REJECTED - Ethics in the Real World

.
Click here to view possible topics for future meetings. Participants of each monthly meeting vote for the topic of the next monthly meeting.

If you would like to suggest a topic, it is requested as a courtesy that your suggestion be posted here at least 24 hours in advance so that others will have time to give it proper consideration.

EXPIRATION. We have always had a rule that a Possible Topic remains active so long as it receives at least one vote every six meetings. However, if a possible-topic proposal contains a wealth of information that is worth preserving but has not received a vote for six consecutive meetings, it is retained but listed as “Expired."

**********************
SHORT-FUSE NOTICE

*****
EXPLANATION

Occasionally, a Proposed Topic for Future Meetings has a SHORT-TIME FUSE because a governmental unit is soliciting PUBLIC COMMENTS for a limited time period with a SPECIFIED DEADLINE.

Exhibit A would be the 8/5/2016 Proposed Topic entitled “Clone Rights -- Involuntary Soldiers, Sex Slaves, Human Lab Rats, Etc.”

We had already focused on this topic for our 4/9/2008 meeting more than 8 years ago when the PBS Newshour interviewed a Yale U. Biology Professor who had already created a “Chimaera” with 25% Human DNA and 75% Chimp DNA (Chimps are the animals that share the most DNA with humans).

The Yale U. Biology Professor stated that he was then (2008) in the process of creating a “Chimaera” with 50% Human DNA and 50% Chimp DNA, and that he planned to create in the near future (2008 et seq.) a “Chimaera” with 75% Human DNA and 25% Chimp DNA.

As our 4/9/2008 meeting materials posted on http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org disclose, Gwen Ifill who conducted the interview, was oblivious to the issue of the Nazi’s definition of a Jew based on the percentage of Jewish heritage and the Ante-Bellum American South’s definition of African-American based on the percentage of Sub-Saharan-African heritage.

But, even more appallingly, Gwen Ifill failed to ask the obvious question = What happens if the 50%-50% “Chimaera” then already being created happens to exhibit as DOMINANT TRAITS 100% Human DNA and as RECESSIVE TRAITS 100% Chimp DNA!!! Which, of course, would mean that Yale U. was treating as a lab rat a “Chimaera” that is 100% Human!!!

Unfortunately, the 8/5/2016 Proposed Topic was prompted by a Proposal from the National Institute of Health (NIH) which appeared in The Federal Register of 8/5/2016 and which had a 9/6/2016 deadline for public comments!!!

So our 9/14/2016 meeting, which was the first for which our focus had not already been determined as of 8/5/2016 under our normal rules, was too late.

So the reason for inaugurating this Short-Fuse Notice Section is to provide a Special Heads Up that a Proposed Topic has a Public-Comment Deadline that will occur before the first regular meeting date at which the topic can be discussed -- so that any of our readers who want to comply with the Public-Comment Deadline can contact the Proposer of the Topic in order to confer with anyone else who may be considering comments by the deadline.

*****
PENDING SHORT-FUSE PROPOSALS

1. Re “Clone Rights -- Involuntary Soldiers, Sex Slaves, Human Lab Rats, Etc.” (proposed 8/5/2016), although the 9/6/2016 public-comment deadline of the National Institute of Health (NIH) has passed, this Topic Proposal is still active. PLEASE NOTE ATTACHED TO THIS PROPOSAL THE 1/29/2017 UPDATE ENTITLED0 “HUMAN-PIG CHIMERAS -- DECENT BEHAVIOR DESPITE OPEN BARN DOOR.”

2. Re “Destroying Great Salt Lake To Grow Low-Profit Hay For China” (proposed 9/27/2016), there is a 10/24/2016 public-comment deadline that will occur before our first possible regular meeting (11/16/2016) at which this Proposed Topic could be considered.
Post Reply
Ted Gurney
Site Admin
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 8:41 pm

REJECTED - Ethics in the Real World

Post by Ted Gurney »

**********
Editorial Note:

This topic proposal expired because it failed to receive any votes for 6 months since it was viewed as impractical to select a book that focuses on more than 2, or perhaps even 3, public-policy issues.

However, if a proposal contained a wealth of information, our policy is to retain the information in the form of the original proposal, but mark it as "EXPIRED."

As can be seen in the attachments to this proposal, trying to address 82 different topics in a single meeting is impractical -- though this compilation of 82 essays comprises a good list of topics, each of which could be proposed separately.

Accordingly, the information is being preserved for reference in formulating future topic proposals.

************


“Ethics in the Real World, 82 Brief Essays on Things that Matter” by Peter Singer, 355 pages, Princeton University Press, 2016. Available from the SLC library, the Kings English Bookstore, and Amazon Books.

