Interesting Read: "The President of Good and Evil"

[archive_Bjaarki]

I've been reading a very interesting book. "The President of Good and Evil: The Ethics of George W. Bush." The author is Peter Singer, one of the world's leading bioethicists, who got into the study of the President's moral stance through the stem-cell research controversy.

This isn't just about the man's ethics, though. It's about the President's (and his followers') complete moral stance, their tendency to evoke "evil" as a noun (not an adjective), and the accompanying marginalization in public life of any philosophical position that does not draw on a very confused and self-contradictory "Christian" ethos.

From the Washington Post Book Review:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The President of Good & Evil, Peter Singer's timely and searching new book, is in effect an ethics tutorial directed toward the leader of the "free world." Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University, gives Bush a D, if not an outright fail. The bulk of the book is a litany of moral inconsistencies and failures, of persistent hypocrisy and doublethink. Singer's method is to contrast Bush's enunciations of principle with the realities of his policies, finding repeatedly that political expediency triumphs over declarations of principle. The list is by now familiar, but worth assembling. Bush began his presidency lamenting the injustice of children born to poverty and disadvantage: "And this is my solemn pledge: I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity." Yet his enormous cuts in taxation clearly entail the withdrawal of resources from social programs that would help ameliorate such problems.

His position on stem cell research, which stressed the absolute sanctity of life, even in the form of frozen embryos, sits ill with his cavalier attitude toward capital punishment, in which innocent people are not infrequently sent to their death, and with his ready acceptance of "collateral" civilian casualties in time of war. The protection of the legal rights of American citizens abroad who are accused of crimes, even to the point of rejecting the legitimacy of the International Criminal Court, is flatly inconsistent with the policy of detaining terrorist suspects for long periods without access to a lawyer and without being charged -- not to mention the use of coercive techniques of interrogation (i.e., torture). Free trade is extolled, but then massive subsidies are handed out to the farming industry, with catastrophic effects on struggling farmers in the developing world, and prohibitive tariffs slapped on the import of foreign steel. States' rights are to be respected, except when gay marriage is at issue. America is hymned for its personal freedom, but people are not free to engage in physician-assisted suicide in cases of terminal illness, and the medical use of marijuana is prohibited. Lying about your sex life is excoriated, but systematic dishonesty about the reasons for going to war is taken to be morally above board -- as, notoriously, with the now discredited claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa, about which Singer has a particularly acute discussion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know we're all pretty burned out from the election earlier this month, but this is one of the most important books I've read this year. At your public library, or $16 at Amazon.

Bjaarki

"First, say to yourself what you would become.
Then, do what you have to do."

[archive_Ulter]

Looks like I will have to break out the Barnes and Noble card again.

[Monster]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bjaarki:

a very confused and self-contradictory "Christian" ethos.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it was said best by in a father and son conversation by that great thinker, Homer Simpson:

Bart: "Dad, what religion are we?"

Homer: "You know, the one with all the well-meaning rules that don't work in real life -- uuhh, Christianity."

-------------------------


"You can kill the revolutionary,
but you can't kill the revolution."


I used to not believe in god, till I realized he was me.

[archive_Frackal]

Seriously... what is the deal with these guys? Singer, Chomsky...

These guys are like the Anne Coulters and Al Frankens of the intelligensia left...

That diatribe is about as fresh as my gym socks LOL.

I guess every group of people needs a pundit to preach to the paticular choir they belong to.

[DREXX]

Did you mean intelligentsia?

If it's not hard it's not worth doing...

[archive_Frackal]

Insert "t"

[Monster]

Your ignorance about Noam Chomsky is nothing short of staggering.

He is as critical of Democrats as Republicans...

His credentials speak for themself.

-------------------------


"You can kill the revolutionary,
but you can't kill the revolution."


I used to not believe in god, till I realized he was me.

[archive_Bjaarki]

Ah, there he is! I was wondering where he'd gotten to. Just like his main man. A sore winner.


Did you view Matewan yet? Or read any Steinbeck?

Didn't think so .....

Talk's easy.

[This message was edited by Ulter on 11-24-04 at 12:07 AM.]

[archive_therealj]

I read "The moon is down" and " Of mice and men" , can I have a pat on the back?

-----------------------------
-----------------------------
therealj@anabolicfitness.net

[archive_therealj]

The moon is down would actually be a good book to read now in relation to Iraq

-----------------------------
-----------------------------
therealj@anabolicfitness.net

[PQ]

That assessment of Singer is so eloquent...jackass, turd, incapable of copying a grocery list...ROFL! What do those descriptions have to do with ANY of the points touched upon in Bjaarki's excerpt of the original book review? Are Singer's statements/views valid or not?

I'd say valid, highlights of Bush's track record, or you'd be arguing against them, typing away until your fingers bled instead of attacking the author...

Election burnout...no kidding!!!

[Monster]

This must be the intellectual ellegance that earned him that 98% on his recent paper.

(proof that book smarts dont equate to real smarts?)

-------------------------


"You can kill the revolutionary,
but you can't kill the revolution."


I used to not believe in god, till I realized he was me.

[archive_Bjaarki]

I need a little clarification .....

