NBC decided not to air these PETA ads during the Super Bowl, considering them too racy. While they are plenty of over-sexed ads shown during Super Bowls, I do think these go too far. So we have questions of both censorship and animal rights. Decide for yourself on the ads here.
Of course the point of the ads (effective even if they are not aired) is to spark discussion about the morality of eating meat. I think the ad listed on the page called ‘Chew on This‘ is much more effective.
January 28 is the Feast Day of St Thomas Aquinas. I reflected on a passage to commemorate the day, and came up with this passage that I think sums up much of Aquinas’ basic outlook:
‘To detract from the perfection of creatures is to detract from the perfection of the divine power. But if no creature has any action in the production of any effect, much is detracted from the perfection of the creature: for it marks the abundance of perfection to be able to communicate to another the perfection which one has oneself.’ ~ Summa Contra Gentiles, III.69
St Thomas certainly loved God, but he also dearly loved creation (and the study of it). This is typical of the ‘both/and’ tendency of Catholicism in general. This both/and love of Creator and creation (of God and man) is the best ground – in fact is the only possible ground for – humanism (and yes, I am intentionally baiting the SHAFT community here). As Pascal puts it, God gave men the ‘dignity of being causes’.
From a member:
I hate to disrupt the enjoyable and fascinating debate between Huenemann and Kleiner, but I just wanted to remind any interested in attending the Elitist Book Club meetings this semester, they will be Mondays at 6 pm at the Quadside Cafe attached to Kleiner’s favorite library ever (haha).
Sadly, dear friend Dan will not be able to attend, but he has expressed to me his hope that we can continue on, which we will! The optional reading (due to availability and time) this week is the first book of Paradise Lost, and we will discuss it and any other ideas for books, as well as anything people would like to bring up or vent out.
All are welcome! I’ll be glad to fight for space and yank out extra chairs from under other people to provide for guests. First meeting is tomorrow [Monday] night!
The Social Ethics class won’t get to terrorism and civil rights for a while yet, but the question has come up in the first week of Obama’s presidency. We all heard Obama eloquently reject ‘as false the choice between our safety and our ideals’ in his inaugural address. Here is what I find interesting about this – what if it is not a false choice? What if, as a matter of fact, abolishing ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ in fact does make us more susceptible to terror attacks?
Mind you, I am not defending torture. I think the practices are morally reprehensible. But my tone with respect to torture is much more deontological than it is utilitarian. Torture is wrong because it violates the basic dignity of the person – no matter the consequences. In making what is frankly a more utilitarian argument (arguing that the consequences of standing up for our ideals will be more security than if we don’t), doesn’t Obama weaken the moral point? It is telling that his own intel team thought his executive order was a bad idea.
This is the problem with utilitarianism – if you are going to follow the consequences, then you have to follow them. If it turns out that abolishing torture makes us less secure, Obama will have no moral leg to stand on since his tone has been consequentialist.
For those that think the talk of a ‘culture of death’ is overblown, check out this book from philosopher David Benetar called ‘Better Not to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence”. He defends an ‘anti-natalism’ view that suggests it is always a serious harm to come into existence. It is, on this view, always wrong to have children. He then argues that, when combined with pro-choice views, you get a pro-death view that sees abortion as something of a moral mandate.
Among the central claims: ‘Those that never existed cannot be deprived’. Apparently our psychology tricks us into thinking life is worth living when it isn’t, so we are ‘resistant to the suggestion that they were seriously harmed by being brought into existence’. Umm … isn’t that basically nonsense? If what he is referring to are things that are not, then ‘who’ is he talking about?
Can anything get published now, so long as its politics are on the right (well, left) side?
USUPhilosophy 