.5 They beg the question:
2.5.5.1 One or more premises are acceptable only if you’ve already accept the conclusion!
2.5.5.2 Also known as a circular argument
2.5.5.3 The premises therefore don’t “support” the conclusion in any interesting way
2.5.6 This is "preaching to the choir" reasoning:
2.5.6.1 the premises sound plausible to those in the "in group", since they already accept the conclusion (already implied in the premises).
2.5.6.2 but when the same argument is given to a member in the "out group", they don't accept the premises. For they don't (yet?) have good evidence for the premises being offered.
2.5.6.3 Example 1: 1. Taking an innocent human being's life is murder; 2. abortion at any stage of pregnancy is the taking of an innocent human life; 3. So, abortion is murder. (wait! What's the evidence for premise (2)?)
2.5.6.4 Example 2: 1. Belief in God is belief in a supernatural entity; 2. Beliefs about supernatural entities are unjustifiable; 3. So, belief in God is unjustifiable (wait! What's the evidence for premise (2)?)
------------------
Notes:
[1] So why are these notes about acceptability-conditions acceptable? Because of this footnote that meets the conditions of "supported elsewhere, via a proper appeal to authority. These notes are an outline of Govier, Trudy. A Practical Study of Argument, 6th Edition (Wadsworth, 2005), pp. 132-171.

The Onion: 'Cosmopolitan' Institute Completes Decades-Long Study On How To Please Your Man

2008-11-16T23:25:00.001-08:00

'Cosmopolitan' Institute Completes Decades-Long Study On How To Please Your Man

Did Palin Think Africa's a Country?

2008-11-16T22:25:00.000-08:00

Nope. Turns out the story's bullshit. The details about the origin and transmission of the story are actually pretty interesting.

Thanks to B.J. for the reminder about this.

Alex Astilean - SPEEDFIT - Treadmobil

2008-11-16T15:09:00.001-08:00

Can this be a real product?

Corporate Social Responsibility, Take III: Norman Bowie's Kantian Business Ethics

2008-11-16T12:42:00.000-08:00

Bowie's Kantian account of business ethics offers a bit more constraint to Friedman's account. His paper isn't directly aimed at providing an account of CSR, but it does have important implications for CSR. These come out in the later sections. The paper also provides a nice introduction to Kantian ethics -- especially his fundamental moral principle: The Categorical Imperative.

Notes: “Kantian Business Ethics”, by Norman Bowie

The basic picture: Spell out the basics of Kant’s ethical theory and apply it to business contexts. The claim is that Kantian ethics has much to contribute to business ethics.

The paper at a glance: the labels of the main sections of the paper, and the main idea covered in each such section:

-Section 1: “Background” (pp. 3-4): Discussion of some rudimentary biographical facts about Immanuel Kant, as well as the main concepts that make up the basis of his ethical theory.

-The highest good is the Good Will (i.e., acting with the sole intention (or, motive) of doing one’s duty).

-So, it is the intention, or motive, of an action, and not it’s consequences, that determine if an act is morally right or wrong.

-Preliminaries to discussion of the Categorical Imperative:

-Maxim: a principle or basis of action. Maxims have the following formal structure: “Do action A in circumstances of kind C for purpose P”. (e.g., “Make a phone call whenever you have the urge, and are not in class, for the purpose of making others think that you are usually available when they need you.” ). They therefore specify (i) an action, (ii) a set of circumstances in which the action should be performed, and (iii) a purpose or goal which your are trying to achieve by the action.

-Imperative: a command (e.g., “You ought to help elderly women cross the street.”; or, “You should not lie to people.”). There are two kinds of imperatives:

-Hypothetical imperative: a command that you should obey if doing so will help you get something you want or desire. They have the form, “If you want X, then you should do Y”. (e.g., “If you want good grades, then you should study hard”.).
-Notice that your obligation to obey a hypothetical command depends on whether or not you want the thing specified in the first part of the command: If you don’t want that thing, then you have no obligation to obey the command.