As you see at the bottom of my post, Ulter edited it after I posted it. He removed a short, final paragraph that said (I think this is the exact wording):

"BTW, what is going on with the collections for the troops in Iraq [something Frackal is taking leadership on]? Stop writing these punk-ass posts. You have work to do."

Why was that edited out? Was that "uncivil"? If so, aren't the other posts, including Frackal's, Monsters, PQ's, etc., just as uncivil?

I ask because I don't want to be uncivil, I value the "civilized discussion of anabolics" thing about this board, I realize that things got a little hot around here during the election season (and not just on my end, by any means), and maybe we all need some redirection here.

Bjaarki

"First, say to yourself what you would become.
Then, do what you have to do."

	ASS Nelson Montana

[archive_Ulter]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bjaarki:
I need a little clarification .....

As you see at the bottom of my post, Ulter edited it after I posted it. He removed a short, final paragraph that said (I think this is the exact wording):

"BTW, what is going on with the collections for the troops in Iraq [something Frackal is taking leadership on]? Stop writing these punk-ass posts. You have work to do."

Why was that edited out? Was that "uncivil"? If so, aren't the other posts, including Frackal's, Monsters, PQ's, etc., just as uncivil?

I ask because I don't want to be uncivil, I value the "civilized discussion of anabolics" thing about this board, I realize that things got a little hot around here during the election season (and not just on my end, by any means), and maybe we all need some redirection here.

Bjaarki

"First, say to yourself what you would become.
Then, do what you have to do." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually that's a shade worse than what you wrote. But that statement you re-wrote would be deleted as well because of the name calling.

BTW- Our application is in to adopt a platoon and we are waiting to be approved. I imagine that's a security issue but I didn't ask.

[This message was edited by Ulter on 11-24-04 at 10:24 AM.]

	ASS Nelson Montana

[archive_Ulter]

Why are you talking about me instead of to me?

[archive_Frackal]

Really my amazement with Singer's fame comes from reading his essay on what all in America should do in terms of donating money overseas. He uses an analogy that is totally non-sensical and I was shocked that he found his way to fame amongst the intellectuals and into my class syllabus.

I wouldn't defend Bush on those points in large part because the election is over and I'm not arguing for Bush here any longer. They are quite arguable, and totally unoriginal, which is in part why I consider it punditry.

And in some cases, I haven't decided, such as with stem cell research, gay marriage, etc. It's likely I would part ways with W on those.

I don't think making a humorous observation that guys like Chomsky and Singer are "pundits" for a different crowd is so bad. And sure, I know Chomsky has done a great deal of lauded work in his other areas. Everybody loves pundits that share their beliefs, even I do.

Anyway Bjaarki your tone is one for a student but of course I don't answer to you; I still have a week to rent Matewan if I'm not mistaken and so I'll get to it after my tests this week and the holiday. Because I said I would.

[archive_Frackal]

PS - I will not use the troop donation in our other discussions. &lt; This is all I will continue to post when it is brought up. Important to not let it get 'politicized.'

[archive_Ulter]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Isn't Peter Singer that jack@ss that says we should all donate all the money we make over 30,000 dollars (his personal choice of amounts) overseas? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know. Is he? Can you back that statement up or do you expect people to take the allegation serious without proof? What context was this statement made in?

The reason I ask is because he is world's foremost authority on ethics. He literally wrote the book on it. If he feels that "ethically" one country should not have such unbalanced wealth and the $30,000 remark was when that amount would buy a house then his statement could be accurate, ethically. So give us the context of it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> This guy made one of the most absurd and idiotic analogies I've ever had the displeasure of seeing dignified in a class assignment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't know the analogy you speak of but it seems very small minded to criticize a man's life's work based on one analogy.



I know this man because of his Animial Rights activism. And after reading his credentials I'd have say he's the guy you ask if you want an assessment of someone's eithics.

Peter Singer was born in Melbourne, Australia, in 1946. He is Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values, Princeton University. He has taught at the University of Oxford, New York University, the University of Colorado at Boulder, the University of California at Irvine, and La Trobe University. He is the author of Animal Liberation, first published in 1975, and is widely credited with triggering the modern animal-rights movement. His Practical Ethics is one of the most widely used texts in applied ethics, and Rethinking Life and Death received the 1995 National Book Council's Banjo Award for non-fiction. He is the author of the major article on Ethics in the current edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and, with Helga Kuhse, co-editor of the journal Bioethics. Singer was also the founding father of the International Association of Bioethics.

[archive_Bjaarki]

I was talking to you, bro. I still am. I thought there was a point having to do with civility that needed a little general clarification. That's why I asked it on this thread, instead of by email.

I'm still confused about the selectivity of the editing, BTW. But, no biggee. I agree we have to get back to a more civil place here. The 2004 election bent us all a little out of shape.

Frackal, you might want to read Singer's work before you dump all over it. It's a little ridiculous when a college undergrad calls one of the world's leading ethicists an idiot, jackass, and turd.

Bjaarki

"First, say to yourself what you would become.
Then, do what you have to do."

[archive_Frackal]

Ok, it would be more fair to apply my words to his piece, rather than himself. Maybe it was just a poorly reasoned article, but nevertheless he base his demands upon that reasoning, and it was touted as his most famous piece of work; so I figured it must be a fair representation of the man's ideas.