Following David Cameron's Argument to its Logical End Leads us to an Unavoidable Conclusion: Its Time to Say Goodbye to the Monarchy

Tradition, in and of itself, carries no philosophical or moral weight. It simply is the continuation of a practice over many generations. To give moral weight to tradition, or to establish a particular tradition's worth, evidence and reasons must be given. And, of course, this evidence, or these reasons given, can be tested to determine their relative value, merit, strength - or weakness.

It is, then, with some humour, that we recently read of the British Parliament's move to change the succession rules for its (our) Crown. Gone are the days of favouring only men, they say. But, to follow Prime Minister David Cameron's argument to its logical conclusion - given the reasons stated for this change - we are led to the wholly different, yet ultimate and unavoidable conclusion, that the very institution of hereditary entitlement ought to be done away with.

Have a look at my most recent letter to the editor. I hope you see the humour in Mankind's blind adherence to tradition - it's pure, unabashed folly.

Let's not Meat

Janey and I have been working on becoming true vegetarians - eating (way!) less meat, cutting back on dairy and processed and refined sugars, and eating fewer eggs. Of course, it has not been easy, and temptation abounds, but we are committed to getting this right, eventually.

Over the past 5 years or so (since I made my first philosophical breakthrough on the ethical reasons for not eating meat) Janey and I have been casually researching the benefits of going green (leafed). To name a few, these are:

1) Animal interests concerns
2) weight loss
3) Cardiovascular health
4) Cancer risk reduction
5) increased vitality
6) Environmental impact decrease and sustainability

And, when my doctor told me last year to cut out meat - and that my cholesterol was too high to be healthy - I added that one to the list too: Cholesterol reduction. Her words: "Stay away from meat". Simple. Straightforward. Doable.

Furthermore, and aside from the selfish reasons to not eat (too much) meat noted above, there are many other-regarding reasons too. Most important, for me, are the benefits that extend to all our global brothers and sisters, and, of course, to our only home, Earth: By choosing meat - always - you are saying that deforestation for farm feedlots is "ok". By choosing another helping of beef, or pork, you are saying its "ok" to use precious resources to feed your appetite rather than feed the bulk of humanity who are hungry, or are poor. By choosing milk over soy, or tuna over tofu, you are saying its "ok" to contribute to an industry that, combined, produces more pollution globally per year than all the world's transportation infrastructure combined.

In this regard, I am reminded of one of my favorite passages in Henry David Thoreau's famous essay on Civil Disobedience, where he states:

"If injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine...let it go, let it go; perchance it will wear smooth - certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be an agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn...I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live, but to live in it good or bad."

None of us, of course, can avoid all of the inherent contradictions of life. To live, is to use, to some extent, the world around us to our benefit. But what can be done, must be done. And to fail to correct or alter our path in the face of manifest injustice, is to wittingly lend ourselves to the wrong we plainly see.

So, Janey and I will continue, against the grain (for the most part) to forge down  this lonely thankless path - an unlikely one in Modern Western Society - together. We will continue eating our plants, eating our fruits and making our personal choices quietly, though for the most part, consciously. We will continue making what we reason are the best choices open to us - not because they are easy, of course, or because the bulk of society is with us, but simply because it is the right thing to do. Nothing more, nothing less. TDM

Post Script: (I came across a great little article from Earthsave Canada. Click this link to read the article. This article also prompted me to finally get around to writing this blognote.)

John Rawls and distributive justice

(The reader will note that I addressed this issue some three years ago. Since then I have had some more time to reflect on the issue of distributive justice. I have also had the opportunity to re-read John Rawls' book, "A Theory of Justice." What follows here is the reformulated version of my older post - to include some more thoughts on the claims of distributive justice as it pertains to the issue of a natural lottery in the distribution of (dis)advantages.)

To a question posed to the world regarding the claims of distributive justice: Why shouldn't the government redistribute body parts? Since some people are born with physical problems, and others might have physical advantages, why, in the name of fairness, does government not require this kind of redistribution?

My Response:

Your premise misses a fundamental point regarding one of the purposes of distributive justice. One of the great purposes of redistribution is to avoid the artificial (Man-made) pooling of, say, wealth, in the hands of a few persons to the detriment of the many. Without organized redistribution there are few civilized methods for achieving this goal. Redistribution becomes one of the few methods society has of maintaining any sense of merit-based (or entitlement-based) distribution of goods - something a 'pooling' of resources clearly works against. The pooling of physical talents - or as your point suggests, the pooling of inferior physical qualities - does not easily fit into the claims of distributive justice. That is because, unlike the artificial pooling of assets and wealth in the hands of slave owners at the expense of slaves (producing inequalities that may persist for generations to come) it is just as likely that the slave's son, or the slave owner's son, will be born blind. Thus, it might be said: The natural distribution of physical advantages, or disadvantages, is neither just, nor unjust (unlike questions regarding the distribution or pooling of wealth, which will necessarily engage questions of justice). They are, quite simply, matters of fact. What is a matter of justice, however, is how we, and our institutions, deal with the results that flow from the unmerited advantages or disadvantages people derive from this natural distribution. Thus, it is the effects of such distributions and perhaps more importantly, humanity's ability to deal fairly and justly with the unmerited disadvantages and advantages that flow therefrom that distributive justice is most concerned to address.
T.D. Marshall

Dialogue vs. Debate: learning vs. entrenchment

Dialogue is collaborative: two or more sides work together toward common understanding. Debate is oppositional: two sides oppose each other and attempt to prove each other wrong. In dialogue, finding common ground is the goal. In debate, winning is the goal. In dialogue, one listens to the other side(s) in order to understand, find meaning and find agreement. In debate, one listens to the other side in order to find flaws and to counter its arguments. Dialogue enlarges and possibly changes a participants point of view. Debate affirms a participant's own point of view. Dialogue reveals assumptions for re-evaluation. Debate defends assumptions as truth. Dialogue causes introspection on ones own position. Debate causes critique of the other position. Dialogue opens the possibility of reaching a better solution than any of the original solutions. Debate defends one's own positions as the best solution and excludes other solutions. Dialogue creates an open-minded attitude: an openness to being wrong and an openness to change. Debate creates a close-minded attitude, a determination to be right. In dialogue, one submits ones best thinking, knowing that other people's reflections will help improve it rather than destroy it. In debate, one submits one's best thinking and defends it against challenge to show that it is right. Dialogue calls for temporarily suspending one's beliefs. Debate calls for investing wholeheartedly in one's beliefs. In dialogue, one searches for basic agreements. In debate, one searches for glaring differences. In dialogue one searches for strengths in the other positions. In debate one searches for flaws and weaknesses in the other position. Dialogue involves a real concern for the other person and seeks to not alienate or offend. Debate involves a countering of the other position without focusing on feelings or relationship and often belittles or deprecates the other person. Dialogue assumes that many people have pieces of the answer and that together they can put them into a workable solution. Debate assumes that there is a right answer and that someone has it. Dialogue remains open-ended. Debate implies a conclusion. Adapted from a paper prepared by Shelley Berman, which was based on discussions of the Dialogue Group of the Boston Chapter of Educators for Social Responsibility (ESR).