In the discussion of organ transplants we have been led into some life and death ethical issues involving human health and animal welfare. Shall we get into ethics more generally? If we would like to do that, why not read something by the major league ethical thinker, Peter Singer? Singer teaches ethics in the Philosophy Department at Princeton and has just published a collection of 82 (!!) short (2-4 pages each) essays he has written during the past 15 years or so. The style imposed by the short essay format keeps each presentation wonderfully brief but each one is nevertheless very meaty. I am about 1/4 of the way through (on 3-3-17) and I find every essay so far to be wonderful but I agree with him mostly. He is opinionated. He is a pacifist, a vegan, and an atheist, and he defends his prejudices strongly. I wonder if 355 pages of Singer’s essays would be too much at one go. Perhaps we should just read the first 100 pages (26 essays), discuss those, and then decide together if we want more. The first 100 pages comprise three sections which are 1) Big Questions, 2) Animals, and 3) Beyond the Ethic of the Sanctity of Life. If you do not care for Singer’s prejudices you can stop at that point.

johnkarls
Posts: 2034
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

Substitute Facilitator Needed For This Topic

Post by johnkarls »

.
The list of "Possible Topics For April 12" distributed at our 3/8/2017 meeting to facilitate voting for the 4/12/2017 topic contained the following e-mail for reasons contained in the e-mail; lists of "Possible Topics" that will be distributed at future meetings will contain the same information.

---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Ethics in the Real World
From: John Karls
Date: Sun, March 5, 2017 9:21 am MST
To: Ted Gurney
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Ted,

Thank you very much for your suggestion of reading “Ethics in the Real World.”

It looks very interesting and you might be amused to know that I have already ordered a copy from Amazon.com.

However, it strikes me (as it seemed, somewhat, to strike you as well) that “Ethics in the Real World” would be difficult to manage as a focus book.

Not because of its addressing ethical issues. Indeed, in our 11.5 years of focusing on public-policy issues, I can NOT recall a single public-policy issue that we have discussed for which ethical considerations were NOT “front and center.”

The problem, of course, is how to address 82 ethical issues in 110 minutes (allowing 5 minutes to vote and 5 minutes before library close to exit).

Or (when you yourself recognized the problem), how to address in 110 minutes 25 ethical issues (your first 100 pages divided by 4 pages/issue).

The greatest number of different public policy issues I can ever recall one of our focus books addressing is 2-3.

One friendly suggestion is to withdraw your proposal but use “Ethics in the Real World” as your “Bible” for thinking of ethical issues (all of which should/could be public/policy issues) on which you would like our group to focus and then, for each or a related small group, make more focused proposals. [For which issue/group Peter Singer’s views on those issue(s) could be posted on the bulletin board under "Reference Materials."]

BTW, I think all of our regular attendees read more than 1,000 pages/month. The only regular attendee who was “page conscious” was Thomas Chancellor who insisted that each proposal contain the number of pages. I have continued that tradition in order to avoid discouraging Thomas from attending in the future.

Please let me know what you think.

Your friend,

John K.

johnkarls
Posts: 2034
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

The Definition of "Postjudice"

Post by johnkarls »

.
Ted's Proposed Topic prompted the following e-mail a mere 59 minutes after the e-mail posted just above.

---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: The Definition of “Postjudice”
From: John Karls
Date: Sun, March 5, 2017 10:20 am MST
To: Ted Gurney
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Ted,

For many years in the 1990’s and 2000’s, two of my close friends were world-class opera conductor Simone Young and her husband who was a language and linguistics professor. [BTW they had two “drop dead gorgeous” daughters, both of whom were incredibly smart and well read, whom I always hoped to be able to introduce to my son!!!]

You might be amused to know that their (Simone and her husband)’s favorite pastime was to work into normal conversation a word that does NOT exist (at least not in common parlance), but whose previous existence is implied by a word that is still in common usage.

For example, the first time I ever held open a door for Simone, she thanked me by saying: “That was very couth of you”!!!

So why mention them/this???

Your topic proposal says that Peter Singer “defends his PREJUDICES strongly”!!!

Because of the influence of Simone and her husband, I am ALWAYS on the lookout for opportunities to use the implied term “POSTJUDICE”!!!

Particularly because I am handicapped by my legal background!!!

For which a cornerstone is the principle that courts have their PRECEDENTS with respect to which they are NOT supposed to be PREJUDICED!!!

In other words, they are expected to be “OPEN MINDED”!!!

Or in yet other words, it’s OK to have PRECEDENTS and to be POSTJUDICED after re-considering your position in truly OPEN-MINDED fashion!!!

Please accept my apology for coming down hard on you for disparaging Peter Singer, which was probably not intentional.

Your friend,

John K.

Post Reply

Return to “Section 3 – Possible Topics for Future Meetings”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest