R2P: the Latest JAB Criteria

Covering the change in U.S. position regarding use of force in Libya, Foreign Policy magazine reports on the Responsibility to Protect, a principle cited by diplomats in the U.N. to justify the use of broad military force:

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon also said on Thursday that the justification for the use of force was based on humanitarian grounds, and referred to the principle known as Responsibility to Protect (R2P), "a new international security and human rights norm to address the international community's failure to prevent and stop genocides, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity."

"Resolution 1973 affirms, clearly and unequivocally, the international community's determination to fulfill its responsibility to protect civilians from violence perpetrated upon them by their own government," he said. 

Read the article here.

For more on R2P, visit the INTERNATIONAL COALITION FOR THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT website here.

Moral Arguments

When making arguments about moral acts, can you build premises around objective moral facts? Or, are all our moral claims a construct of  opinion and/or cultural constructions? Discover Magazine posted the following debate between bloggers:

You can’t use logic to derive moral commandments solely from facts about the world, even if those facts include human desires. Of course, you can derive moral commandments if you sneak in some moral premise; all I’m trying to say here is that we should be upfront about what those moral premises are, and not try to hide them underneath a pile of unobjectionable-sounding statements. 

As a warm-up, here is an example of logic in action:

All men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.

Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The first two statements are the premises, the last one is the conclusion. (Obviously there are logical forms other than syllogisms, but this is a good paradigmatic example.) Notice the crucial feature: all of the important terms in the conclusion (“Socrates,” “mortal”) actually appeared somewhere in the premises. That’s why you can’t derive “ought” from “is” — you can’t reach a conclusion containing the word “ought” if that word (or something equivalent) doesn’t appear in your premises.

This doesn’t stop people from trying. Carrier uses the following example (slightly, but not unfairly, paraphrased):

Your car is running low on oil.

If your car runs out of oil, the engine will seize up.

You don’t want your car’s engine to seize up.

Therefore, you ought to change the oil in your car.

At the level of everyday practical reasoning, there’s nothing wrong with this. But if we’re trying to set up a careful foundation for moral philosophy, we should be honest and admit that the logic here is obviously incomplete. There is a missing premise, which should be spelled out explicitly:

We ought to do that which would bring about what we want.

Crucially, this is a different kind of premise than the other three in this argument; they are facts about the world that could in principle be tested experimentally, while this new one is not.

Read the entry here, the counterpoint here.

New Humanism

NYT columnmist David Brooks argues that many of our failures in the realm of public policy can be traced back to our overly simplistic view of the world. Citing research in cognitive science, Brooks writes:

We have a prevailing view in our society -- not only in the policy world, but in many spheres -- that we are divided creatures. Reason, which is trustworthy, is separate from the emotions, which are suspect. Society progresses to the extent that reason can suppress the passions.

This has created a distortion in our culture. We emphasize things that are rational and conscious and are inarticulate about the processes down below.

Read the column here. Brooks' new humanism is outlined in his new book, "The Social Animal." Thomas Nagel's review (and critque of Brooks' theory) is here.

(Thanks to C2C Grant Meyer for forwarding)

Psychiatry Turns to Drug Therapy

Talk therapy, which may be as good as or better than drugs in the treatment of depression, has been dropped as a service rendered by some psychiatrists due to lower insurance company reimbursement rates and policies that discourage the practice. In its place, the psychiatrists are relegated to adjusting medications, ordering tests, and referring their patients to psychologists or therapists for traditional talk therapy and counseling. The NYT reports that many psychiatrists are unhappy with the change, but have been co-opted by the economics of managed care; "A psychiatrist can earn $150 for three 15-minute medication visits compared with $90 for a 45-minute talk therapy session."

Read the article here.

SECDEF Addresses Cadets at USAFA

In case you missed it... SECDEF addressed the wing and permanent party today:

"I’m concerned that the view still lingers in some corners that once I depart as Secretary, and once U.S. forces drawdown in Iraq and in Afghanistan in accordance with the President’s and NATO’s strategy, things can get back to what some consider to be real Air Force normal. This must not happen."

Read the speech here.

US Loses Appetite for Job as the World’s Policeman

Financial Times.com reviews SECDEF's speech at West Point from the perspective that it "crystallised the arrival of a new era in US foreign policy." The author characterizes the shift, "from robust interventionism towards relative isolationism" as a product of both economic necessity and political reality. "The US is not just less able to be the world’s policeman. The country and its people have, for the moment, lost all appetite for the job as well."

Read the article here.

The Clergy Letter Project

Michael Zimmerman, Professor of Biology at Butler University, developed the Clergy Letter project to battle the misperception that science and religion are inevitably in conflict. Focusing specifically on the theory of evolution, Zimmerman maintains "numerous clergy from most denominations have tremendous respect for evolutionary theory and have embraced it as a core component of human knowledge, fully harmonious with religious faith." The Project aims to promote the view that "religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts." In the end, "the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist."

Additional resources from the Clergy Letter Project are available here.

Atheist Ads: You Can Live Moral, Meaningful Lives without God

The Christian Post covers the Center for Inquiry's multimedia campaign whose message is "that nonreligious people can find meaning in a life that is human-centered, and that reliance on the supernatural is unnecessary." countering CFI, a Biola University professor asks, "what does it mean to do good in a world that's really just a gigantic accident of matter and energy?"

Read the article here.

Protests at Military Funerals Are Protected Speech, Justices Rule

The Supreme Court decision to protect fundamentalist church members who mount anti-gay protests outside military funerals was rendered by Chief Justice John Roberts:

"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker," Roberts said. "As a nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."

Alito strongly disagreed. "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case," he said.

Read the article here.