Monday, March 16, 2009
Peter Singer Article
For those of you who've forgotten your philosophy or think utilitarians work on the sewer lines or power grid, here's a primer. In a moral sense, utilitarians are consequentialists; generally speaking, in a given situation, the consequences of an event (not the intentions) are what matters. And utilitarians are interested in a specific type of consequence--human happiness. But a utilitarian's definition of happiness is different than our common notion of it. Here's how J.S. Mill states it in his Utilitarianism:
The creed which accepts as the foundations of morals “utility” or the “greatest happiness principle” holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure [II 2; cf.II 1].
So if an action (whatever its intention) improves world happiness on a global scale, it's a good thing and the moral thing to do. If that action makes the world a less happy place, then that's a bad thing and an immoral thing. Mill and friends are therefore after 'the greater good,' a phrase you no doubt have read before.
Peter Singer applies this framework to contemporary culture and consumer spending. He argues that we're using our personal (and global) resources immorally, in that we're spending it on non-essential items (dinners, movies, clothes, fancy cars) when we should be spending it to reduce world suffering. In short, the money you spent on dinner at a restaurant tonight could have saved a child from dying of dysentery. This is a simple fact. The fact that you didn't do so, he contends, means that you are, in a very real sense, immoral.
Here's one argument he proposes, and it's quoted in full in the article:
“First premise: Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad.
Second premise: If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so.
Third premise: By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care, without sacrificing anything nearly as important.
Conclusion: Therefore, if you do not donate to aid agencies, you are doing something wrong.”
To reject this argument, Mr. Singer writes, “you need to find a flaw in the reasoning.”
(from The Life You Can Save, Random House, as quoted In the New York Times)
In his other work, (most notably Animal Liberation), Mr. Singer takes this argument even further; in fact, he contends that happiness doesn't just pertain to humans, but to animals as well. Therefore utilitarians, if they are to be consistent, should seek to prevent animal suffering as well. In any case, Mr. Singer always makes for an interesting debate, so I thought I'd post this up to see what y'all had to say about it.
Here's the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/books/11garn.html?ref=books
Here's Singer's webpage at Princeton: http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/faq.html
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Robert Bly Conference, April 16-19
Speaking of, we've got a limited number of copies of Knockout #1 that Bly signed. If you're interested in one, send me a note at knockoutpoetry@gmail.com
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Some upcoming readings and new MN license plates
Tim O'Brien, March 19 & 20, 2009 at the Hopkins Center for the Arts. Tix are $35.
| Joshua Beckman (poet), Friday, April 17, 7:30pm - Magers And Quinn Booksellers. Free, | ||||||||||||||||
| | |||||||||||||||
If you haven't heard the news, Minnesotans will have a few new license plate choices in the near future. The plates, created by the Department of Natural Resources, are deemed "critical habitat" plates; for an added fee of $30, MN drivers can purchase them. The proceeds go to the DNR, which uses the money to purchase (and manage) land for public use. Well, the DNR came up with eight choices and they are putting it to a vote. Four will make the cut. The plates feature loons, white-tailed deer, a showy ladyslipper, a fishing scene, a pheasant, a black-capped chickadee, a walleye, and a woodduck.
Here's my favorite (the bobber is a nice touch):

(license plate photo courtesy of the MN DNR)
You can see all the of the contenders and vote on them here.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
A few thoughts on Florida, the Everglades, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and Snow Globes
First, a note about Florida. I just got back from a trip; I wasn't there too long, five days or so. I only managed to swing it because it was (damn) cheap and because of my (and my girlfriend's) fanatical love for Minnesota Twins baseball. And if any of you doubt that my girlfriend is as big as a baseball nut as I am, please see Exhibit A:
Yes, that's the lovely lady, and she's wearing a custom-made Twins jersey adorned with the number of her total man-crush: Minnesota catcher, native and two-time batting champ, Joe Mauer. In one of our running jokes, she refers to Mauer as "husband," so I acquiesced to this sort spiritual wifery and had the jersey made for her b/day.
Anyway, I digress. It was my first trip there since I was a kid (sadly I couldn't find a picture of oh-so-cute-six-year-old-me wearing Mickey Mouse ears to post here), and this trip differed from my previous visits in that I visited Florida's west coast and the Everglades for the first time.
Some of Florida was familiar. As usual, the palm trees were complete, ubiquitous show-offs (and a damn fine sight to see coming from a land with only bare trees, snow and sadness), and at times I had the nagging suspicion that I was trapped inside a geriatric version of the Matrix. Even so, it was a pleasant damn Matrix, let me tell you.
Anyway, I'm writing this, because I was shocked by the sheer abundance of wildlife in the area. Now, I'm from MN and I'm used to seeing all sorts of creatures ranging about. White-tailed deer are everywhere here (they ravage my parents' garden every June or so), and I've seen coyotes, bear, wolves, about 2342342345346346 birds, but MN's got nothing in terms of pure numbers.
