Comments

1. Responsibility implies community

   While few, if any, problems can be boiled down to either/or, this one comes close. Clotheslines reflect two world views. Those who oppose clotheslines in their neighborhood want a perfect world where aesthetic value can be bought through the use of energy-consuming appliances. In that world perfect lawns that require ever-increasing amounts of water and chemicals are unmarred by unsightly laundry because that laundry is kept private due to energy-consuming machinery. The other view is that there is a cost for our lifestyles. Since the cost is often paid in terms of environmental degradation or future resource shortages, then responsibility is owed not just to physical neighbors but distant people and future generations.

   3 months, 1 week ago In response to Right to Dry: Are Outdoor Clotheslines Going Extinct?

2. Why should it be free

   The comments that make an analogy between charity and going green are troubling. Companies doing their part to maintain a livable planet are substantially different from companies donating to the local SPCA or Boys and Girls Club (those both should be supported). Even the more subtle point that making a distinct surcharge is problematic doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Many companies are currently adding fuel surcharges to their bills. So ask yourself, would you rather pay a surcharge that reflects our poor management of resources thus far or a surcharge that, if followed by more companies, might actually begin to address our problems related to fossil fuel consumption?

   3 months, 2 weeks ago In response to Going Green: Who Pays?

3. What is truth? What is wrong?

   There is a classic moral dilemma posed in many college philosophy classes: All philosophical systems state that lying is wrong. Imagine yourself in Munich in 1942. What if you were hiding a Jewish family in your home when an SS officer knocked at your door and asked if there were any Jewish people inside?

   7 months ago In response to Morality Bites

Deriving our morals

Annmarie and Ben, you are both in your own ways addressing the existentialist/essentialist question. That is, are we born with a sense of right/wrong or do we choose throughout our lives what we believe and how we live? Both of these positions miss a central point, which is that much of what we internalize as "our own" values are in fact derived from the world in which we live. There is a fascinating article in last week's "New Yorker" by Jared Diamond that tells how one culture deals with moral issues that result in life or death. It is totally different than what we consider "right" but is totally internalized by the subject of the article. There seems to be little doubt that we derive much of what we call our own values. There is nothing wrong or necessarily bad with this. However, it has profound implications. Just as we speak the language of those around us, so too we have a language of morality/God/personal-responsibility that is passed on to us. In effect, this gives us a prism that shows our absolutes as not single truths but composites with many different spectrums contributing to their creation.

7 months, 1 week ago In response to Morality Bites

Relative Morality

Many cultural critics decry moral relativism. However, the reality is that we live in a world with relative morality. Things that are generally accepted include: killing in self-defense; just war theory; cultural morality of food (in the U.S. eating dogs is suspect, in other cultures it is acceptable). My point is that there are few clear cut issues of right and wrong. I know folks are thinking "cheating is different." I would argue not so much. The post does not mention how many people felt cheating was moral. If it is around 5% then it would signify people on the "bad" end of a bell curve distribution of the population. And thus indicate that bad folks rationalize their actions. However, if the percentage is 20%, then it is much more likely that our societal mores encourage an end-justifies-the-means mentality. Philip Zimbardo has argued that there are three levels of causation for immoral actions: Dispositional (individual) Situational and Systemic. However, the common response to immorality is to blame the individual and ignore the situation and system in which the individual acted. Perhaps people see themselves as moral even if they acknowledge a willingness to cheat because the current systems (corporate, political, academic) allow/encourage ends and not means.

7 months, 2 weeks ago In response to Morality Bites

Life is difficult . . .

with or without children. As a man with two children and a highly successful working wife, I agree completely with Ann. My 3-yr-old daughter says she wants to be a Supreme Court Justice (OK, probably because of my love of the court and our justice system) and a mom. She should be able to be both just as my son should be able to have a full-time career and be a dad. It is unfair for either SAHMs or WMs (working moms) to frame the discussion with a dichotomy that is freedom v. oppression OR good parenting v. neglect. We have much too learn from other countries and history where families are more involved due to several generations living together (I also think this will soon be identified as an important issue due to its impact on our carbon footprint, but that is another discussion). This post is about taking responsibility as a member of a community. It should not have become about why some women make the "wrong" choice. Life is difficult and choices always have downsides. We should do what is in our power to help both SAHMs and WMs face fewer downsides.

7 months, 4 weeks ago In response to The Nanny Diaries

This was malicious?

The comments referenced in the article--and in the link, are not flattery, but hardly are vile or voluminous enough to drive most of us to suicide. Suggesting that someone "go back to management 101" is not equivalent to the personal postings involved in the 2006 case of the 13-year-old. That having been said, the questions raised in this post are valid. I am currently reading "The Lucifer Effect" by Philip Zimbardo. He is the researcher who created the famous/infamous Stanford Prison Project. He outlines how there are three specific components to moral behavior: individual choice, situational forces, and systemic factors. The question for those of interested in responsibility is how we can influence others to make less moral choices. My own position is what I call derivative free will. Since situations and systems can act in a coercive fashion, then those of us who have more authority/power also have more responsibility. This, of course, is a common tenet in many moral/theological systems. Referring back to this article--we need to be cognizant of what we say but more importantly to whom we say it. Jane Elliot's work in the 1960s with school children reveals the frightening power that authority figures posess.

8 months, 2 weeks ago In response to Death by Blog?

Define what responsibility means to you.