-Categorical Imperative: A command that you have to obey no matter what, even if obeying the command won’t satisfy any of your desires or wants. Categorical imperatives have the form, “Do X”: there are no ifs, ands, or buts (e.g., “don’t murder”; or “be honest when you are talking to your parents”). These are the only kinds of imperatives that apply to morality.

The three formulations of Kant's Categorical Imperative (‘CI’ for short):

-1st Formulation (“The Formulation of Universal Law” (‘FUL’)): Act only on maxims which you can will to be universal laws of nature.

-2nd Formulation (“The Formulation of Humanity” (‘FH’)): Always treat the humanity in a person as an end, and never as a means merely.

-3rd Formulation (“The Formulation of the Kingdom of Ends” (‘FKE’)): So act as if you were a member of an ideal kingdom of ends in which you were both subject and sovereign at the same time.

-Only humans can act freely: they have free will.

-This allows them to act rationally: they can freely choose to act according to the dictates of reason.

-And this, in turn, allows them to act morally: because we are rational, we can use reason to discover true, universal moral rules; and because we are free, we can choose to follow those rules.

-Section 2: “The Self-Defeating Nature of Immoral Actions” (pp. 4-7): Discussion of the 1st formulation of the Categorical Imperative, and some of its implications for business ethics.

-Preliminaries: the idea of universalizing a maxim, and the two kinds of contradictions that can be generated from a universalized maxim:

-Universalizing a maxim: taking one of your personal maxims and conceiving of a world in which that maxim become a law that everyone knew about and had to obey.

-when universalizing a maxim generates a logical contradiction: when you attempt to universalize the maxim, the key concept in the maxim becomes incoherent/logically contradictory.

-when universalizing a maxim generates a practical contradiction: obeying the maxim wouldn’t work as a means to achieve the purpose or goal in the maxim.

-The Universalizability Test implied by the FUL: Suppose you are considering doing some action, and are wondering if it is morally permissible to do that action. To find out if it really is morally permissible, try to universalize the maxim upon which the action is based. If you can universalize that maxim without generating a logical contradiction or a practical contradiction, then the action is morally permissible. But if you can’t universalize it without generating one of the two types of contradiction, then it is not morally permissible.

-Notice that saying that an action fails the universalizability test is not to say that the action has bad consequences. ***Consequences have nothing to do with morality in Kantian ethics.***

-The 1st Formulation of CI is a principle of “fair play”.

-Sample applications of the FUL to business contexts:

-Theft of company goods by employers, customers or managers: FUL says that it’s morally impermissible, since it can’t be universalized.

-Breaking contracts: impermissible, since it can’t be universalized. Generates a practical contradiction.

-An objection from Hegel and from Bradley:

-Korsgaard’s reply:

-Another objection: contract-breaking happens all the time in the business world. Yet people still engage in making contracts. But Kant’s universalizability test would seem to imply that contract-breaking would generate a practical contradiction: if we universalized the maxim of breaking contracts, then no one would enter into contracts, since they knew that no one would honor them. Therefore, Kant’s universalizability test is shown to be false and worthless.

-reply: No. The objection fails to appreciate that a threshold level of contract-breaking frequency must be reached before the act of contract-breaking won’t work as a means of achieving certain ends. But that threshold hasn’t been crossed.

-Section 3: “Treating Stakeholders as Persons” (pp. 7-10): Discussion of the 2nd formulation of the Categorical Imperative, and some of its implications for business ethics.

-Preliminaries:

-Two kinds of value: instrumental and intrinsic.

-Instrumental value: “Instrument value”, or “tool value”: If something has mere instrumental value, then it is valuable only to the extent that you can use it (as an “instrument” or “tool”) to get something else. As soon as such a thing becomes useless, it is considered worthless. E.g., cars, doorstops, and in general, inanimate objects have mere instrumental value).

-Intrinsic value: If something has intrinsic value, then it retains its value even if it is completely useless. In other words, it doesn’t have value in virtue of its usefulness as a tool. Kant argued that people have intrinsic value, in virtue of their possessing free will and rationality (which, in turn, enables them to act rationally, and therefore, morally). Their free will and rationality gives them inherent worth and dignity.

