The Weak Suffer What They Must

"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." ~ Thucydides in the Melian Dialogue

Athens was strong.

In 415 BC the Athenian democracy deemed it necessary to subjugate the island of Melos in its struggle with martial Sparta. Famously, the Athenians demanded the Melians to surrender using the threat "the strong do what they will". Melos did not relent.  Athens invaded and laid waste to the small town,  island, and it's inhabitants. The use of power by Athens in this manner is how governments interact with each other ever since.

Technology has moved far beyond the spear and shield used by Greeks. Today we use drones. Drones are unmanned vehicles that can reign down violence upon the unsuspecting. Drones hover silently over a target for hours, sending image and sound to operators hundreds of miles away, even to bases in the mainland United States. When an enemy is identified, drones can make deathly strikes without warning.

Modern will.

The United States has made more than 400 such attacks in Somalia, Pakistan and Yemen in its war on terrorism. More than 3,000 have been killed in covert programs operated by the the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) and JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command). Although estimates vary, between one half and one third of those killed using these tools were non-combatants. The lowest estimates are that over 170 of those who died by drone strikes were children. As with Vietnam 'body counts', the U.S. counts any military aged male killed in a drone strike as an 'enemy combatant'.

The Executive Branch argues that international law and the 2001 resolution “Authorization for Use of Military Force” makes legal the right to self defense against individuals linked to al-Qaeda or terrorists. This law includes using drone strikes against both foreigners and U.S. Citizens. Both Bush the younger and Obama have engaged in drone strikes using this legal argument.

Recently Jay Carney, a spokesman for the President, said “first and foremost that is (the Presidents) responsibility to protect the United States and American citizens." He continued "In order to prevent attacks on the United States and to save American lives, we conduct those strikes because they are necessary to mitigate ongoing actual threats to stop plots, prevent future attacks, and again save American lives." Later Mr. Carney added "These strikes are legal. They are ethical and they are wise. The U.S. government takes great care in deciding to pursue an al-Qaeda terrorist to insure precision and to avoid loss of innocent life."

Some say that the drone strikes are immoral. Use of these weapons erodes the confidence in the government’s commitment to the rule of law and protecting the accused. When targeted killings are against U.S. Citizens, they argue that it denies due process and they are unreasonable seizures of a person's life, violating the rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. Using the constitutional framework, it is said that citizens and foreign nationals are protected against violence without trial.

The front line is now often near our homes.

Another popular anti-drone contention comes from the ex-military leader of the U.S. war in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal saying “The resentment created by American use of unmanned strikes ... is much greater than the average American appreciates. They are hated on a visceral level, even by people who've never seen one or seen the effects of one. “

Is it not strange that the murder of 27 plus children and teachers in Sandy Hook has created such outrage, while hundreds of other children killed by our government do not bother us? Our application of morality, our sense of justice even, places the value of our own citizens lives as superior to those of foreigners.

Drone warfare is a clear example of “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” As with Athens of old, the morality of warfare can be perceived as a 'good' to the strong and as an 'evil' to the weak. The perspective of the violence depends upon who has the power to do their will. The points made by both those for and against the use of drones as means to violence upon their fellow man follow along lines laid down those many centuries ago by the Athenians. The language and technology have changed, but the dispute on use of force remains the same.

Be sure to subscribe to this blog and leave your thoughts below.

Mapping Wealth, Education, and Politics

Is there a relationship between wealth, education, and politics?  

Let us examine the raw geographic data and see what we can learn.

Household Income 

Poverty Level

High School Diplomas

 College Degrees

Election 2008

Election 2012

What do you see?

When I look for data to support an opinion, I am being close minded.

When I look at data, then form an opinion, I learn.

Clicking on the title will open the source data. 

Clicking on the map will open the map in a larger format.  

Links have been provided so you can verify the data and its source for yourself.  

Census data is interactive, so you can explore further on your own.  

Data is presented on the county level across the 48 lower states.

