Month: March 2010

According to a new study by Canadian psychologists Nina Mazar and Chen-Bo Zhong, ethically conscious consumers are actually less likely to be kind to others and more likely to cheat and steal. Julian Baggini thinks it through:

The general truth lurking behind these findings is that the feeling of being pure is a moral contaminant. In ethical terms, the best never think that they are the best, and those that believe themselves to be on the side of the angels are often the worst devils.

Why should this be so? One reason is that complacency is as dangerous in ethics as it is in any other area of life where we strive for excellence. If we think we are "good people" we might think less about the possibility that we might actually be doing wrong.

But if that just seems to be a universal truth of human nature, what of the idea that being in moral credit earns us redeemable naughtiness points? I can imagine what the evolutionary psychologists would say: ethics is rooted in reciprocal altruism – you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. So when you do the right thing, but not to any particular person, we instinctively feel that we have earned some sort of pay back. Since no-one will do that for us, we opt for self-service reciprocation.

(Hat tip: Heather Horn)

On Flickr.

From the incredible work of Joey Lawrence. This photo's caption:

This Brahmin has practiced an ascetic life since the age of 5 years. Kathmandu, Nepal.

(Hat tip: Graphic Exchange)

Jonah Lehrer highlights a study.

Please bring strange things.

Please come bringing new things.

Let very old things come into your hands.

Let what you do not know come into your eyes.

Let desert sand harden your feet.

Let the arch of your feet be the mountains.

Let the paths of your fingertips be your maps

and the ways you go be the lines on your palms.

Let there be deep snow in your inbreathing

and your outbreath be the shining of ice.

May your mouth contain the shapes of strange words.

May you smell food cooking you have not eaten.

May the spring of a foreign river be your navel.

May your soul be at home where there are no houses.

Walk carefully, well loved one,

walk mindfully, well loved one,

walk fearlessly, well loved one.

Return with us, return to us,

be always coming home.

– Ursula Leguin.

Dave Munger contemplates limits of animal personhood:

So while many animals display remarkable cognitive abilities, there are clearly limits to what they can do. Does this mean they aren’t entitled to be considered “non-human persons?” Is it even appropriate to judge non-human animals in such anthropomorphic terms? Suppose we decide it’s wrong to keep an orca in captivity because of its intelligence. Then what about a slightly less-intelligent animal like a pig or a dog? Where do you draw the line? 

Henry Karlson tackles the question from a religious perspective:

What has been suggested by Lewis is that we can have a positive influence in the development of animal personality, and that this role was one we were expected to have from the beginning. …This positive role we can have in the lives of animals presents to us one example of what it means to be mediators of God’s grace to animals.

It does not have to be the only way our mediatorship can be understood, but rather, it presents the simplest way in which we can see that we possess such a role. It helps us understand that we do have an effect on animals and that we can help them find their own perfection. The happiness we find in this accomplishment indicates that this is indeed a part of our own moral role in the world. But this means, as said above, that there are all kinds of considerations which must be examined. If we understand ourselves as having a priestly role to nature, then we can see, as Lewis did, that abuse of nature, of animals, is sacrilegious. This is why we must be careful — it is both a great ability but also a great responsibility placed upon us.

(Video hat tip: Waking Up Now)

Werner Herzog narrates.

A reader writes:

I'm sorry Andrew, but there has been no fairer American observer of the Vatican over the years than John Allen. And comparing him to Jackson Diehl? Please.

I have two kids in Catholic School. Because of the reforms that Benedict has made, every one of the parents, teachers, parish staff (including the clergy), bus drivers, chaperones, catechists, playground supervisors, nursery care workers – anyone who has the slightest amount of exposure to kids at all in our faith community – is required to submit their names for a criminal background check and attend a training session on how to look for signs of abuse and how and where to report any of your suspicions.

No one is allowed to take a step onto school property without having submitted themselves to this process.

What other school system in the world has such rigid standards? None of this would be in place without the meaningful and substantive reforms ushered in by Benedict. To gloss this record over and attempt to impugn John Allen in  the process is disingenuous.

Don't get me wrong. I am deeply disturbed by the latest revelations and completely agree that the Pope needs to come clean on this. But to deny the real efforts that have been made in recent years is simply not fair.

Daniel Dennett and Linda LaScola went searching for them and found five Protestant preachers who have lost their faith. Jerry Coyne comments:

Why do these preachers stay in the faith and on the job? Three reasons, mostly. One is financial: what else could they do with their training if they left the ministry? Often they have neither equity (living in church-owned houses) nor pensions. Another, and perhaps more important, reason is that an admission of unbelief would shock and disappoint their friends and family.

Seth Masket sighs:

It seems pretty clear to me that the thing is going to pass.  It's also clear to me that the Democrats are going to lose seats this fall.  And what will annoy me is the pundits who claim that Democrats lost seats because they passed health reform.  Let's just stipulate that the Democrats will lose seats whether health reform passes or fails.  I have no idea whether passing health reform will mitigate losses or exacerbate them — probably not too much either way.  But I'm sure the pundits will overhype it anyway.