-treating someone as a mere means to an end: this is the same thing as treating someone as though they had mere instrumental value (“tool” value). That is, treating them as a mere thing, to be used as one sees fit, and then abandoning them when your done using them.

-treating someone as an end in themselves: This is the same as treating someone as though they had intrinsic value. According to Kant, if something has intrinsic value, then you can’t treat them like an inanimate object, to be used at your disposal. A thing with intrinsic value is priceless, and can’t be used or manipulated to suit your own ends. Rather, you must respect a bearer of intrinsic value, and seek to benefit it. Again, Kant believed that all persons have intrinsic value.

-Negative freedom: freedom from deception and coercion.

-Positive freedom: freedom to develop one’s human capacities (e.g., the capacities for rationality and morality)

-The FH implies another test for moral permissibility/impermissibility: The Respect for Persons test: If an act violates a person’s positive or negative freedom, then it is morally impermissible. But if it doesn’t, then it’s morally permissible.

-violating someone’s negative freedom amounts to deceiving or coercing them.

-violating someone’s positive freedom amounts to hindering their rational or moral development.

-Sample applications of the Respect for Persons test in business contexts:

-Caveat: Doesn’t imply that commercial transactions are immoral. For even though you treat someone as a means to an end in such transactions (e.g., to increase profits), you don’t thereby treat them as a mere means. For if the transaction is consensual and voluntary by all parties involved, then although they are being used as a means, they aren’t used as a mere means. And the respect for persons test only rules out treating others as mere means.

-Application 1: Can’t coerce or deceive an employee or boss.

-Application 2: employers can’t be secretive about the company’s financial records. Leads to an unequal balance of power, which can then lead to an abuse of power against employees. Businesses need to practice open book management. Equal access to the company’s information.

-Application 3: employers need to create work for employees that is meaningful, and which makes possible and encourages the development of their human capacities. For example:

-allow the employees to exercise responsibility, power, creativity.

-some conditions of meaningful employee work:
1) is freely chosen and provides opportunities for the worker to exercise autonomy on the job
2) supports the autonomy and rationality of human beings: work that lessens autonomy or that undermines rationality is immoral.
3) provides a salary sufficient to exercise independence and provide for physical well-being and the satisfaction of some of the worker’s desires.
4) enables a worker to develop rational capacities.
5) does not interfere with a worker’s moral development.

-managers are morally required by Kant’s ethics to provide such meaningful work, based on the 2nd formulation (FH), and the Respect for Persons test it implies.

-Application 4: downsizing and massive layoffs: permissible? An open question. Depends on a number of factors.

-Section 4: “The Business Firm as a Moral Community” (pp. 10-12): Discussion of the 3rd formulation of the Categorical Imperative, and some of its implications for business ethics.

-The 3rd formulation of CI, the FKE, implies that the rules of a business must be universally endorsable by all rational agents. This follows from the dignity and respect that applies to persons (since they have intrinsic value, due to their free will and capacity for rationality)

-But if so, then the FKE implies at least 7 principles of company organization (see text, p. 10, for the statement of the principles).

-Implication 2 of the FKE for business: the imperfect duty of beneficence and corporate social responsibility: Kant argued that if someone benefits you, then you have an obligation to benefit them in return. But corporations benefit greatly from society: (i) society protects businesses by providing the means to enforce their contracts; (ii) society provides the requisite infrastructure for the normal functioning of a business (roads, sanitation facilities, police and fire departments); (iii) it provides an educated workforce (that’s you!) that is necessary for a successful business. Therefore, since businesses benefit from society in these ways, they have an obligation to benefit society in return. This probably implies that it should stop engaging in “creative” techniques in tax evasion.

-Implication 3: management must adopt a “Theory Y” account of human nature. Employees tend to behave according to the way they are treated, so treat them as though they were responsible, active, initiative-takers.

-Implication 4: decentralize and democratize the company’s power structure. No authoritarian hierarchy of power. All stakeholders (e.g., stockholders, employees) must participate in company decisions and policies. No blind following of orders.