Empathy for the Devil

Please allow me to introduce myself

I'm a man of self and haste

Pounding around many a ear

Strolled on many a man's poor face...

Perhaps you recognize the lyrics I've mauled from the Rolling Stones song Sympathy for the Devil?

In our divided society today, many of us engage in personal attacks. We insult the human rather than discuss the idea. We place our own views in front of their person, objectifying them, demeaning them, and in the process lessening who we are or can become.

Here are some quotes lifted from the comment section of a recent headline story on a popular news website:

"Does your dumb ass even know what Fascism is?"
"I know you're stupid as a snake screwing a stick."
"You're just another nitwit who doesn't live in the 'evidence based world'."
"What worries me about these idiots is that we will run out of tin foil, for their hats."
"Why do you lick xxx's balls so much?"
"You're just another wing-nut wacko conspiracy theorist ."
"I don't believe she's capable of having any thought that's not given to her!"
"That sounds pathetic as well as insane."

Our opponent?

An ad hominem is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their ideas. These personal attacks are made to reduce the opinion of a challenger by reducing the opinion of the person. Personal attacks are a form of verbal bullying. A word-based way of doing violence upon another human being.

As long as we adults continue to speak like we are on a school yard playground, shouting insults at each other, we will not advance our causes. Ad hominem attacks are self defeating. Personal aggression spoils the conversation. The person on the receiving end of the attack rarely changes their minds. The person on the giving end of the attack, is often trying to boost their own self esteem.

One technique I find very useful, when engaging in debates, is to empathize with my opponent. As when we play chess, I try to imagine what the world looks like from their viewpoint. This does several useful things. It helps me overcome my own emotions and be more rational. Empathy sometimes causes sympathy for a position and changes my mind, thus allowing me to grow. By understanding the argument being used, I am also able to craft a better argument in order to disprove their assertions.

I said that about you?

When I am the object of an ad hominem attack, there are several strategies to counter it effectively; ignore them. avoid them, or point them out.

By ignoring the attack and proceeding with my own logical thoughts, often the anger in my opponent can be toned down. Kind people who are in high emotion can be brought down from their often hormonal motivated peak to a calmer place when those around them emit calm.

When attacks grow more brutal, sometimes it is better to walk away and cease the violence upon my person. The enraged opponent may believe they have won, but that costs me nothing, as nothing has actually changed. The fuming may relent to a more placid state when the debate can be re-engaged.

Pointing out that an other is engaged in assailing my person rather than my idea, often will force them back to the issues at hand. This can be done both by simple statement, “That was a personal attack.” Or on occasion more subtly by using a fantastic ad hominem attack in return, showing the silliness of the attack. I do not recommend this later path of counter-attack, as it often can back-fire if not done with great skill.

Online this is always true.

A debate where one person changes there mind is useful for everyone concerned. A debate that has no opinion shifts can still be educational for one or all. A debate where both sides feel insulted often leads to further conflict, sometimes escalating to closed minds, or worse; physical violence.

Empathize with the devil. 

Do not take his "de-bait".  

Stand in his shoes. 

Walk in them if you can. 

You will find more mileage from the effort.

Compromising Positions

My children wanted what they wanted. They would protest when they did not get their way. Children use aggressive tactics like stamping their feet, begging, crying, or even tantrums. I would, as most parents do, react with negative attention when appropriate, positive attention when possible, or even sometimes ignore them.

A child's emotions are tyrants
which we must as parents usurp.

There is a basic human need to have life to be how we want it.  This is demanded by all, old and young alike.  We each have a mental model of how we think our world ought to be.  None of these models of the world are the same.  Each of us has things we want that others do not.

Everyone is in a minority of one kind or another;  gender, race, creed, habit, or desire.  We all are a unique combination of  inheritance and choice.  She wants fair pay for fair work. He wants a job, any job.  They want to carry guns.  That fella wants to build stuff.  This gal wants to save all the babies.  Those people want a mosque.  Nature conservators.  Resource exploiters.  Church goers.  Football fans.  Men haters.  So many ways to build a mind and life.

