AnalPhilosopher

My mother just forwarded a link to this essay by Harvard Law School Professor Mary Ann Glendon. Please read it and think about it. As Roger Scruton points out in his book The Meaning of Conservatism, conservatism isn't a program the way liberalism is. It's more of an anti-program. Its aim is to keep liberals and their totalitarian brethren from destroying the traditions, institutions, and practices that give our lives meaning. How do you argue for such things? You don't. You fight for them. Liberals, in their arrogance, equate inarguability with indefensibility. What we've seen so far in the debate over homosexual "marriage" is lots of liberal talk about equality, fairness, rights, and lack of discrimination. I've tried to show in this blog that these concepts do not support homosexual "marriage." They're being misinterpreted and misapplied for rhetorical and political advantage. Glendon's essay, which appeared four days ago in The Wall Street Journal, is an antidote to the tripe being talked by the likes of Andrew Sullivan.

Max Hocutt, "Some Truths About Truth," Behavior and Philosophy 22 (fall 1994): 1.

Geoffrey Robertson, "Entrapment Evidence: Manna from Heaven, or Fruit of the Poisoned Tree?" Criminal Law Review (November 1994): 805.

Howard H. Harriot, "On the Rationality of Irrational Ideas," Contemporary Philosophy 16 (July 1994): 1.

Alison L. Drake, "Judicial Construction in the Wake of the Nation's S & L Crisis: Build a Better Status and the FDIC Will Beat a Path to Your Courtroom," Cleveland State Law Review 42 (1994): 137.

Alison McIntyre, "Compatibilists Could Have Done Otherwise: Responsibility and Negative Agency," Philosophical Review 103 (July 1994): 453.

When you put "ism" after a word, you create a doctrine. To indoctrinate is to put a doctrine into someone, i.e., to teach uncritical acceptance of dogma. To be doctrinaire is to seek to apply a theory or doctrine in all circumstances without regard to practical considerations. It's no accident that we use the word "environmentalism," because its adherents are anything but scientific. They are ideologues masquerading as scientists. Don't fall for it. Read Dr John J. Ray's blog on a daily basis to see environmentalism debunked, defanged, and demolished. Here is a taste.

Remember the book Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus? Well, here's a prime example offered by an English professor in Creative Writing. Here's her assignment: "Today we will experiment with a new form called the tandem story. The process is simple. Each person will pair off with the person sitting to his or her immediate right. One of you will write the first paragraph of a short story. The partner will read the first paragraph and then add another paragraph to the story. The first person will then add a third paragraph, and so on back and forth. Remember to reread what has been written each time in order to keep the story coherent. The story is over when both agree a conclusion has been reached."

The following was turned in by two English students, Rebecca and Gary:

Rebecca: Laurie couldn't decide which kind of tea she wanted. The chamomile, which used to be her favorite for lazy evenings at home, now reminded her too much of Carl, who once said, in happier times, that he liked chamomile. But she felt she must now, at all costs, keep her mind off Carl. His possessiveness was suffocating, and if she thought about him too much her asthma started acting up again. So chamomile was out of the question.

Gary: Meanwhile, Advance Sergeant Carl Harris, leader of the attack squadron now in orbit over Skylon 4, had more important things to think about than the neuroses of an air-headed asthmatic bimbo named Laurie with whom he had spent one sweaty night over a year ago. "A. S. Harris to Geostation 17," he said into his transgalactic communicator. "Polar orbit established. No sign of resistance so far . . ." But before he could sign off a bluish particle beam flashed out of nowhere and blasted a hole through his ship's cargo bay. The jolt from the direct hit sent him flying out of his seat and across the cockpit.

Rebecca: He bumped his head and died almost immediately, but not before he felt one last pang of regret for psychically brutalizing the one woman who had ever had feelings for him. Soon afterwards, Earth stopped its pointless hostilities towards the peaceful farmers of Skylon 4. "Congress Passes Law Permanently Abolishing War and Space Travel," Laurie read in her newspaper one morning. The news simultaneously excited her and bored her. She stared out the window, dreaming of her youth—when the days had passed unhurriedly and carefree, with no newspapers to read, no television to distract her from her sense of innocent wonder at all the beautiful things around her. "Why must one lose one's innocence to become a woman?" she pondered wistfully.

Gary: Little did she know, but she had less than ten seconds to live. Thousands of miles above the city, the Anu'udrian mothership launched the first of its lithium fusion missiles. The dim-witted wimpy peaceniks who pushed the Unilateral Aerospace Disarmament Treaty through Congress had left Earth a defenseless target for the hostile alien empires who were determined to destroy the human race. Within two hours after the passage of the treaty the Anu'udrian ships were on course for Earth, carrying enough firepower to pulverize the entire planet. With no one to stop them, they swiftly initiated their diabolical plan. The lithium fusion missile entered the atmosphere unimpeded. The president, in his top secret mobile submarine headquarters on the ocean floor off the coast of Guam, felt the inconceivably massive explosion which vaporized Laurie and 85 million other Americans. The president slammed his fist on the conference table. "We can't allow this! I'm going to veto that treaty! Let's blow 'em out of the sky!"

Rebecca: This is absurd. I refuse to continue this mockery of literature. My writing partner is a violent, chauvinistic, semi-literate adolescent.

Gary: Yeah? Well, you're a self-centered tedious neurotic whose attempts at writing are the literary equivalent of Valium.

Rebecca: Asshole.

Gary: Bitch.

An anagram is a word or phrase made by transposing or rearranging the letters of another word or phrase. The following are exceptionally clever. Someone out there either has way too much time or is deadly at Scrabble.

dormitory / dirty room
evangelist / evil's agent
desperation / a rope ends it
the Morse code / here come dots
slot machines / cash lost in 'em
animosity / is no amity
mother in law / woman Hitler
snooze alarms / alas! no more Z's
Alec Guinness / genuine class
semolina / is no meal
the public art galleries / large picture halls, I bet
a decimal point / I'm a dot in place
the earthquakes / that queer shake
eleven plus two / twelve plus one
contradiction / accord not in it

This one's truly amazing:

To be or not to be: that is the question, whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

And the anagram:

In one of the Bard's best thought of tragedies, our insistent hero, Hamlet, queries on two fronts about how life turns rotten.

And for the grand finale:

That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.

The anagram:

Thin man ran; makes a large stride, left planet, pins flag on moon! On to Mars!

He's a rebel and a runner
He's a signal turning green
He's a restless young romantic
Wants to run the big machine

He's got a problem with his poisons
But you know he'll find a cure
He's cleaning up the systems
To keep his nature pure

Learning to match the beat of the old world man
Learning to catch the heat of the third world man

He's got to make his own mistakes
and learn to mend the mess he makes
He's old enough to know what's right
and young enough not to choose it
He's noble enough to win the world
but weak enough to lose it

He's a new world man

He's a radio receiver
Tuned to factories and farms
He's a writer and ranger and a young boy bearing arms
He's got a problem with his powers
His weapons on patrol
He's got to walk a fine line
And keep his self control

Trying to save the day for the old world man
Trying to pave the way for the third world man

He's not concerned with yesterday
He knows constant change is here today
He's noble enough to know what's right
But weak enough not to choose it
He's wise enough to win the world
But fool enough to lose it

He's a new world man

Learning to match the beat of the old world man
He's learning to catch the heat of the third world man

He's a new world man

He's a new world man

He's a new world man

Bruce A. Russell (no relation to Bertrand) is one of the important people in my life. I decided in law school in the early 1980s that I wanted to be a professor of philosophy rather than a practicing lawyer. Fortunately for me, I was at Wayne State University, which had (and has) a very good philosophy department. Somehow I persuaded the dean of the law school that philosophy courses were relevant to my degree program. To my surprise, she allowed me to take three of them. Two of the courses—Twentieth Century Analytic Ethics and History of Ethics—were taught by Bruce, who immediately became my mentor. (The third course, Philosophy of Language, was taught by T. Michael [Mike] McKinsey.) Bruce and Mike wrote letters of recommendation for me when I applied to graduate programs, and, well, the rest is history.

