Find a recent op-ed from a first-tier mass media publication (e.g. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Economist) on a weighty and controversial issue. In the comments below, provide a link to the op-ed and explore how the piece employs or avoids ethics avoidance strategies, or "disorders," as Weston calls them in chapter 2 of A 21st Century Ethical Toolbox. Your blog comment should be 300-500 words long. Submit it by Sunday 10 PM.
By Monday 10 PM, leave a significant comment or question in response to a classmate's blog entry.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-climate-for-changethe-us-can-help-drive-a-new-round-of-global-carbon-cuts/2014/08/28/9f3ecbf8-2d9f-11e4-9b98-848790384093_story.html
ReplyDeleteThe Washington Post opinion piece “A climate for change: The U.S. can help drive a new round of global carbon cuts” is at its core advocating for the people of the United States to stop using ethics-avoidance disorders to avoid accepting that climate change is very real and is putting the planet and all creatures on it in jeopardy. The authors of the editorial avoid ethics-avoidance disorders by pointing out the disorders at work in American avoidance of accepting responsibility for polluting our planet.
In the first paragraph, the authors that global carbon cuts are possible if the U.S. leads the way. The authors realize that the United States government has chosen to treat the issue of climate change as something that happens to Those People Over There. This attitude of flying by instinct, of simply ignoring the problem, is not going to solve the problem of drastic climate change and the authors of the opinion piece recognize that.
When the authors write: “Developed nations alone can have a noticeable effect: A Council of Economic Advisers study last month noted that the climate-change response will be a lot less expensive if developed countries start now and others catch up than if no one starts now,” they are advocating for an end of the antisocial response “mind your own business,” or in this case, “mind your own pollution.” But don’t the decisions of one country affect the people of another on this closed system of the earth? If the U.S. decides to continue pumping green house gases into the atmosphere at the current rate, the changes to climate will be felt globally, not just in the U.S. This attitude of relativism, of whatever we do here doesn’t affect people on the other side of the globe, is astoundingly wrongheaded.
Another way the authors of the editorial avoid ethics-avoidance disorders is to point out how not only the U.S. but other nations as well avoid dealing with the climate change problem. They write: “But pointing out the difficulty of the problem is not a strategy. It is an excuse to shrink from one of history’s greatest challenges.” This is a prime example of flying by instinct, of avoiding an issue by burying one’s head in the sand and pretending it will go away.
The authors avoid ethics-avoidance disorders by pointing out the disorders at work in climate change discourse. They avoid relativism by explaining that not one nation is solely responsible for climate change-causing pollution, but that it’s the responsibility of all nations to better care for our planet. The authors avoid offhand self-justification by pointing out that we can’t rationalize away something as big as climate change. We must all selflessly change our habits to save not only others but also ourselves.
Nice analysis. I agree, the article was very much a challenge to the ethics-avoidance disorders in the global politics of the climate change debate.
DeleteI've often wondered if the rhetoric used to avoid action on the issue, was generated, not as real believable arguments but to create just enough doubt or political cover to be an excuse, allowing politicians to pretend the jury is still out so they don't have to take action.
Sorry I'm posting late, I misunderstood the assignment.
ReplyDeletehttp://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/30/losing-our-touch/?_php=true&_type=blogs&ref=opinion&_r=0
In the article, Losing Our Touch, by Richard Kearney in the New York Times Opinionator, the author raises several ideas about our increasingly, “fleshless society”. He makes an argument that our society is increasingly developing and applying technology that disrupts true human to human contact and replaces it with artificial interactions. To him, this is making humans less human.
The author is a philosophy professor at Boston College and appears to be an expert at posing questions and discussing issues while acknowledging and criticising ethical avoidance disorders common with the issue.
The article touches upon internet pornography, online dating culture, and the use of remote controlled drones for combat. All of which, in his point of view are signs of society’s drive towards privatization and virtualization as a substitute of real human to human contact.
He calls up a long history of the philosophic discussion about the senses, reasoning each step towards his opinion, acknowledging both sides of the argument. By doing this he appears to honestly remove emotion and off hand justification from his argument.
He rejects relativism by aspiring to a higher good for all of society, claiming a return to more tactile world , “enhance the role of empathy, vulnerability and sensitivity in the art of carnal love, and ideally, in all of human relations.”
However, I think he may be relying too much on dogma in some ways by oversimplifying the issue. He seems to be trying to make the point that advances and applications of communication technology are making us less human, less empathetic and less personal. In my mind, this is not open ended thinking because it disregards that the use of these technologies has facilitated empathy, spread knowledge and allowed the world to explore new levels of empathy and develop human connections that we never could have before.
Tim, I liked your evaluation of Kearney's editorial. At first I was a bit lost while reading the piece, wondering how the heck you were going to analyze it for ethics. But I think your reading of rejecting relativism and perhaps too much of an embrace of dogma are spot on.
ReplyDeleteNo man is an island; humans are social animals and we need each other not only to survive, but also to thrive. Perhaps the rise of relativism has been aided by the increasing detachment of our species to the real world?
I also agree with you that Kearney might be taking his point too far, however. There are, like you say, technologies that have facilitated empathy and spread knowledge. Two hundred years ago you and I would likely have stayed within 50-100 miles of where we grew up our entire lives. Technology has allowed us to inexpensively see the world and meet new people. Meeting new people and learning their customs helps us shed the "us vs. them" mentality and put ourselves in someone else's shoes.