-Section 5: “The Purity of Motive” (pp. 12-13): Discussion of a major objection to the application of Kantian ethics to business, as well as the author’s replies to the objection.

-The objection: If Kantianism is true, then an act is considered moral only if it is purely morally motivated: if an act is tainted by partially selfish motives, then that act is immoral. But even the most morally upright CEO makes decisions that are at least partially motivated by considerations of self-interest (e.g., profitability). But if so, then Kantianism implies that no business can be conducted in a way that satisfies the demands of morality, which is absurd.

-Reply 1: That’s right. Kant was mistaken in thinking that a moral action could contain no self-interested motives. But we can revise his account by allowing for such motives. As long as the maxim behind an act meets the demands of universalizability, respect for persons, and universal endorsibility, then the act is moral. There is no need to go further and say that the agent’s motives must be “pure” in this sense.

-Reply 2: People naively think that if a business makes decisions in order to increase profits, then it is necessarily acting according to their own self-interest. But this is false. Businesses are usually making such profitable decisions out of an obligation to stockholders, to obey contracts with the public, and to abide by charters of incorporation.

-Reply 3: It’s probably in a business’s best interest to strive for purity of motive, even if we drop it as an obligation. Businesses should abandon “bottom line” thinking: “perhaps we should view profits as a consequence of good business practices instead of a goal of business.” (p. 13)

-Section 6: “Kant’s Cosmopolitanism and International Business” (pp. 13-16): An argument that Kantian ethics, if applied to international business, will lead to a universal, minimal, “market morality”, as well as contributing to world peace.

Family Guy - Over

2008-11-15T23:34:00.001-08:00

I love this song

2008-11-15T08:40:00.000-08:00

This song reminds me of the Beatitudes more than any other. Last time I preached the beatitudes (quite a whole ago), i had someone play this song, and afterwards i felt like just reading the beatitudes and then sitting down. Enough said.

HR Puffnstuff

2008-11-14T23:38:00.001-08:00

Hear that? That's the sound of your mind being blown.

Nouvelle Vague - The killing moon

2008-11-12T23:03:00.001-08:00

Nice cover of a classic from Echo and the Bunnymen by Nouvelle Vague. I hadn't noticed how great the lyrics were to that song until I heard this cover.

Who might be our 45th pres.

2008-11-12T08:01:00.001-08:00

This is the gov of La. The youngest and first non white since the reconstruction, son of
imigrant parents from India and Rhodes scholar. He is a devout catholic (coverted from hinduism in his teens.) And so far by every account has done a remarkable job in La. It would be interesting if we have two non white presidents in a row.

A Song That Taps Into My Spiritual Leanings

2008-11-11T03:35:00.000-08:00

Jesca Hoop's "Enemy". A video of an in-studio performance of the song can be found here.

Great lyrics, too.

An Interesting Article about the Racial Dynamics of the Election

2008-11-07T16:08:00.000-08:00

From the LA Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-steele5-2008nov05,0,6553798.story

What Ezra Klein Said

2008-11-06T20:20:00.001-08:00

Here:

"Dear Alaska,

WTF?

Sincerely,
People in this country who think seven criminal convictions should probably lose you your Senate seat."

This is one of my favorite quotes. This sums up how I view my faith these days.

2008-11-05T16:37:00.000-08:00

I believe that in relation to the Christian mysteries we Christians are like people who have never seen a mirror, or even a reflection in a pond, trying to grasp the nature of a mirror from listening to one of their fellows who has been shown a looking-glass by a traveler. Perhaps the closest analogy the observer of the mirror can find is provided by pictures scratched in the sand : "A 'mirror' is a kind of flat plate that shows pictures like the ones we scratch in the sand, but they're three-dimensional--looking at a mirror is almost like looking through a window, even though the mirror has hardly any thickness and you just see an ordinary surface if you turn it round and look at the back--and they're in color, and they're absolutely perfect pictures (except that they're backwards), and they change and move just the way real things do, and the mirror always shows pictures of the things right in front of it." One can easily imagine the conceptual havoc a skeptical philosopher among these people could wreak on this attempt at description. Nevertheless, considering the situation of the speaker and his audience, it's a good, practical description of a mirror. (It would, for example, almost certainly enable someone who had never seen a mirror to recognize a mirror on his first encounter with one.) In my view, creedal descriptions of the Trinity and the Incarnation are good, practical descriptions of real things, descriptions that will do till we no longer see through a glass darkly. I am confident that they are at least as good as descriptions of curved space or the wave-particle duality in works of popular science.