Bruce and I have kept in touch over the years, first by snail-mail and then by e-mail. During the past twenty-odd years he has grown old and feeble, whereas I have become more vigorous. But seriously, I owe much to Bruce, both personally and professionally. Sine qua non. The other day, Bruce sent a copy of his latest essay on the problem of evil. It is scheduled to appear in a widely used philosophical anthology. I asked Bruce whether I could post it, and today, having checked with the editor, he gave me permission. Here it is. I hope you enjoy it (and learn from it). No, I didn't get my religious skepticism from Bruce. I was a skeptic long before I met him. It was Bruce, however, who persuaded me that I'm an atheist and not merely an agnostic.

I grew up in a politically active family. I can remember going to political rallies with my mom. I grew up with a strong support of Republican candidates. As a child, I collected bumper stickers and buttons and wrote to my president, Ronald Reagan. As a child, I would dream about what it would be like to actually meet the president. He was a role model.

Now that I am a mother, I try to instill the same pride in my daughters. I recently was telling my 6-year-old daughter what Republicans typically believe and what Democrats typically believe. I told her why I wanted George W. Bush to be re-elected and how important the 2004 election was.

A few days later, she came to me and asked this question, "Mommy, if George Bush isn't re-elected, do we lower the flag halfway?" Although I laughed at this innocent question, it is exactly how I will feel if our president isn't re-elected.

After years of moral decay in the White House with Bill Clinton, it has been a relief to have someone in the White House who has strong moral standards and supports the traditional family. Our family fully supports George W. Bush.

Debi Jenkins, Frisco

Here is some common sense about homosexual "marriage." (From now on, quotation marks—to signal nonliterality.) I believe that when all is said and done, marriage will be restricted to heterosexuals, just as it's always been. But some states will legislate civil unions and many states will enact legislation that allows homosexual couples (or unmarried heterosexual couples) to make medical decisions for each other. That seems to be the major bone of contention. As for Andrew Sullivan's claim that anything less than marriage is stigmatic, he can look at it that way if he wants; but it can also be seen as recognition of the obvious: that there are morally and legally relevant differences between heterosexual and homosexual couples. Marriage always has been, is, and always will be a childrearing institution. It is too important to be monkeyed with. Most Americans, thank goodness, understand that.

It may be that Washington's original purpose in excluding the clergy from public benefits was benign, and the same might be true of its purpose in maintaining the exclusion today. But those singled out for disfavor can be forgiven for suspecting more invidious forces at work. Let there be no doubt: This case is about discrimination against a religious minority. Most citizens of this country identify themselves as professing some religious belief, but the State's policy poses no obstacle to practitioners of only a tepid, civic version of faith. Those the statutory exclusion actually affects—those whose belief in their religion is so strong that they dedicate their study and their lives to its ministry—are a far narrower set. One need not delve too far into modern popular culture to perceive a trendy disdain for deep religious conviction. In an era when the Court is so quick to come to the aid of other disfavored groups, . . . its indifference in this case, which involves a form of discrimination to which the Constitution actually speaks, is exceptional.

(Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, dissenting in Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. ___ [2004] [citation omitted])

Yikes! Now even the Maximum Leader is criticizing me! See here. I agree about Christopher Hitchens, by the way. He calls lots of people names. But he shouldn't. He's smart enough to argue. Only dumb people stoop to name-calling.

It's sad to see someone I admire—Christopher Hitchens—stoop to name-calling, innuendo, and character assassination. See here. Hitchens says that both Mel Gibson the person and Gibson's film, The Passion of the Christ, are anti-Semitic. He doesn't explain what this means or why he thinks it. But suppose Gibson is anti-Semitic. Does that mean his film is inaccurate? Or is Hitchens suggesting that even if it is accurate, it shouldn't have been made? Is art acceptable only if inoffensive? I don't get it. And isn't it odd to see liberals, who usually defend the most obnoxious speech and art, come down so hard on a film? This whole thing is deeply puzzling to me.

Joanna Lucas brought this site to my attention. I had never heard of the Vegan Vixens. I'm wondering what scantily clad women have to do with sparing animals pain, suffering, deprivation, confinement, and death. I'm not saying the women in question were coerced into participating, but aren't they being objectified—aren't their bodies being used—to make a point, and isn't that objectionable? Does the end of liberating animals justify sexist means? Would it justify racist or anti-Semitic means? Shouldn't one argue for liberation rather than appeal to people's emotions?

anti-Semitism

Theory, action, or practice directed against the Jews. Hence anti-Semite, one who is hostile or opposed to the Jews; anti-Semitic a.

1881 Athenaeum 3 Sept. 305/2 The author, apparently an anti-Semite. Ibid., Anti-Semitic literature is very prosperous in Germany. 1882 Athenaeum 11 Feb. 184/1 In these days of anti-Semitism. 1935 Economist 24 Aug. 366/1 The Nazi Party stalwarts..have all been leading an anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant..crusade. 1941 J. S. Huxley Uniqueness of Man ii. 50 Germanic nationalism on the one hand and anti-Semitism on the other.

If I didn't admire, respect, and like Andrew Sullivan, I wouldn't bother reading his blog, and I certainly wouldn't take pains to refute his arguments. He's a fellow conservative, after all. He was in the right on the war in Iraq. His fiscal conservatism is honorable, if sometimes immoderate. Perhaps because we have so much else in common, I focus on those matters about which we disagree, such as homosexual marriage. I frankly don't know how a conservative can support homosexual marriage. Conservatives, as such, are respectful of tradition and skeptical of proposals for change, especially radical change. What is more traditional—more deeply rooted in Western culture—than the institution of heterosexual monogamous marriage? One ought not tinker with tried-and-true institutions.

I wish Sullivan would argue forthrightly for change. What I see instead is manipulative rhetoric. For example, Sullivan calls the Federal Marriage Amendment the "religious right amendment." On the face of it, this is bizarre, for Sullivan is both deeply religious (see his posts on The Passion of the Christ) and of the political right. But just as one can be Spanish and a dancer without being a Spanish dancer, I suppose one can be religious and right without being of the religious right. That term has a special meaning—a derogatory meaning—in Sullivan's vocabulary.

Why would Sullivan use a derogatory term for the amendment he opposes? The only reason I can think of is that he's trying to move his readers emotionally. He hopes that others assign the same negative meaning to the term "religious right" as he does—and then transfer that negativity to the amendment itself. Jeremy Bentham, whose work on fallacies is still the best, had a name for this class of fallacy: argumentum ad odium. Here is how he described the class:

To this class belongs a cluster of fallacies so intimately connected with each other, that they may first be enumerated and some observations made upon them as a group. The fallacies that belong to this cluster are: (1) Imputation of bad design, (2) Imputation of bad character, (3) Imputation of bad motive, (4) Imputation of inconsistency, (5) Imputation of suspicious connections, and (6) Imputation founded on an identity of name.

