Objurgate

\OB-juhr-gayt\, transitive verb:
To express strong disapproval of; to criticize severely.

~~~~~~~

American Empire Part II

Which raises another concern. Living here, I completely disagree with our country’s national policy. I am afraid that action in the Middle East is shades of at the very least military expansion, and at most a growing Empire (where here, the Empire is a burgeoning money tree). I abhor the national politics of encouraging fear among our own people in order to spur action against “terrorists”, who are must less dangerous, and much less terrifying, than our country and its policies have come to be. Many of the things I love about this country have dwindled—the media buckles, at times, under political presence, the Senate bows to the President, the people’s discontent ignored, free speech readily available, unhindered, and seemingly entirely ineffective. These are only my concerns—there is still plenty I love about my country.

But if it were to be fought—if my country were to be retaliated against for further invasions, for instituting corporate and superpower terrorism, for disobeying the UN and being an aggressor to financial ends—if my country were to be fought against, whether in a political, or even an aggressive sense, I don’t know what I would do.

Shall I take up arms, fight for the homeland, though I foresaw such retaliation from those fearing the beast? I’m not talking about terrorists coming to American and blowing things up—not cowardice; I’m talking about sensible countries that after years and years of attempting treaties, reasonable dialogue, peaceful intervening, have no other choice but to put a stop to American politics (this is, of course, if America continues along this current path—which I have my doubts and hopes it will). But if such a thing occurred, I don’t know if I’d agree with American foreign policy enough to fight for it.

In fact, it is my inclination at this point that I would feel a moral obligation not to fight for it. If I were to fight, it would be for those I love—my family, community, the parts of America I respect. The idea of American democracy. But if that institution has been de-established, and I am asked to fight for an aggressive, cruel foreign policy, I could not defend such notions. If America became an Empire, I might even agree with its being toppled.

And such a thing would break my heart—to not only watch all the things I love about my country blown away on the wings of financial prominence, but to thereafter be obliged, and think it sensible, to wish its suppression. I mire such things when talking about the Iraq war and American foreign policy constantly, and thus do I say I fear an American Empire.

It would be America in name alone, aggressive, ignorant of its people’s desires, and ritualistically concerned with monetary gain and little else. Would you defend such a future?

Let’s hope it never comes to that end. I hope for change above all else in 2008.

Sophistry

–noun, plural -ries.

1.	a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.

2.	a false argument; sophism.

~~~~~~~

American Empire Part I

I fear an American Empire. Especially when we explored in class what seems to be the real motives in beginning and persisting with the war, the whiff of this end whirls through the air. Though certainly not a distinct future at this point, it is not hard to imagine a few more key events leading, inevitably, to American democracy becoming the next biggest worldwide oppressor.

This time, however, the ground will slip under the people rather experience deliberate disregard for them (such an empire as Roman gave passing concern to plebeians on a daily basis). In a country built on freedom and the participation of people in the government, the government must slowly be pried away. Perhaps it is only my experience, but this is what I’ve felt happening in the last few years—more and more people plead for change, and less and less happens. Undermined, people lose faith in the system. Rather than spurring more change, it robs people of initiative. This will reach a breaking point, accompanied by revolt, but until then, how much power will government officials sap? I fear by the time people rise up, the government will be too powerful to rise against.

America has put a large stars and stripes blueprint in the Middle East. It does not matter whether unconvincing threats or merely financial gain will drive us to overthrow more countries in the area. This is exactly what an Empire does—seek to expand, by force. While “establishing democracy” is certainly not a bad thing, forcibly establishing democracy is a farce. It will produce no free people and only puppet leaders. Instead, our presence as the best example of a terrorist threat is being established—literally, through terror, we are daring the world's hand. That is unfortunately the role of a superpower—save a superpower with moral obligations, which our country has not only in recent years, but throughout the last half century, abandoned, we have the power to crush others and instead of suppressing it, use it. If I did not live here, I would be terrified. I live here, and I still am.

Salubrious

\suh-LOO-bree-us\, adjective:
Favorable to health; promoting health; healthful.

~~~~~~~

I think the self does indeed reside at the center of two grades of circles—moral obligation, and sincere concern. Not only does the body and mind often demand it, but in aiding others we need to be sure ourselves are intact as well. However, I think it need not be alone in that central circle—as I can think of those who share it, not completely altruistically, but selfless enough that their concern for self may be stated as equal to the respect and attention paid to the self. Thus, our moral obligations need not be solely concerned with the self first at all times, but might, it the best of circumstances, seek pressing priority for improved living of several.

Afflatus

\uh-FLAY-tuhs\, noun:
A divine imparting of knowledge; inspiration.