Every rule that society makes threatens the rights of others.  Saving trees hurts lumberjacks.  Carrying guns means more gun deaths.  Rules on business to protect workers from danger slows down the economy.  Building roads leads to more air pollution.  Health care to save more lives causes income redistribution. On and on and on.

In systems of majority rule, like a democracy, there is a tendency toward “tyranny of the majority”.  John Adams in his campaign to pass the U.S. Constitution, is the first known use of these words; “tyranny of the majority”.  He understood it to mean “the superior force of an overbearing majority.”  On occasion, majority tends towards “mob rule” where active or passive violence is done by many upon a few.  In fact, we enable our government by giving it the right to use violent means to impose our will.

One view of polygamy.

Now that over  half of voters are women, it is theoretically possible for women to remove men's right to vote. No, I do not expect this to happen any time soon.  It would be an example of tyranny of the majority; where the power of many can be used to trample desires of the few.

Most of us in our culture think polygamy is bad.  I do not support polygamy.  We base our opinions on our religious belief or upon examples of abusive relationships we read about.  News items from Texas and Utah alarm us as an evil.  Christians quote scripture as a moral demand for the wrongness of polygamy.

Another view of polygamy.

Hundreds of years ago in Arabic culture they found a unique solution to a hard problem.  Widows, poor women, the ugly, and their children were often living in dire poverty.  Their solution was to permit one man of material means to support many women.  In order to make his responsibility level high, they deemed multiple marriage as a solution to a social/economic problem.  They choose this path instead of taxation and redistribution of wealth by government like many western democracies do.

A person of Islamic faith could make a strong moral argument from their religious/moral viewpoint that they are acting for good by allowing polygamy.  They have a strong view of right and wrong that is at odds with mine.  I'm not saying that polygamy is right for our culture.  Rather that our absolutist view of polygamy is deeply tied to other viewpoints we choose to have.

Diverse veterans have already learned tolerance.

Without tolerance for those who disagree with us, we end up using government to enforce our viewpoint.  Government is entitled to use violence to act in our will.  Is it worth violence to end polygamy in our or another culture?  Should we enforce our world view using force of government upon them?

We must make laws that enforce public will.  We must also be careful not trample on those who are weak.  Law is a heavy hammer.  It can smash down those in a minority.  If we are totally uncompromising in a viewpoint and use arguments like "might is right" or “this is what the majority wants” we tend to dehumanize others who do not think like us.

Should we tolerate him?

While having a viewpoint and expressing it are valid and necessary to a free society, understanding that we must compromise and live with things we disagree with is also necessary.  One solution rarely fits all situations.  Many times we must choose between two evils rather than good and evil.  We each take our own unique journey to discovering moral behavior.  Learning to live with people that disagree with us is for the common good.

Teaching our children tolerance is perhaps the most effective means of giving them wisdom that will prevent tyrannies of the majority.  From tolerance we all can learn to accept the needs and desires of others, not just our own.  As adults we should set an example.  Learning to live with people we disagree with is an act of maturity that more of us grown ups should strive for.

Ohhh! The Humanity (Part 5)

Asexual Ethics

What does it mean to be a 'human'? In this series we are examining our definitions of being human from several viewpoints.

In Part I, Part II, Part III, and Part IV we examined the diversity of opinion, basic biology, sexual ethics, and In Vitro reproduction aspects of what it means to be human. The final part in this series looks at the issues with asexual reproduction of humans, focusing on stem cells and cloning as examples of asexual reproduction.

Stem cells dividing.

Stem Cells

Stem cells are cells that can become other cells types. They can be thought of as universal cells. Stem cells come from bone, blood, or umbilical cords.

It is technologically possible for a stem cell to be developed into a fetus. Every stem cell, under the right conditions can become another human being. There are no documented cases of a birth using this method, but its potential exists.

More probable is the development of the stem cell into a part of a human. By creating the proper environment in the lab, the scientists are experimenting with growing individual organs from stem cells. These conditions cause the stem cells not to reproduce a entire human.  The creation of ears, thyroids, and even skin from stem cells are all under research.

Stems cells can become other cell types.

Stem Cells Sources

Stem cells can originate from embryos and adults. Early in this research, retrieving an embryo’s stem cells required destroying the embryo. As mentioned earlier, this destruction was classified as murder and therefore is a sin.

More research has allowed scientists to trigger adult cells to return to an embryonic state, requiring no destruction of an embryo. These adult cells that return to an embryo state could theoretically be grown into adult humans. I was able to find no clear moral statement from a major religion on the morality of these adult cells being converted back into embryonic cells.

Cloning is Confusing

This technology to control the mechanics of what goes on inside a cell, is very confusing morally. As individuals we can choose to see a stem cell as a potential human only requiring some tools to make it start. We can also see these stem cells as just a small piece of someones body that they can choose to use or not. Both are true and false at the same time.

Field of cloned corn.

What about growing a replacement heart instead of growing a human with a stem cell? If a loved one is dieing and a new organ could be grown to save their lives, are we murdering them by saying no to the organ growth? Or are we murdering a new potential human by misusing those stem cells?

Another moral approach would be to consider stem cells as a part of the human they came from. Just as when we scratch ourselves and remove live cells, stem cells are just a piece of our bodies removed for a purpose.

What if we do use one of our cells to grow a copy of ourselves? Cloning a person is often considered immoral from both scientific and religious viewpoints. This simple and often emotional response to cloning misses the fine details of what is actually going on.

Can we clone a heart to replace the bad one inside us? What about heart and lungs? What about heart, lungs, liver and spine? Where does the line between “replacement” and “full human” get drawn? Perhaps we should prohibit the growing of brains? What about part of the brain?

Confusing cloning.

Does a clone have a soul? Do we cause god to attach a soul to clone? If we can force God's hand in this way, then can God not say “no” to giving us souls?

 If God does not put a soul in a clone, then is a clone human?

What rights should a clone have?

Stem Cells and other forms of asexual reproduction are transforming our understanding of the what goes on when humans are developed, opening up medicinal possibilities to extend and create life.

Summary

In this series, we have shown that our traditional views of ethics about what defines a human are challenged by a deeper understanding of what we are. The line between “life” and “human” are difficult to pin down with out making assumptions about things we can not prove with evidence.

The “common wisdom” approach to humanness is clearly only partial. As science and technology drives forward, religion will continue to play “catch-up” defining the morality of new unforeseen possibilities.  Like with freedom, the details of how humanity is formed will require us to continually re-examine what we believe.

Part I - Part II - Part III - Part IV - Part V

Be sure to subscribe to this blog in order to follow the explorations.

Ohhh! The Humanity (Part 4)

In Vitro Ethics

What does it mean to be a 'human'? In this series we are examining our definitions of being human from several viewpoints.

In Part I, Part II, and Part III we examined the diversity of opinion, basic biology, and sexual ethics of what it means to be human. Part IV looks at the ethics issues with In Vitro reproduction of humans.

Test Tube Babies

Creating a zygote.

In Vitro (test tube) reproduction involves taking about 15 eggs and fertilizing them with sperm to create a zygote/embryo. The zygotes are examined prior to being implanted to insure a healthy chance for survival. Those that are likely to miscarry are destroyed. In some countries selections are also made for the sex of the zygote permitting parents to choose for a boy or girl.

Typically one, two or three zygotes are implanted in the mother's womb. Most frequently, the zygotes die and the procedure must be repeated. A far larger number of zygotes die and are miscarried than become fetuses.

The remaining zygotes created in In Vitro reproduction are often stored for later potential use. Often there are may more remaining zygotes than were used in the implantation process.

In Vitro is immoral knowledge?