Of all the fallacies belonging to this class, the common characteristic is the endeavor to draw aside attention from the measure to the man, in such a way as to cause the latter's badness to be imputed to the measure he supports, or his goodness to his opposition. It is charged that, in bringing forward or supporting the measure in question, the person accused has a bad design; therefore the measure is bad. He is a person of bad character; therefore the measure is bad. He is actuated by a bad motive; therefore the measure is bad; he has fallen into inconsistencies; therefore the measure is bad. He is on a footing of intimacy with this or that person, who is a man of dangerous principles and designs, or has been seen more or less frequently in his company, or has professed or is suspected of entertaining some opinion which the other has professed, or has been suspected of entertaining; therefore the measure is bad. He bears a name that was borne at a former period by a set of men now no more, by whom bad principles were entertained, or bad things done; therefore the measure is bad.

In these arguments thus arranged, a sort of anti-climax may be observed: the fact intimated by each succeeding argument being suggested in the character of the evidence for the one preceding it, and the conclusion being accordingly weaker and weaker at each step. The second is a sort of circumstantial copy of the first, the third of the second, and so on. If the first argument is inconclusive, the rest fall at once to the ground.

Exposure

There is varied evidence of the futility of this class of fallacies: of the improbity of their utterers, and the weakness of their acceptors. In the first place comes that general character of irrelevancy which belongs to these along with other fallacies. Next comes their complete inconclusiveness. Whatsoever be their force as applied to the worst measure ever imagined, they would be found to apply with little less force to the best measure that can be imagined.

Among 658 or any such large number of persons taken at random, there will be people of all characters. If the measure is a good one, will it become bad because it is supported by a bad man? If it is bad, will it become good because it is supported by a good man? If the measure is really expedient, why not at once show that it is so? Your producing these irrelevant and inconclusive arguments in place of direct ones, though not sufficient in itself to prove that the measure you thus oppose is a good one, nevertheless contributes to proving that you yourself regard it as a good one. (Jeremy Bentham, Bentham's Handbook of Political Fallacies, ed. Harold A. Larrabee [New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1971 (1952)], 83-5 [italics in original] [first published in 1824])

Andrew Sullivan is wasting a golden opportunity. With his academic background (in politics) and his vast blog readership, he could make a lasting contribution to the debate over homosexual marriage. He should take up the various arguments for and against it. Not in a book. In his blog. He should discuss the meanings of "equality" and "discrimination," which cry out for careful analysis. He should broach a discussion of the meanings of "federalism" and "democracy." He should investigate the different roles played by legislature and judiciary on matters of public import, with particular attention to homosexual marriage. He should inquire whether homosexual marriage is a matter of principle or of policy, and then ask what (if anything) follows from each answer. He should be respectful toward those who worry that unelected, unaccountable judges are fomenting social revolution. Instead of dismissing those with whom he disagrees with pejorative, insulting labels such as "religious right," he should engage them. Rationally. Charitably.

I know I'm whining and that whining is annoying, but I won't apologize for it. I'll always whine when reason is supplanted by emotion and when confusion and fallacy crowd out clarity and cogency. We can do better. We must do better. There is too much at stake. Andrew Sullivan can and should lead the way.

Keith, regarding your reply to the person accusing you of "hating" Andrew Sullivan, I suspect Andrew used to argue the way you encourage him to argue. Then he probably received one too many "eat me, faggot" e-mails and just decided, "Why am I arguing rationally with the irrational?" Personally, I don't find your posts to be hateful at all, but I do think that on a certain level you're arguing with a stump. I recognize it because it's what I excel at. ;)

Keep up the good writing, though. I find your site and the TCS column to be ones that always make me kick up the intellectual juices a few notches. Very challenging.

Anyone with any philosophical training has to be frustrated by the quality of the discussion of Mel Gibson's film, The Passion of the Christ. I've read many news stories and editorial opinions about the film during the past few days. I've also watched several public-affairs programs, such as MSNBC's Hardball and Scarborough Country.

What's frustrating is that the concept of anti-Semitism is never analyzed. Some people say the film is anti-Semitic; others say it's not. I want to yell out, "What do you mean by that? What are your criteria? What is your evidence that the criteria are or are not met?" Last night, for example, journalist Carl Bernstein, who is Jewish, asserted flatly that the film is anti-Semitic. William Donahue, who is Catholic, asserted just as flatly and emphatically that it is not. At that point, the host, Chris Matthews, should have asked each man what he meant by "anti-Semitic." He did not. He acted as though nothing further could be said or done. He acted as though Bernstein had said "I like chocolate" and Donahue "I don't like chocolate."

I haven't seen the film and don't plan to, but I find the discussion of it interesting on many levels. For example, the film can be evaluated as a work of art or as a work of history. The criteria differ. The film may be a superb work of art but a poor piece of history, or conversely. Some critics, such as Andrew Sullivan, dwell on the violence depicted in the film. I wonder whether they criticize other films for their violent content. If not, then they're employing a double standard. If violence is objectionable, then object to it wherever it appears, not just in films you dislike on other grounds.

I still haven't figured out why emotions run so high over this film. It seems to have struck a nerve. Perhaps it brings various tensions and animosities to the surface. If so, then the film may serve a useful purpose. If, for example, Jews and Christians have not confronted their differences, this film may open a valuable dialogue between them that leads to understanding and good (or at least better) will. Of course, it could also drive a wedge between them and make things worse. We'll have to wait and see.

Someone on one of the television programs suggested that part of what makes the film controversial is that it takes religion seriously. Certain elites in this country view religion with disdain, as something only a stupid person could entertain. They take to heart Marx's slogan that religion is the opiate of the people. While I'm an atheist, I respect theists who (1) question their faith, (2) try to work out a coherent worldview (one that accounts for both the quantity and quality of evil we experience), and (3) strive to live up to the high moral standards to which their faith commits them. (I despise religious hypocrites.) There are no philosophers I admire more than Richard Swinburne of Oxford University and Alvin Plantinga of The University of Notre Dame. Both are devout Christians.

Also, I'm grateful for my Judeo-Christian heritage, which has made my comfortable, autonomous life possible. I'm much more inclined to side with the "stupid" masses than with the snotty elites on the question of religion. This, by the way, is one major difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives understand that institutions such as religion (and heterosexual marriage) are the cement of society, not something that can be dispensed with. They would never presume to abolish them, or even to tinker with them. Institutions and traditions are far wiser, even more rational, than any individual or group. Liberals, in their arrogance, think they can do better. As one of my colleagues said the other day, liberals despise religion because it stands in the way of their grand social-engineering project. He's exactly right.

To the Editor:

Re "Mr. Greenspan's Warning" (editorial, Feb. 27):

How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say, "Now the tax cuts have left the federal government practically helpless"? As if this is the only fiscal difficulty the nation has faced over the last three years.

Have there been no positive effects from the tax cuts? Are there no lingering negative effects of the 2000-2 recession? What about the cost of the war on terror? The polemic is so obvious that a reader who disagrees even moderately is stimulated to ignore the rest of the argument as well.

THOMAS MACMANUS
Princeton, N.J., Feb. 27, 2004

I agree with The New York Times (see here) that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia should recuse himself (i.e., withdraw) from cases in which his impartiality is suspect. Lawyers and judges must avoid not only impropriety but its appearance. Perhaps I don't have all the facts, but from what I've read so far, Justice Scalia has exercised poor judgment.