-Peter Van Inwagen

OBAMA: Our 44th PRESIDENT

2008-11-04T20:05:00.001-08:00

Kenyans Pull for Obama...

2008-11-04T16:50:00.000-08:00

... local bull wants McCain. Here.

VOTE ,VOTE ,VOTE!!

2008-11-04T15:08:00.000-08:00

Please get out there and vote! Even though I have been quite annoyed by all the ads especially all the lies and low blows this has been a really exciting election.Happy voting!

There's No Bottom to the Dumb

2008-11-04T12:49:00.000-08:00

Here. Michael Alix, the former chief risk officer for Bear Stearns, has just been hired as -- wait for it --the official in charge of assessing the safety and soundness of domestic banking institutions for the Federal Reserve. Are you kidding me?

One More Short One

2008-11-03T15:56:00.001-08:00

Comic Relief

2008-11-03T15:49:00.001-08:00

prop 4

2008-11-03T13:31:00.001-08:00

This is on the con side "Decreased birth rates and court costs in lower-classed (italics mine) communities, saving the state over 2 billion dollars annually."

Can anyone say eugenics?

Pros and Cons of the Current Propositions....

2008-11-03T10:09:00.000-08:00

can be found here.

2008-11-02T19:41:00.000-08:00

What tv show had the following lyrics in its theme song:

"No phone, no lights no motor cars, not single luxury..."?

Latest Pollster Data (With Automatic Real-Time Updates)

2008-11-02T19:34:00.000-08:00

Here's One

2008-11-02T19:29:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mlt4GQ45TXg

2008-11-02T17:26:00.000-08:00

Judges can be funny.

2008-11-02T14:53:00.000-08:00

2008-11-02T13:27:00.001-08:00

Jack Albertson starred in this mid-to-late-70's show.

2008-11-02T13:15:00.001-08:00

2008-11-02T13:00:00.000-08:00

The father of a family creates a robot that looks just like a human girl, and the family keeps it a secret, pretending that she's a sibling.

2008-11-02T12:51:00.001-08:00

2008-11-02T12:43:00.000-08:00

Widower Steven Douglas is left to bring up three boys all by himself with the aide of his housekeeper "Uncle Charlie".

2008-11-02T12:42:00.001-08:00

2008-11-02T12:27:00.000-08:00

Two brothers with opposite personalities find that, working together, they can solve even the toughest of crimes.

New Youtube Scavenger Hunt

2008-11-02T12:08:00.000-08:00

Let's do this: mention an obscure cast member name, show plot -- or even an obsure plot of one particular episode (but don't reveal the name of the show) and then everyone has to do a little detective work to find them -- not much though (probably a youtube or a Google search would do it). When you figure it out, post a youtube video of the show with that character or plot. On your mark, get set. Go!

This One Kicked Ass

2008-11-02T11:37:00.000-08:00

unrelated, but I thought of it when looking for the Webster intro

2008-11-02T11:26:00.000-08:00

Find more videos like this on www.truveo.com.

We Could Do This 4ever

2008-11-02T11:19:00.000-08:00

Dukes Of Hazzard intro

2008-11-02T11:13:00.001-08:00

2008-11-02T10:38:00.001-08:00

2008-11-02T10:08:00.001-08:00

2008-11-02T10:07:00.001-08:00

YouTube Scavenger Hunt: Old TV Show Intros

2008-11-02T01:19:00.001-07:00

Bring it, bitches.

Anybody Read this One?