Ethical Views

Given that some religions believe that the zygotes have souls attached, all of these zygotes are in a form of human imposed limbo. The entire process of In Vitro reproduction is thereby immoral. In this view, all zygotes killed could be classified as murder. This view makes the technician, doctors and nurses all subject to man-slaughter charges. Indeed some religions even see that the mother must have sinned for the miscarriages to have happened.

Other religions do not see zygotes as human beings, but rather as just a group of cells. In this world view, In Vitro reproduction is just a medical procedure like the removal of a blood clot.

Science has generally taken the view that embryos are potential humans. Here the line is drawn as one of a paused process. To understand this, consider your car. When it is not running it is a machine, but not an transportation machine. When the engine is turned on it begins to function as a transportation machine and can be classified as a car. In this way, science sees embryos as non-engaged humans.

How long should we keep the embryos used for In Vitro reproduction alive? It may be technologically possible to keep them alive indefinitely in a machine. If it is murder to kill an embryo, then are we obligated to keep them “on life support” forever?

The morality of In Vitro reproduction challenges both religion and science by forcing us to examine the consequences of our ability as tool makers. Humans are learning much about the mechanics of how humans form.  Indeed we are learning to manipulate those mechanics in ways never before dreamed possible.

In our last entry, we will look at the the morality Asexual and stem cell reproduction.

Part I - Part II - Part III - Part IV - Part V

Be sure to subscribe to this blog in order to follow the explorations.

Ohhh! The Humanity (Part 3)

Sexual Ethics

What does it mean to be a 'human'? In this series we are examining our definitions of being human from several viewpoints. In Part I of this series we explored the idea that we each have our definition of humanness and that this view changes with time and culture. In Part II some background information about the biology of conception was presented.

Part III looks at the ethics issues with sexual reproduction of humans.

A zygote at its beginning.

Sexual Reproduction

When we think of reproducing humans, we normally think of a man and woman having sex. Mechanically this is about getting a single sperm into a ready egg that beings the process of growth leading to an adult human. Until 1978, this was the only way to have a baby.

A Zygote is the initial cell formed when a sperm and egg combine. It is also used to describe the mass of cells that divide. Zygotes are composed of cells that have not yet become other types of cells. Cells in a zygote have the potential to become any kind of other body cell and are sometimes known as stem cells.

A zygote.

Many religions maintain that the moment a zygote is formed, God puts a soul with the zygote. This belief has no direct observable evidence and is an act of faith on the part of the believers. Using this description of “soul attachment”, believers then claim that the zygote is a human.

Science indicates that one quarter of all fertilized zygotes die before ten weeks of development. Frequently this occurs because of errors in the zygotes genetic material.

It would seem, from the religious perspective, God is choosing which souls are becoming humans by chemical selection early in life much more often than humans do. Some believe that the world is cursed and miscarriage is God's way of limiting the curse.  Others believe that miscarriages are caused by sins of the mother.

Philosophy views procreation as a fundamental human right. Rather than examining the means of reproduction or miscarriage, philosophy focuses on the moral right of human beings to reproduce if both adults are willing.

Land of the those who are no longer human.

Masturbation

A few religions believe that every sperm and egg are sacred. The focus is upon individual cells as part of a potential human being. This viewpoint suggests that every wasted egg/sperm is a failed potential human being.  This view of humanity however makes every man who masturbates is a mass murder, committing genocide on an epic scale. Women who masturbate do not kill eggs and are therefore are only sexually deviant, but still sinful.

Science takes the view that sperm cannot reproduce. Sperm outside the body quickly dies. This means sperm is a not a being by itself, but a part of a human. This view equates blood cells, brain cells, and muscle cells to be equal with sperm cells.

Sexual reproduction is well understood by science and religion. Both ethical sources have strong established views on how we become human. This is not true for other means of reproduction.

In our next entry, we will look at the the morality In Vitro (test tube) reproduction.

Part I - Part II - Part III - Part IV - Part V

Be sure to subscribe to this blog in order to follow the explorations.