Envy, n. Emulation adapted to the meanest capacity.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

Christopher J. Nelson, a fellow blogger, put the following on his blog yesterday:

Memo To AnalPhilosopher: I enjoy your pieces for Tech Central Station; your blog is on my daily reading list; your bizarre fetish to call Andrew Sullivan on every point is my hourly comic relief. Thank you for your insights, your contributions to your blog, and a glimpse into my own personality. That is, I recognize what you're doing. You hate Andrew Sullivan. You probably believe you are more intelligent than is he, and are certainly jealous that more people read his site than your columns, reflections on animal rights and homework assignments combined. I recognize the jealousy and the hatred because I am an academic as well; one with colleagues who attain greater degrees of success, who are taken more seriously, who are illogical and base. I hate them because I am jealous. You hate Andrew Sullivan because he is the public intellectual you desire to become. Thanks to the objective view of jealousy and hatred I have every time I read your site, I now hate myself, jealous of a time when I was kinder and more collegial. Now that I have admitted my personal affliction, I can begin down the road to self-respect. So, thank you. Your site, your jealousy, your hatred might just make me a better person.

I replied:

Howdy, Christopher. I was stunned to see you call me "jealous" and to suggest that I "hate" Andrew Sullivan. I don't know what leads you to draw such inferences. All I've done on my blog is try to get Sullivan to reason about homosexual marriage. I see lots of ranting, but no reasoning. Would I bother reading Sullivan if I hated him? By the way, don't you mean "envious" rather than "jealous"? Envy is wanting something you don't have and begrudging those who have it. Jealousy is fear of losing something you have, such as the love of another. Who would not want Sullivan's large readership? I'm sure Sullivan is envious of Glenn Reynolds's larger readership. All writers want to be read. kbj

So yes, I'm envious. But I don't hate Andrew. I don't hate anyone.

Wise, Steven M. "Of Farm Animals and Justice." Pace Environmental Law Review 3 (1986): 191-227.

Wise, Steven M. "How Nonhuman Animals Were Trapped in a Nonexistent Universe." Animal Law 1 (1995): 15-45.

Wise, Steven M. "The Legal Thinghood of Nonhuman Animals." Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 23 (spring 1996): 471-546.

Wise, Steven M. "Legal Rights for Nonhuman Animals: The Case for Chimpanzees and Bonobos." Animal Law 2 (spring 1996): 179-86.

Wise, Steven M. "Thunder Without Rain: A Review/Commentary of Gary L. Francione's Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement." Animal Law 3 (1997): 45-59.

Goodall, Jane, and Steven M. Wise. "Are Chimpanzees Entitled to Fundamental Legal Rights?" Animal Law 3 (1997): 61-73.

Wise, Steven M. "Hardly a Revolution—The Eligibility of Nonhuman Animals for Dignity-Rights in a Liberal Democracy." Vermont Law Review 22 (summer 1998): 793-915.

Wise, Steven M. "Recovery of Common Law Damages for Emotional Distress, Loss of Society, and Loss of Companionship for the Wrongful Death of a Companion Animal." Animal Law 4 (1998): 33-93.

Wise, Steven M. "Animal Thing to Animal Person—Thoughts on Time, Place, and Theories." Animal Law 5 (1999): 61-8.

Wise, Steven M. Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals. Foreword by Jane Goodall. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books, 2000.

Wise, Steven M. Review of Animal Law, by Pamela D. Frasch, Sonia S. Waisman, Bruce A. Wagman, and Scott Beckstead. Animal Law 6 (2000): 251-7.

Wise, Steven M. "Dismantling the Barriers to Legal Rights for Nonhuman Animals." Animal Law 7 (2001): 9-17.

Wise, Steven M. Drawing the Line: Science and the Case for Animal Rights. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books, 2003.

Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson went on a camping trip. After a good meal and a bottle of wine, they lay down and went to sleep. Some hours later, Holmes awoke and nudged his faithful friend. "Watson! Look up and tell me what you see." Watson replied, "I see millions of stars." "What does that tell you?" asked Holmes. Watson pondered a minute. "Astronomically, it tells me there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, I observe that Saturn is in Leo. Horologically, I deduce that it's approximately a quarter past three. Theologically, I can see that God is all-powerful and that we are small and insignificant. Meteorologically, I suspect we will have a beautiful day tomorrow. What does it tell you?" Holmes was silent a moment and then spoke. "Watson, you fool! Someone has stolen our tent!"

Compare this carefully reasoned essay by lawyer Michael Horowitz with the recent rantings and ravings of Andrew Sullivan and you see why Sullivan can no longer be taken seriously as a public intellectual (if he ever could). I think he's too close to the issue—too personally involved—to think clearly and carefully about it. His recent posts are the moral equivalent of whines, moans, shrieks, and tantrums.

When John Kerry was in Vietnam, all he could think about was being president. Now that he's running for president, all he can think about is being in Vietnam. See here for Byron York's insightful column. I think Kerry needs professional help.

Read this New York Post story about the views of John Kerry and John Edwards on homosexual marriage. Either they're saying whatever they think will secure them votes or they're stupid. In either case, they're not fit to be senators, much less president. What cracks me up is that liberals think Kerry and Edwards have "nuanced" positions, whereas President Bush "sees the world in black and white." Give me moral clarity any day. Hell, just give me clarity. (Thanks to James Taranto for the link.)

By a vote of 254-163, the House yesterday approved the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, under which attacking a pregnant woman counts as two separate assaults, one on her and one on her unborn child. Opponents argue that this somehow undermines the right to abortion:

Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., said it would be the first time in federal law that a fetus would be recognized as having the same rights as the born. The bill "is not about shielding pregnant women," she said. "It is and has always been about undermining freedom of choice."

The House, said Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, was "taking advantage of tragedy to promote the far-right agenda of trying to rob women of their right to choose."

Nita Lowey and Kate Michelman, standing tall for a murderer's right to choose. And in truth, they are the ones undermining the intellectual case for abortion rights. The pro-life argument has always been that abortion is murder; Lowey and Michelman's view is that murder is abortion.

I've been blogging since 5 November—almost four months. My readership has grown slowly but surely. I remember being amazed that 100 people a day were reading what I wrote. Then 200. Now I'm up to 333 visits per day, at least for the past week. And that's without having a Tech Central Station column in four weeks. (I always get more visits after a column appears.) Not long after I began blogging, I received an e-mail message from a pleasant woman named Peg in Minneapolis. (Actually, I've never seen Peg, but she says she's a woman.) She said she liked my blog. I thanked her for the kind words. A week or so later, I got another message. Before long, we were corresponding.

Peg has studied philosophy at the graduate level, so we have that in common. She's a top-notch bridge player, which we do not have in common. (I'm a poker kind of guy.) She's conservative, but not rigidly so, like me. Perhaps I shouldn't characterize Peg as conservative. She doesn't like labels. She's even written a blog entry on the topic. A while back I suggested that Peg start a blog, and to my surprise she seemed receptive. She's a good writer with lots of interesting and witty things to say. One day she informed me that her blog was up and running, and now that she's posted a few items she's ready to go public (i.e., "come out of the closet"). Her blog is entitled "what if?" Here is a link. (I've also added Peg to my blogroll on the left, in case you lose her.) Please visit. Peg will entertain and inform all comers, as I like to think I do. (She will probably enrage fewer than I do, but that's because she's so darn nice.) I hope that if you like Peg's blog, you bookmark it and go back every day. Welcome to the blogosphere, Peg!

By the way, Peg is still trying to figure out how to install a visitor counter on her blog. She uses TypePad. If someone can help her do this, she (and I) will be much obliged. All of my feeble efforts to this point have failed.

To classify a certain crime as deserving a severe penalty is, it seems to me, to say in effect that the crime is heinous. If the crime does not look all that bad, judges and juries are likely to begin quietly redefining the crime so that it fits the classification. They will read aggravating circumstances into the statutory description. The typical rape does not look all that bad to most people. That may be one reason juries have trouble convicting rapists when the penalty is severe. How can this act be that crime? There is an analogous problem with the typical rapist. He is usually quite ordinary, not at all what you would expect a class-X-felon-sex-fiend to be. How can he deserve that penalty? By making rape a major felony, we help to define rape in a way making it likely that only the cruelest rapes will be punished at all and then only if committed by social outcasts.

We may also be doing something to keep rape a crime women especially fear in prospect and some men especially relish committing. Women have in fact more reason to fear the prospect of battery than rape. Aggravated battery of women is three times more common than rape; simple battery, eight times more common. But the message the rape statutes send is that rape should be feared far more than battery. People who batter you are only misdemeanants or minor felons but rapists are just about the worst felons there are (except for murderers). Rape statutes themselves help to maintain an unrealistic picture of rape and rapists. They contribute to the very mythology of rape feminists believe oppresses women. Would women be any more afraid to go out at night than men are if women thought of rape the way men think of battery? After all, men are assaulted twice as often as women (and suffer injury twice as often too).

That unrealistic picture may also have something to do with why some men rape. There will doubtless be some rapes as long as there are people who want to humiliate others. The forced intimacy of rape is just too obvious a means of humiliation to go unused. But is it not at least possible that some men rape because the laws themselves help to maintain the myth that rape is somehow special, more like murder or some other great crime than like dishonorable bullying? To be a rapist, our laws now say, is to be very bad. Might there not be fewer rapes if the law made it clear that rape is just another battery, not a sex crime or a great crime, just another way to make a helpless victim suffer?

(Michael Davis, "Setting Penalties: What Does Rape Deserve?" Law and Philosophy: An International Journal for Jurisprudence and Legal Philosophy 3 [April 1984]: 61-110, at 108-9 [italics in original; footnotes omitted])

Andrew Sullivan, the homosexual activist who sometimes writes on other topics, has finally come around to my view. See here. He thinks it unlikely that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution (Article IV, Section 1) will be used to force one state's homosexual marriages on other states. Some of us are not as sanguine. We think it likely, even highly likely. But at least we know where we disagree. If Sullivan were a lawyer, as I am, I'd take his legal opinion more seriously.

What I've been trying to get Sullivan to see for several weeks—and what he now appears to see—is that federalism requires a constitutional amendment. Not the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), which prevents any state from allowing homosexual marriage, but an amendment that keeps states from being forced to accept other states' homosexual marriages. Sullivan says he will support such an amendment if and when a state is forced by a court to accept another state's homosexual marriages. Fair enough. But why not go ahead with the amendment? What harm is there? If nothing else, it would show Sullivan's good faith.

By the way, Sullivan should stop referring to the FMA as the "religious right amendment." Does he realize how stupid (how juvenile) he sounds? He's using rhetoric to play on his readers' emotions. It's insulting to those who share his view and infuriating to those who don't. I don't think Sullivan can call himself an intellectual if he plays word games like that. That's Gingrichian stuff, the stuff of demagoguery.

Don't read this unless you can handle frank talk about oral sex. (Pun unintended.)

Read this news story and then ask yourself, "Does this woman have a brain?" Do liberals realize how idiotic they sound when they blame "white men" for everything? The term "white men," to a liberal, means "whoever is responsible for whatever problem I'm having." Can you say "scapegoat"?

Victor Davis Hanson proves that not all academics are soft-headed liberals. See here. Thanks to Texas Conservative for the link.

To the Editor:

John Kerry may be the more "experienced and knowledgeable" candidate in the primary on March 2 (editorial, Feb. 26), but recent history has shown that likability trumps experience, particularly in a presidential election.

Republicans figured out long ago that Americans will vote for someone who speaks to them before someone who speaks down to them.

John Edwards has demonstrated the ability to communicate the Democratic agenda better than any Democrat in the United States today. A vote for John Kerry is a vote for another Dukakis-Mondale-McGovern-style embarrassment in the fall.

With the stakes so high, Democrats can't afford to make another mistake.

MARTIN JOHNSON
Chapel Hill, N.C., Feb. 26, 2004

We're at the maneuvering and skirmishing stage in the war over homosexual marriage. See here. The overwhelming majority of Americans—I've seen a figure as high as sixty percent—do not want homosexual marriage. The fear, of course, is that unelected, unaccountable judges will force it on them. This is why there is so much activity in state legislatures. Suppose each state amended its constitution to prohibit homosexual marriage. The United States Supreme Court could nullify all of the amendments by ruling that homosexual marriage is required by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution (either as a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause or as an invidious classification under the Equal Protection Clause). It would be Roe v. Wade all over again. I predict that if that ever occurred, the United States Constitution would be amended in a heartbeat. I don't know about you, but as a lawyer and as a philosopher, I find these exciting times indeed.

My second remark is political. Wherever necessary, I shall use the colloquial plural pronouns 'they' and 'their' in impersonal contexts in place of the pernicious masculine singular 'he' and 'his' required by strict English grammar. For I do not wish to endorse the impression that only men ever do or think anything worth mentioning. I find this option less distracting than the use of the feminine 'she' and 'hers' favoured by some writers. Yet it is less stylistically barbaric than 's/he' and 'his/hers', and less unwieldy than the constant use of 'he or she' and 'his or hers'.

(Peter Carruthers, The Animals Issue: Moral Theory in Practice [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992], xiii)

Micha Ghertner over at Catallarchy has commented on my egoism post of yesterday. See here.

Steve Headley (a.k.a. Texas Conservative) has posted a powerful letter from a Vietnam veteran. See here.

Keith,

I read the article about PETA's efforts to change the town's name from Slaughterville to Veggieville. I thought it was just plain funny. Nothing more. I do work directly on behalf of animals. So do many of my friends who make good use of PETA's free activist materials and support. Some of us also donate money to PETA and encourage others to become members if for no other reason, at least to receive their complimentary copy of Singer's Animal Liberation.

I guess a lot of us women don't think PETA's campaigns are degrading and oppressive to us. Some of PETA's publicity stunts are juvenile indeed, but then a lot of their outreach efforts do target a juvenile audience . . . and with great success.

I disagree that PETA's campaigns to improve the welfare of battery chickens are detrimental to the cause of animal rights, even though you and Francione (among other thinkers I respect) make a compelling case for it. Yes, we do want empty cages not larger cages but, for the next 200 years, while we work towards our ultimate goal, shouldn't we also try to make the lives of farmed animals a touch more tolerable?

PETA's campaigns are not limited to their high profile boycotts. Their Vegan Outreach program, their Humane Education classes, their grassroots outreach efforts, to name a few, get a lot less publicity than the naked run events but they do reach a lot of people and change a lot of minds. How is that the worst thing that ever happened to the animals?

With all due respect, I think the worst thing that is happening to animals is divisiveness within the animal rights movement.

Joanna

Sex has no special moral significance; it is morally neutral. No act is either morally good or bad, right or wrong, merely in virtue of being a sexual act. As we have seen in the preceding chapter, even rape need not be construed as an essentially sexual crime. Accordingly, there is neither need nor room for a set of moral considerations that apply only to sex and constitute sexual morality in the strict sense of the term. What does apply to choices, acts, and practices in the field of sex are the same moral rules and principles that apply in non-sexual matters. In sex, just as in non-sexual matters, we can hurt, harm, coerce, deceive, or exploit others, or default on our promises and commitments—and we are morally required not to do so. When we go against any of these requirements, the sexual nature of our conduct makes it neither more nor less wrong than it otherwise would be.

Thus adultery is not wrong as extramarital sex, but only when it involves breach of promise, or seriously hurts the feelings of the non-adulterous spouse, etc. Prostitution is not wrong as commercial sex, but if and when the prostitute is forced into this line of work by the lack of any real alternative. Pedophilia is not wrong as adult-child sex, but because even when the child is willingly participating, its willingness is extremely suspect in view of the radical asymmetries of maturity, knowledge, understanding, and power of children and adults. Sexual harassment is not wrong because it is sexual, but because it is harassment. Rape is not wrong as sexual battery, but as sexual battery.

(Igor Primoratz, Ethics and Sex [London and New York: Routledge, 1999], 173-4 [italics in original])

Egoism is the whipping boy of contemporary moral philosophy. Thirty years ago, James Rachels published an essay ("Two Arguments Against Ethical Egoism," Philosophia 4 [April-July 1974]: 297-314) in which he called egoism "pernicious" and "wicked." That's interesting. Rachels believes that moral theories are either true or false (i.e., that they have truth values). Can't a theory be both true and wicked? I don't understand the force of calling a theory wicked, except to express bias against it. Is Rachels suggesting that one should not endorse egoism even if it's true?

Another philosopher, Holmes Rolston III, says that, "If moral philosphers [sic] have nearly agreed to anything, they agree that ethical egoism (I ought always do what is in my enlightened self-interest) is both incoherent and immoral" (Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in the Natural World [Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1988], 294 [italics in original]). To say that a theory is incoherent is to say that it cannot possibly be true; hence, that it is false. But the only reason Rolston gives for thinking that ethical egoism is false is that most or all moral philosophers believe it to be false. This is odd. Philosophers bend over backward to teach their students that mere widespread belief, even universal belief, does not entail truth. An entire culture can be mistaken, they say. Oops! They say that when criticizing cultural relativism, another whipping boy. Unless you think that philosophers are especially wise or especially likely to be correct, even unanimity among them is irrelevant to the truth of a theory. Most philosophers are atheists. Is that evidence for the truth of atheism?

In his chapter on ethical egoism from The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 4th ed. (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2003), which is one of the most widely used ethics textbooks in the United States, Rachels discusses three arguments in its favor and three against it. Before discussing one of the arguments, let me state the theory. According to Rachels, ethical egoism "is the idea that each person ought to pursue his or her own self-interest exclusively" (77). The theory does not say that one may never benefit others, because others may be incidentally benefited by one's pursuit of one's self-interest. Also, if I take an interest in the well-being of others, such as my children, then benefiting them promotes my self-interest. Nor is ethical egoism the theory that one should do as one pleases or do whatever makes one happy. It requires that one maximize one's long-term rational self-interest. It is not just imprudent for me to smoke; it is wrong. To an ethical egoist, prudence and morality converge.

I want to focus on the third of Rachels's three arguments against ethical egoism. He calls it "The Argument That Ethical Egoism Is Unacceptably Arbitrary" (88). It goes like this:

1. If a moral theory rests on a morally arbitrary distinction, then it is false/unacceptable.

2. Ethical egoism rests on a morally arbitrary distinction (namely, between self and others).

Therefore,

3. Ethical egoism is false/unacceptable (from 1 and 2).

According to Rachels, the distinction between self and others is as arbitrary as the distinction between one's own race and other races. Thus, ethical egoism has the same status as racism. Here is how he puts it:

Ethical Egoism . . . advocates that each of us divide the world into two categories of people—ourselves and all the rest—and that we regard the interests of those in the first group as more important than the interests of those in the second group. But each of us can ask, what is the difference between me and everyone else that justifies placing myself in this special category? Am I more intelligent? Do I enjoy my life more? Are my accomplishments greater? Do I have needs or abilities that are so different from the needs or abilities of others? In short, what makes me so special? Failing an answer, it turns out that Ethical Egoism is an arbitrary doctrine, in the same way that racism is arbitrary. (89; italics in original)

Rachels thinks that this argument, of the three he gives, "comes closest to an outright refutation of Ethical Egoism" (88). Is he right?

I think Rachels's argument proves far too much. Let us concede, for the sake of argument, that the difference between self and others is arbitrary. (I don't for a moment believe this. Nor do you.) This means (according to Rachels) that there is no morally relevant difference between self and others. But if that's the case, how can a person give even slightly more weight to his or her own interests in deciding what to do? Presumably, Rachels would condemn even a slight preference for one's own race. If race is arbitrary, as he says, then it must play no role whatsoever in our deliberations. But if ethical egoism is analogous to racism, as Rachels claims, then I may not show even a slight preference for myself. Nor may you.

Rachels, alas, doesn't discuss this. The rationale he deploys (arbitrariness) suffices to condemn ethical egoism, which says that the interests of others don't count at all. What he doesn't appear to grasp is that it also condemns any preference, however slight, for oneself. This implies that, in deciding what to do, one must treat oneself exactly the same as everyone else, even strangers. There are, of course, people who hold this view. They're called act-consequentialists. See, e.g., Shelly Kagan, The Limits of Morality (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989). But Rachels isn't arguing for act-consequentialism here. He's arguing against ethical egoism. Unless these are the only two theoretical options, which they are not, an argument against ethical egoism is not an argument for act-consequentialism. I wish Rachels were still alive so I could ask him about this. He seems to have used a cannon to kill an ant.

Miss, n. A title with which we brand unmarried women to indicate that they are in the market. Miss, Missis (Mrs.) and Mister (Mr.) are the three most distinctly disagreeable words in the language, in sound and sense. Two are corruptions of Mistress, the other of Master. In the general abolition of social titles in this our country they miraculously escaped to plague us. If we must have them let us be consistent and give one to the unmarried man. I venture to suggest Mush, abbreviated to Mh.

(Ambrose Bierce,The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

I'm not a fan of columnist Richard Cohen of The Washington Post. His columns on capital punishment (he opposes it) are riddled with confusions and fallacies that not even my introductory students would commit. But today he makes sense. See here. First, he places blame for Al Gore's defeat on Al Gore (whom he calls "an abysmal candidate") rather than Ralph Nader. Nader has become the Democrat scapegoat. To this day I do not understand the claim that Nader "cost Al Gore the election." That's true only if Gore had a right to the votes cast for Nader, which of course he did not.

Second, Cohen admits that Nader has "an ego" but insists that so does everyone else in Washington, including those (such as Bill Richardson) who accuse Nader of having an ego. What does ego have to do with anything? Anyone with ambition, which is anyone who's successful in any field, has an ego. This doesn't mean that having an ego is good, only that there should be no double standard. Don't criticize Ralph Nader for having an ego unless you do the same for people you like. Bill Clinton has as big an ego as anyone, but I don't hear Bill Richardson or any other Democrat attacking him for it. In fact, they rather like it.