2008-11-01T09:27:00.000-07:00

I'm reading it for a class I'm developing.

Inspiring Message of the Day

2008-11-01T00:45:00.003-07:00

Notes on Corporate Social Responsibiliy, Part II: A Critique of Friedman-Style Views

2008-10-30T20:13:00.000-07:00

Preliminaries: The Nature of Rights
-positive rights: rights to receive a claim or benefit (e.g., education)
-negative rights: the right not to be interfered with (e.g., speech, the pursuit of happiness)
-the reciprocity thesis: for every right, there is a corresponding duty for others to respect that right (for positive rights: a duty for an individual or group to provide a benefit; for negative rights: a duty for an individual or group not to interfere).

Rights-Based Arguments for Friedman-Style Views

Argument I: The Argument from the Right to Individual Liberty
-the right to liberty is the right to be free from human interference in one’s pursuits.
-but this implies that humans are free to enter into any economic transactions that they desire.
-but then this implies that no one, including the government, can interfere with one’s entering into such transactions. Their role is limited to ensuring that no one interferes with this liberty, and so ensuring that the economic activities of businesses stay free of coercion and fraud.

critique of the argument:
-There is no such thing as a general right to liberty
-obviously, I don’t have a right to swing a baseball bat when another human being is within the radius of such a swing!
-So there are limits to individual liberty.
-But, as stated, the argument for the extreme free market view depends on the right to liberty being completely general and unrestricted. So it fails as stated.
-But even if we modify the argument so that it is only based on a specific right to liberties that are compatible with the extreme free market view, those liberties would come into conflict with other rights.

Argument II: The Argument from the Right to Private Property
-The right to private property is the right of a property owner to do whatever they want with that property.
-the constraints of government regulations (and some moral constraints) interfere with such a right: they interfere with your right to do whatever you want with your property
-So, such moral and governmental constraints conflict with the right to private property, and so need to be eliminated.
-But this is just to say that the right to private property implies that extreme free market view is justified.

critique of the argument
(1) There are many ways in which the right to private property comes into conflict with other rights, and so there are many cases that show that there are limits on the right to private property.
(2) To find out what these limits are, we need to look at some key justifications for the right to private property. Three key arguments for the right are:
(I) Utility: Allowing people a right to private property motivates them to work hard and be productive. If everyone is highly productive, then this will create more jobs and more goods and services. And this, in turn, means that their overall standard of living will increase.
(II) Autonomy: if we can’t own land and other kinds of property, then we will be dependent on others for our well-being. But if so, then to that extent, we are not autonomous. But autonomy is a necessary condition for a worthwhile life. Conversely, if we can (and do) own property, then to that extent we are independent of others, autonomus and capable of human flourishing.
(III) Fairness: It is only fair to be able to receive the “return” or outcome of your labor.
(3) Now if someone exercises a right in such a way that the exercise of that right conflicts with the justifications of that right, then this is obviously unacceptable. But the exercise of the right to private property - when exercised in an extreme free market - can conflict with the justification of that very right.
-So if a business owner uses her company in a way that is unfair to others, then her justification for that right is defeated.
-And if a business owner uses her company in a way that diminishes the autonomy of others, then her justification for that right is defeated.
-Finally, if a business owner uses her company in a way that diminishes the overall utility in a society, then her justification for that right is defeated.

Can We Cut the California Population By, Say, 50% or so?

2008-10-30T20:10:00.001-07:00

Because that would really help me out a lot, waterwise.

2008-10-30T17:07:00.001-07:00

Colorado Springs Speaks Again

2008-10-28T22:05:00.000-07:00

An article on a hypothetical letter posted by Focus on the Family if Obama wins the election.
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2008/10/an_obama_admini.html

2008-10-28T17:38:00.000-07:00

The Family Guy: Stewie on Colin Farrell

2008-10-26T23:22:00.000-07:00

NEWS FLASH: I am officially "THE MAN!"

2008-10-25T16:58:00.000-07:00

Gabby told me today she is expecting! Keep us in your prayers. I think I'm going to call my boys down there Phelps' from now on.