~~~~~~~

We should recognize the universality of a phrase like, “There’s no place like home,” because it doesn’t imply our idiosynchratic locations, just an intrinsically shared and human concept. These will unite us. But without greater finesse and maturity it will not be enough.

We should share these needs rather than pit them against one another. Perhaps we entertain pockets of loyalty so passionately to ignore our insecurities—we want to be special, unique and loved. When we find a place and set of people who make us feel that way, we defend it wholeheartedly, under the fear that letting go of the contingent peculiarities will throw the whole barrel, slaked insecurities and all, overboard.

We all need this home. It seems likely that many of the loyalties we hold have only temporarily and superficially solved our greatest concerns—the need to feel like we belong, or like we are unique and intelligent, are all challenged when recognizing universality, perusing common human experiences, resisting an “it’s us and them” scenarios. In these cases, recognizing universality will throw out security with the bathwater because our insecurities are not solved or confronted, but persistently ignored or satiated by these otherwise arbitrary attachments.

Bellwether

\BEL-weth-uhr\, noun:
A leader of a movement or activity; also, a leading indicator of future trends.

~~~~~~~

My attempted is-ought bridge--I think I figured out what's wrong with it, but you let me know.

1. Hurting others causes mental, emotional and physical suffering.
2. I do not need to hurt others.
3. The person being hurt will experience more suffering than I will satisfaction.
4. I care about others.
5. I do not hurt those I care about.
-------------
I ought not to hurt others.


It can even be simplified to this.

1. I care about others.
2. I do not need to hurt others.
3. Needless hurting betrays my care for others.
-------------
I ought not to hurt others.

Chicanery

\shih-KAY-nuh-ree\, noun:
1. The use of trickery or sophistry to deceive (as in matters of law).
2. A trick; a subterfuge.

~~~~~~~

Part II

This has often been called the “morally relevant difference” in debates concerning animal ethics. I have scoured material on the subject since early this school year, and since first considering that humans, too, are animals, I have not found one morally relevant difference between humans and animals that makes it morally acceptable to kill one for food and not the other.

Some have argued that morality is the difference—animals cannot treat us with the same respect for our lives, and are thus unqualified to receive moral consideration. I find it rather the opposite—in all cases of moral patienthood, where one creature is capable of morality, and the other unable to self-reflect (and thus be consciously aware of the suffering they may or may not cause), it is in the responsibility of the self-reflective being (the moral agent) to, instead of ignoring considerations of suffering incurred via their actions, take it within context and act accordingly.

Under this proviso, considering that sentient animals are very much capable of suffering, that between sentient animals and humans there are no morally relevant differences that allow suffering to be consciously caused one but not the other, and that as similar members of the biosphere of sentient creatures (as we, too, are animals), I find a responsibility not to eat animals, whether personally killed or not.

But, of course, this is where the “but” comes in, as I do not very much expect everyone will have the same opinion as me on this issue. However, if asked, I do think the average American should be a vegetarian—it gets very scary when people force you to elaborate on the details of what you believe, but I am not so bashful as to claim I think I alone am the only moral agent reasonably compelled (or should be reasonably compelled) to vegetarianism.

Nonetheless, it is in my greatest disinterest to lay stake in the morality of others, which is why, particularly in this scenario, what is most crucial is continued dialogue about the issue—as with all moral quandaries, it will always be the individual who must conclude what moral action is; all else is an appeal to force from an unqualified authority, and an inefficacious one at that.

Sacrosanct

\SAK-roh-sankt\, adjective:
Sacred; inviolable.

~~~~~~~

Part I

As mentioned in class, I think my answer to whether or not the average American should eat meat would be no, but under the proviso that this conclusion of my own not be arbitrarily or forcibly imposed on those who have no mind to follow it and probably would not anyway. As was seen with Prohibition, there is little sense in instituting a law most of the country would disagree with.

As that is the state of America today concerning meat eating, I think the most conducive platform to reform concerning animals begins with making the moral issue more visible—far too often the argument against meat eating is primarily concerned with whether or not the creature suffers, not whether or not it is wrong to kill the creature (which occurs for many different purposes, but one of the easier categories to discuss, I think, concerns killing them for food).

I believe the average American should not eat meat because they have the choice—the average American is monetarily equipped to choose their diet, and as such (ought implies can) owes it to themselves (again, of course, with respect to dietary needs) at least to consider why it is acceptable to kill and eat an animal and not a human. I am not here trying to establish the sameness of humans and nonhuman animals—as I myself believe there are valuable differentiations among living organisms (such as insects/plants and sentient creatures) that are morally relevant and important to keeping the argument from becoming a “all life is holy” fallacy.

Nor am I suggesting that animals are necessarily more valuable than humans merely because of their moral patienthood—rather, I suggest that we find a non-arbitrary criteria for determining why it is morally acceptable to kill a sentient animal and not a human.