Third, Cohen admits, however grudgingly, that Nader "is one of the genuinely important people of our time, someone who can claim to have made a difference." That is precisely why I admire and respect Nader, and why he has my vote.

To the Editor:

I had the privilege of viewing Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" (news article, Feb. 24) with my church community two days before the official opening. My personal motivation was to establish a deeper emotional connection to Christ's final hours, which represent a core element of my faith.

In this regard, my expectations were well surpassed. Mr. Gibson is hugely successful in conveying the magnitude of the persecution and brutality that were directed at Christ.

No right-thinking mind could miss one of the most important messages of this great sacrifice. Both during and after the most torturous and agonizing experience imaginable, Christ repeatedly asked the Father for the forgiveness of those who brought this evil upon him.

That is the message that must dominate our contemplation of this account. Until we as a people can learn to forgive past transgressions in our families, in our local communities, in our great country and in the world, particularly in the Middle East, there can be no peace in our lives on this earth.

GREG DILALO
East Brunswick, N.J., Feb. 24, 2004

To the Editor:

As a psychiatrist, I wish to state my profound concern about the mental anguish and suffering that Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" is likely to cause not only to the young and impressionable but to anyone seeing it ("Tears and Gasps for 'Passion,'" news article, Feb. 24).

Mr. Gibson's searing and prolonged depiction of sadistic violence is wrenching and traumatic. His meticulous and obsessive portrayal of torture, mutilation, bleeding and physical pain is a lurid, cruel and pornographic assault on the feelings and senses of the viewer.

The intensity and repetitiveness of this sordid and painful imagery are as traumatic to witness as watching the hijacked planes crash into the World Trade Center again and again.

In my opinion, this movie is not only blatantly anti-Semitic but is also anti-Catholic, anti-Christian and demeaning to the true meaning and message of kindness, love and compassion that are the real teachings of both Judaism and Christianity.

PHILIP J. HAUPTMAN, M.D.
New York, Feb. 25, 2004

A battle is not a war; a skirmish is not a battle; maneuvering of troops is not a skirmish. All we're seeing right now (see here) is maneuvering of troops in the coming war over homosexual marriage. Some conservatives, such as John McCain, are not convinced of the necessity of a constitutional amendment. This doesn't mean they won't eventually see the necessity. Nobody wants to amend the constitution unless it's necessary. It's possible (though unlikely) that no state will be forced to accept another state's homosexual marriages. But all that will change the moment a state supreme court or the United States Supreme Court rules that a homosexual marriage entered into in state A must be recognized in state B (or, if it's the United States Supreme Court doing the ruling, in every state). That's when the fun begins, for then, the only way to nullify such marriages is by constitutional amendment.

Homosexual activists such as Andrew Sullivan should not be misled by what is happening. Reluctance by conservatives now is not reluctance forever. Conservatives are waiting to see what transpires. What Sullivan should fervently hope is that no court forces homosexual marriage on an unwilling population. That will ensure amendment of the constitution to prevent homosexual marriage everywhere. Be careful what you ask for, Andrew. If you ask for too much, you may get nothing.

Texas Conservative is finding his voice. I check his blog several times a day to see what he has to say. He's a good writer and has an interesting take on things. I haven't detected any meanness in him, either. He seems eminently sane and balanced. But he's not wishy-washy on what he believes in. That's good. Oh yes, he links to interesting material—stuff I might not otherwise find. Check him out!

We're hearing a lot these days about homosexual marriage, homosexuality, and homosexuals. How many people are we talking about? The population of the United States as of a few minutes ago was 292,669,533. See here. According to the 2000 Census, 50.9% of the population was female (see here), so, assuming that the percentage hasn't changed in four years, there are 149,098,365 females and 143,571,168 males in the United States. Richard A. Posner, citing the latest studies, says that, "A small minority, probably no more than 4 percent of males and 2 percent of females (and possibly smaller), have a strong homosexual preference . . ." (Richard A. Posner, "Economics and the Social Construction of Homosexuality," chap. 26 in his Overcoming Law [Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 1995], 552-78, at 555 [footnote omitted]).

Using Posner's percentages, there are 5,742,846 males and 2,981,967 females with a strong homosexual preference. This is misleading, however, since those figures include infants and children. According to the census, 62.7% of males and 61.1% of females are eighteen to sixty-four years of age. Assuming that these percentages apply across sexual-preference lines, that produces 3,600,764 adult males and 1,821,981 adult females with a strong homosexual preference, or a total of 5,422,745. In other words, there are no more than 5.4 million adult homosexuals in this country. For purposes of comparison, there are more than four million Americans twenty-five years of age or older who have less than a fifth-grade education. See here. How often do you run into one of them? It puts the discussion about homosexual marriage in perspective.

Here is Posner:

It might seem that the fewer homosexuals there are, the less dangerous they are along whatever dimension there is reason to fear them, and the more, therefore, society can afford to leave them alone. The other side of the coin is that the more of them there are, the more psychological injury we do by placing them under legal disabilities. The second consideration seems weightier than the first—at least given the fact that the advocates for homosexuals consistently press for acceptance of a clear overestimate of the number of homosexuals. But of course they may have other fish to fry. They may want to exaggerate the potential electoral strength of their constituents in order to impress politicians. And they may recognize that in a pluralistic society, morality and public opinion are not sharply distinguishable, so the more people there are who engage in a practice, the more likely the practice is to be morally acceptable. (Richard A. Posner, Sex and Reason [Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 1992], 295)

As usual, Judge Posner cuts to the core of the issue. I highly recommend his books.

Did anyone notice that Andrew Sullivan used the word "fag" today? See here. It might be said that if he can use it, so can others. But that's a non sequitur. Some people are privileged to use certain words. I can't use "nigger," for example, but African-Americans can. I can't use "fag," but Andrew Sullivan (who is homosexual) can. Just because a word exists doesn't mean anyone can use it. Consider some analogies. I can spank my children. It doesn't follow that you can. I can destroy my property. It doesn't follow that you can. My friend Peg tells me that X can criticize X's parents. It doesn't follow that X's spouse can. I wrote about linguistic privilege in one of my Tech Central Station columns some time back. See here.

Today brings two more business names that don't exactly inspire confidence: Rip's Cleaners of Palatka, Fla., and Flatt Tire Centers (slogan: "You too should ride on a Flatt") of Des Moines, Iowa. Bonita, Fla., has a Master Bait & Tackle shop; rumor has it Joycelyn Elders buys her fishing supplies there.

Denton, Texas, has a divorce law firm called Loveless & Loveless. The Lovelesses were more successful eponymists than Dr. Dennis Wiwi, who unaccountably chose obstetrics and gynecology as his specialty. But Benjamin Leak is, as you'd expect, a urologist, and Gary Peed is a plumber.

More funeral homes: Australia has a Life Style Funeral Co., while the House of Diggs, "once called Michigan's largest funeral home" according to the Washington Post, was run by Charles Diggs, who served in the House. Graves Funeral Home & Crematory is an excellent eponym, but the company that owns it, Newcomer Funeral Services Group, isn't. Pinellas County, Fla., has a Moss-Feaster Funeral Home.

Several readers pointed us to the Eikenberry-Eddy Funeral Home in Peru, Ind., but we didn't get the joke until someone raised the question of what happens if someone other than Eddy dies.

