Morality, Religion & Philosophy: May 2005 Archives
Orin Kerr and Eugene Volokh point to a company named Professays that writes essays for college students but does an extraordinarily bad job of it. No surprise, since one wouldn't expect a company based on cheating to be made up of intellectual giants. One of Orin's commenters raised an interesting hypothetical:
I'd like to think that perhaps the essays are bad deliberately, as a form of for-your-own-good-we're-going-to-get-you-caught maneuver. (I'm not sure it's good to cheat those desperate enough to pay for a paper, but on the other hand, I'm pretty sure it's good to get cheaters caught, and some of the customers will be merely lazy or wicked, not desperate and honestly failing. In a much less significant way, I put this on the same moral level as taking money to commit a crime and then not doing it - not very immoral at all, but somewhat unsettling.)
As I consider this situation, I'm forced to conclude that it's not at all morally objectionable to use deceit in certain contexts as a weapon against bad guys. After all, is cheating a cheater different than an undercover cop who lies and infiltrates a gang of thieves, a spy who disguises himself and sneaks into an enemy country, or a general who feints with some troops while attacking elsewhere?
The only difference I can see is that Professays is intending to abet and profit from the dishonesty of others, whereas a cop, spy, or general is more nobly motivated -- assuming their larger goals of infiltration or military victory are justified, then so is the deception. But that's just it! In the same way that thieves are the enemies of cops, cheaters may be seen as the enemies of those who live honestly; therefore, honest people are justified in exposing thieves, even if it requires deception. That there's profit in the endeavor makes the exposer no different than the police officer who draws a salary for doing his job.
But what about the fact that Professays -- even if they are trying to expose cheaters, which I doubt -- may often end up merely helping the cheaters to cheat? In order for deception to be morally allowable, it seems to me that the truth must eventually come out in the sight of honest men. Cheating the cheaters is ok, but honest people must not be hurt in the process. Situations in which collateral damage to innocent bystanders is allowed (such as non-cheating students whose grades are ruined or non-combatant civilians who are killed or injured) should be treated as wars and lifted out of the realm of personal morality.
In today's Best of the Web, James Taranto quotes Howard Dean talking about his religion.
I don't go to church all that much. I consider myself a deeply religious person. I consider myself a Christian. And I don't--you know, some of the other Christians would dare to say that I'm not a Christian. Frankly, it's what gets my ire up. We get back to the Rush Limbaugh stuff. I am sick of being told what I and what I'm not by other people. I'll tell you what I am. I'm a committed Christian. And the fact of whether I go to church or not, people can say whether I should or shouldn't, I worship in my own way. It came out in the campaign that I pray every night. That's my business. That's not the business of the pharisees who are going to preach to me about what I do and then do something else.
The problem with the Pharisees in the Bible was that they added their own set of rules and regulations to the laws that God made. New Testament Christianity isn't supposed to be legalistic, but a person who claims to be a "committed Christian" and doesn't go to church is either fooling himself or trying to fool others.
Hebrews 10:24-2524 And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. 25 Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
It's impossible to be a fully devoted follower of Christ without belonging to, attending, and serving in a local church.
As an engineer, I like to be precise, and when it comes to slippery moral questions like sexual behavior it can be difficult for two people to reach a common understanding of each other's position because of mixed backgrounds and expectations. Without a common understanding there is no foundation for rational debate of the positions (no pun intended) on their merits. To that end, I have conceived (npi) the following Sexual Morality Notation (SMN) to help categorize the myriad of possible opinions on the matter. With the understanding that no such notation could possibly be completely precise, I believe that the following architecture will suffice for most English speakers who are familiar with the common dictionary definitions of the words I use.
A SMN code is a five-digit number, with each digit restrict to the range 0 through 4. Each of the five digits represents a "stage" or "type" of relationship. From left to right, in order from most casual to most serious, the five digits are:
1. Strangers.
2. Acquaintances.
3. Boyfriend/girlfriend.
4. Engaged.
5. Married.
As I mentioned, each digit takes a value from 0 to 4, with the numbers representing the standard "baseball" notation for "how far" sexual activity should be allowed to go. 0 has been added to the scale to represent activities that are often not considered "sexual" per se, such has hand-holding and flirting; the other numbers ("first base", "second base", "third base", and "home") should be understood already by most of my readers. If there's really any confusion on the matter, I'll post more graphic descriptions.
Thus, a SMN code of [00004] might be used by stereotypical Puritans who believe that there should be no sexual activity of any kind until marriage. In contrast, modern American morality often looks like [44444], in which sexual intercourse is permissible even between complete strangers. Common relationships may often progress as [01444]. More interesting are people with conflicted moralities who are anonymously promiscuous but otherwise conservative, such as [41334].
Comments? Questions? Do you think SMN is useful for characterizing views on sexual morality?
Many people want to read and study the Bible, but get discouraged when they realize that it can't be done as easily or as simply as one reads a novel. Unlike most plot-driven stories that we're used to reading or seeing, the Bible is character-driven, and the main character isn't always even on screen. The Bible isn't a narrative sequence about a bunch of stuff that happens to people, the Bible is the account of God's continual pursuit of mankind. As such, anyone who reads the Bible with a focus on plot progression is going to get bored and frustrated.
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of exciting and profound stories in the Bible, many of which form the foundation of Western art and literature. Reading the stories for entertainment or historical knowledge can be valuable, but that approach misses the actual point of the book, which is revelation. You see, God isn't a tangible being that we can observe and study with our own senses; all we can know of God is what he chooses to reveal to us, and the main instrument of that revelation is his Word, the Bible. The question that should be in the forefront of a Bible reader's mind is, "What is God revealing about himself in this passage?"
Avoiding Evil posts seven quotes from Charles Spurgeon on reading the Bible, and they're all excellent. The most important of those is what I pointed out in the paragraph above: search out what God is doing in each passage of scripture. The other two that are particularly critical in my own study life are application and consistency.
God reveals his nature to us because he wants to make us more like himself. To that end, as we read the Bible and learn about God we need to consider how we can apply that knowledge to our own character. We may read an instance in which God is patient with the rebellious nation of Israel, and we can then learn to be patient with those who hurt us. We may read about Jesus resisting temptation by using scripture, which will inspire us to remember God's Word when we ourselves are tempted. The Bible is a very practical book, because even the parts that don't directly contain instructions are full of revelation about God's character that we can change ourselves to conform to. It isn't easy to be godly, and it can only be accomplished through prayer and the power of the Holy Spirit, but the first step is to read God's Word.
As for consistency, the Bible should be read every day, without fail. Discouragement comes when we miss a day and feel we need to "catch up" to whatever reading program we've locked ourselves into. Personally, I don't find much value in reading the Bible in a year or using some artificial schedule for my study. In general, I read books of the Bible in their entirety rather than study by topic, but I don't feel any need to read all the books in order (though that can be useful to gain a familiarity with the historical timeline). I don't like schedules because I want to leave room to consider and pray about what God reveals in each passage. Often I'll read a single chapter each day, but sometimes I'll read less if time is pressing or the passage requires serious contemplation. Even if I plan my day so poorly that I only have time to read a single verse, I make myself do it and leave my heart open for God to work. As with medicine and our bodies, taking the Bible in every day can work wonders on our spirits.
If you really do want to read the Bible in a year and need a little help, you can check out the Bible in a Year website and get daily emails with the passage to read. (HT: Janette Stripling and Randy Thomas.) Our Daily Bread is a nice deveotional that I've used in the past, though it's based on topics rather than straight-through reading, and My Utmost for His Highest is good though there isn't enough scripture incorporated into each topic and you'll need to do a bit of searching on your own. Any of these is a good place to start, and starting is the first step towards building this essential spiritual habit into your life.
Amanda Marcotte has a two-part essay about what she calls the anti-feminist/men's rights movement. In part 1 she gives an overview of the players she sees in the MRA, and in part 2 she discusses some of the MRA arguments that she's encountered. The posts are long, and I haven't yet had time to fully digest everything she's written.
My initial impression is that Miss Marcotte is largely responding to the lunatic fringe of those who think men should have the same rights as women. For instance, she quotes men who apparently argue that rape isn't a big deal and then she acts as if such a disgustingly absurd position actually requires refutation. She also ignores a lot of obvious social factors that would undermine her arguments, such as the fact that men who are injured by women who use weapons to commit domestic violence are very unlikely to admit the source of their injuries.
Anyway, her posts are certainly an interesting read, and I'll probably have more to say about them later. I'm sure Miss Marcotte could find plenty to disagree with on my site, but I'd like to find some way to convince her that not all conservative men line up with the stereotype she portrays. Isn't there a middle ground between feminism and idiots who claim that "rape is not tramatic [sic]"?
Update:
For instance, this is the kind of nonsense you get when you see the world through Miss Marcotte's eyes.
Pre-teen boys who went to the "Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day" at the University of California-San Francisco's Center for Gender Equity last week got to undergo gender sensitivity indoctrination while their female counterparts took part in all manner of hands-on activities, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.The 9- and 10-year-old daughters got to, for example, work with microscopes, slice up brains, play surgeon or dentist and visit the intensive care unit nursery. The boys, on the other hand, learned about "violence prevention and how to be allies to the girls and women in their lives" using media, role playing and group games.
(HT: Ace. Check out his commenters while you're there.)