OK, that's actually not true, but it seemed much easier to spot large wildlife in Florida.
For instance, we were driving down I-75 (Alligator Alley) and my girlfriend said, "I think I just saw an alligator in a ditch." Now, my father had tried this prank on me back in the Mickey Mouse days, and then, as now, it seemed like a joke. But my girlfriend doesn't joke. In fact, she hates laughing. She only frowns.
So this seemed out of place. She spotted another, and sure enough, an alli-frickin-gator was in the ditch. Then we started driving again, and we spotted another. And another. All told, we spotted about a hundred before stopped counting and that was only a mile stretch or so. Now according to the folks at the Florida Fish and Wildlife, they are about 1.25 million alligators in Florida. According to the MN DNR, we've got 1 million or so white-tailed deer. But unless you're really in the sticks, it's strange to see more than a dozen deer in a day. To see them one after another was pretty impressive. Now I'm sure there's an explanation; I'm guessing that the gators are just more concentrated in that area. Hence the name, Alligator Alley.
The same thing happened at the beach. We visited Sanibel Island and right after we stepped on the beach, I saw a dorsal fin in the water. No, it wasn't a shark (but I did immediately start humming the Jaws theme); it was a dolphin. Flipper was right there! In MN, to see our iconic animals, the wolf, the bear, the moose, it's often takes some effort. Sure there are some places that are better than others, but to find one right away was surprising, at least for a Florida nature novice like me. In any case, FL's definitely a place I'd like to visit again.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Now for a brief foray into politics. President Obama is following through on a campaign promise and is looking to eliminate Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Personally, I think that's a damn fine thing. According to the Service Members Legal Defense Network, approximately 12,000 troops have been discharged due to disclosing their GLBT status since 1994. That's pretty close to a Division. And while I won't start pontificating here, it doesn't make a good deal of sense to me to discharge capable troops at all, and especially when we're involved in several wars and are sending our National Guard folks on second and third tours.
And Now For Something Completely Different
Finally, a short note about the most important subject in the world: snow globes. Or, rather, the lack of them in Fort Myers, Florida. Now I know this is a contentious subject, so I'll try to make my argument as fair and balanced as I can. To this end, I'll start with the most basic of assumptions: Any vacation is incomplete if cheap, kitschy, decent snow globes aren't available. But as of this writing I am now in the Twin Cities, sans snow globe. Unless a benevolent snow globe fairy appears, or it begins to snow snow globes, I will be without any trip’s most essential item. Now you probably think I'm a lazy, no-good jerk who didn't look hard enough for his snow globe. But I did! I went to five different shops in Fort Myers and one in the Everglades...and I only saw one item that resembled a snow globe. First, this "snow globe" didn't have any snow in it. That's a requirement; it's in the name. And that's half the fun; usually you get snow globes from places that are warm.
Exhibit A: I have one from AZ that's got a cactus and a roadrunner and SNOW. I remember playing with it as a kid, capriciously shaking the globe like some sort of maniacal weather god, which incessantly baffled the roadrunner. (In retrospect, this bears some resemblance to Minnesota’s weather patterns; perhaps Minnesota is itself inside a large snow globe, the plaything of puckish deities.)
Exhibit B: Even worse, my snow globe contender was made of glass. GLASS! First, that's dangerous. My girlfriend doesn't allow me to handle glass or tacks other sharp objects, as I might be a danger to myself and those around me.
More importantly, snow globes are kitsch. They are cheap, so they should be made from cheap materials, like plastic. (Preferably hand-me-down recycled plastic.) Glass, on the other hand, is fancy. Expensive. When I think of glass, I think of church, museums, wine and booze, chandeliers, windshields on a Jaguar. All of these things are strictly adult; snow globes are childish. No sensible adult would give a kid a glass souvenir; they’d be bored out of their tree by it, and their parents would probably shelve it away like a museum piece lest the kid might break it. Snow globes are made for rough-housing. The very premise is to shake the damn thing in order to create ready-made (if very localized) meteorological chaos. Producing a glass snow globe is therefore a contradiction in terms, like serving Steel Reserve at a black tie dinner.
For these reasons, my vacation may be over, but it still unfortunately incomplete.
Will write a book-related post soon.---- Brett
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Quick reading list
Jon Krakauer, Under the Banner of Heaven
Barry Lopez, Crossing Open Ground
Ernest Shackleton, South
The Iliad, Fitzgerald Translation
George Orwell: Narrative Essays
George Orwell: Critical Essays
Got a bunch of other books kicking around too.
I just got these books for my b-day, hooray: The Thought Box
Just finished:
Into Thin Air, Jon Krakauer
Carl Sagan, The Varieties of Scientific Experience
Todd Boss, Yellowrocket
Barry Lopez, The Rediscovery of North America
Robert Falcon Scott's Terra Nova Journals