A press release from the California Wine Club notes that "Bruce and Pam Boring founded the Ventura, CA-based Club in 1990 and travel the wine country to sample and select wines for their members." Well, they may be Boring winers, but at least they're not haughty or French-looking.

Here is a Boston Globe column about The Passion of the Christ. I'm sorry, but to me there's no difference between this movie and Lord of the Rings. If the latter is fantasy, so is the former. Neither makes a bit of sense.

To the Editor:

Re "Lawyers, Guns and Mayors," by Michael R. Bloomberg, Richard M. Daley, James K. Hahn and Scott L. King (Op-Ed, Feb. 24):

The four big-city mayors want to be able to sue gun makers. Since cars also kill people, why don't they sue car makers?

Gun ownership carries at least as many responsibilities as car ownership. People who want to own guns should pay for the privilege and prove to an insurer that they are capable.

Shift the burden to where it belongs; the makers may be venal, but they are not liable.

MARSHALL L. SMITH
Rockville, Md., Feb. 24, 2004

To the Editor:

Re "Lawyers, Guns and Mayors" (Op-Ed, Feb. 24): Rather than continuing to pursue one of the most highly regulated industries in America, we should consider the enforcement of existing gun laws to incarcerate criminals.

In addition, allowing the carrying of concealed weapons by would-be victims may keep potential attackers off guard, thereby decreasing crime.

We appreciate the efforts of our mayors in their most difficult tasks, but attacking an overwhelmingly honest industry while leaving citizens unarmed and criminals free will not make any of us safer.

JACK D. LYONS
Chicago, Feb. 24, 2004

To the Editor:

Re "Lawyers, Guns and Mayors" (Op-Ed, Feb. 24):

As an answer to the problem of gun violence, ordinary law-abiding citizens should be permitted to carry weapons.

Citizens must be able to defend themselves; this is a fine example of why liberals don't do security well.

MARY MCLEMORE
Autaugaville, Ala., Feb. 24, 2004

What has happened to journalism? Before reading further, please read this story from today's New York Times. Keep in mind that this is a straight news story, not an editorial opinion. Did you notice the obsession with President Bush's motives for supporting a constitutional amendment? Instead of addressing the merits of the proposed amendment, about which there is much to be said, the reporter focused on the president's motivation for supporting it. Actually, it's worse than this. The motives attributed to President Bush are strictly political (rather than, say, moral). The thrust of the story is that President Bush supports the amendment in order to placate (mollify) his electoral "base." The clear implication is that, if he didn't think supporting the amendment would help him politically, he would not support it.

This is unabashed, unadulterated cynicism. A cynic, by definition, is a questioner (impugner) of motives. A cynic never accepts a person's stated reasons for action, however sincerely they may be expressed. He or she looks instead for ulterior, disreputable motives. Much of contemporary journalism, I am afraid to say, consists of cynical commentary on the events of the day. Everyone, journalists believe, is on the make. Nobody can be trusted to be honest. Appearances are always misleading. There is always more going on under the surface, usually involving money, which is status and power. Self-delusion and denial are rampant. Journalists who buy into this picture of the world are unable to take things at face value. They consider it naive to report what they are told. Indeed, there seems to be a contest among journalists to see who can be the most cynical.

How did our society—and journalism in particular—get so cynical? It is corroding our political and social life. Even children are cynical. Bart Simpson is the very embodiment of cynicism. How would you like to have your motives questioned? Not just occasionally, but systematically, on matters large and small? It's insulting. It's infuriating. Perhaps journalists have bought into the idea, known to philosophers as psychological egoism, that humans are incapable of acting against their self-interest. Everything they do, according to this theory, is calculated to promote their interests, whether they know it or not and whether they admit it or not. But almost no philosopher accepts psychological egoism, for it denies the very possibility of altruism, which is required by every moral theory except ethical egoism (the theory that each person ought to promote his or her own interests). Surely humans are capable of acting against their self-interest. Don't we see it every day? Are there no saints or heroes?

It's all very depressing. I believe journalists would earn the respect of their readers, viewers, and listeners if they stopped being so cynical. Some degree of cynicism is appropriate, especially in politics, but it can be carried too far. Journalists have carried it way too far.

Redemption, n. Deliverance of sinners from the penalty of their sin, through their murder of the deity against whom they sinned. The doctrine of Redemption is the fundamental mystery of our holy religion, and whoso believeth in it shall not perish, but have everlasting life in which to try to understand it.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

I asked some friends and colleagues about the brouhaha over Mel Gibson's film. What's going on? Why the controversy? Here's what one of them (a Ph.D., but not in philosophy and not necessarily at my university) said. I thought my readers might find it interesting, as I did:

There are two brouhahai. One is the anti-semitic charge, which is ridiculous. Yes, Jews were probably involved in the crucifixion, because Jesus was a Jew, and who else would have cared, or even understood, what he was saying? (I'm assuming that, unlike the movie, there were no Latin subtitles when he preached). Calling this anti-semitism is like saying that having my students read the Defense of Socrates is anti-Greek.

The second is the ambivalence liberals feel about Christianity. They don't like religion, Christianity in particular, because it gets in the way of their ongoing redesign of culture. But the values and the technology they depend on are, historically, the product of Christendom. The reason they find the violence of the movie offensive is that they have inherited ideas of mercy, compassion, and the value of the individual that grew stronger over time in Christendom, ideas that put an end to crucifixions. The reason they are able to watch a movie at all is that when Hellenistic science was reborn during the Renaissance, it was the work of men who believed that God had given them stewardship of the world, and it was their job not only to understand it, as the Hellenistic scientists did, but to manage it. Literally in God's name they applied their science to technology, which in turn led to more science, bringing them more power to subdue nature to God's order.

The debate over evolution is another example: In order to develop his theory, Darwin needed the Christian idea of linear, irreversible time (taken from the Hebrews). Similarly, Marx could never have developed his teleology of a classless society without the Christian idea of progress through time toward salvation. It is entirely possible to believe in the values and the technology without believing in the religion, but liberals are offended by the idea that their ideas came from anywhere, other than directly from their intuition of what would be "best" for everyone.

Christianity, working through two thousand years of human experience, and with the help of some pretty good thinkers like Augustine, have explored the implications and ramifications of its ideas fairly thoroughly, and are therefore aware that some ideas are inconsistent with others, and that the world contains some natural resistance points to some ideas (original sin is their name for the main one), and all this complicates the ability of liberals to hold contradictory and impractical ideas, or to believe that anything can be fixed through the appropriate public policies.

In sum, the movie bothers them because it is about the central story of Christendom, a powerful myth that is persuasive to a lot of people, including non-Christians, because it involves themes that have been integrated so thoroughly into our culture (including our science) that we don't even recognize them as "religious" anymore. Liberals very much like the idea that they are in charge of the world. They also like the power science gives them over that world. Where would the modern welfare state be without the wealth or coercive power created by technology? Where would feminism be without the countless devices we rely on to minimize the need for physical strength? But they very much dislike the idea that they hold this power over the world only as surrogates of God, subject to restrictions sent out from the central office.

Comments are welcome. I may or may not be able to reply personally (depending on how much mail I receive and how busy I am with other things), but I read every e-mail I receive. Thank you in advance for writing.

Read this and then ask yourself whether People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is a serious organization. If you support PETA, you're a fool. Work directly in behalf of animals; don't give your money or time to an organization that degrades and oppresses women, wastes contributors' money, worships celebrity, and campaigns to get chickens an extra inch or two in their ca