Hunting Whales

This issue comes up now and again in AP headlines. Japan is always trying to harvest whales under the guise of scientific research, but most countries in the International Whaling Commission oppose Japan's efforts to liberalize whale hunting. I don't think there is a clear foundation for such strong opposition. As it is, certain small island communities can hunt whales, such as natives of the Solomon and Faroe islands, as well as Alaska natives apparently. This is done so they can maintain their way of life. Fine, but to play the devil's advocate, what about Japan? Do they not have a right to continue making whale steaks or whatever they eat? From reading the news articles, it seems the importance of whale meat in Japanese society has gotten an artificial boost by the state in recent times. So a critic might chalk it up to that stubborn Japanese nationalism, since it seems they are always so unapologetic in controversies like the existence of comfort women and history textbook accuracy. But that is for another discussion.

Suffice to say, there is no reason not to allow Japan to hunt some limited number of whales to please the palates of connoisseurs, real or imagined. One objection would be the endangered status of whales, but if a certain species has escaped into a less-threatened status, or is rather plentiful by some ecologically determined standard, then why shouldn't there be a quota based on a sustainable harvest rate? In fact, the IWC could make good money off the licenses, and have it go back into conservation, just as Ducks Unlimited does. Instead, Japanese whalers make the thinnest excuse ever by calling the culling of hundreds of whales "scientific research." The idea is pretty farcical, but nonetheless this doesn't negate the valid right of people to harvest natural resources for food.

A further objection with regard to endangered status and in fact to humane hunting processes is the question of enforcing limits and laws on the whalers. Some critics complain that Japanese whalers still use crude and cruel methods to kill whales, when there are regulations restricting harvesting to more humane techniques. The problem with this proposition though is what makes whaling especially more difficult to regulate than what is already legal, say trawler net fishing or raising livestock? If this question can't be effectively answered, then whaling should be allowed.

Beyond these considerations lie arguments against the killing of animals of high order of intelligence. In The Problem of Pain, C.S. Lewis examines the question of animal pain and just what an animal really is philosophically. An animal may sense pain, but as far as we know it has no collected mind's eye by which it can conceive over time that it itself has been in a state of pain. In the same manner, an animal lacks the faculty to distinguish itself as a noble creature. Humans still ponder what it is to be human, but cats never sit around wondering what is cattiness. Because of this, animals don't share the same absolute claim to rights that humans do. Certainly, we shouldn't inflict wanton pain on animals, but we shouldn't lose sleep over which animals we kill and eat. I probably would even extend this to dogs. If the animal is abused in its being raised or slaughtered, that is another matter.

Ultimately, what is wrong with killing a whale to eat? It need not be ridiculously more wasteful than currently accepted forms of meat consumption. If whales are harvested in sustainable numbers, species survival shouldn't be a concern. Any animal that is not a human doesn't share in the entire pool of human rights, and it would be silly if it did. If a society like Japan has genuine cultural appreciation of eating whales, then there must be some reasonable arrangement for the legal harvesting of these animals.

Reflective Dialog on Meaning and Morality

I've just about finished reading Ravi Zacharias' book The Real Face of Atheism. It is a concentration of many ideas he has used in his talks concerning meaning and morality. One element that ties strongly into the question of meaning is Ravi's critique on a naturalist's position that a human mind is the sum of time plus matter, plus chance.
I have been thinking, how might a dialog between an orthodox theist and a presumed postmodern atheist play out?

Theist: Without divinity, there is no meaning.
Atheist: That's preposterous! Existentialists make their own meaning. (consider also Positivists)
Theist: Hmm, so is there any meaning that can be wrong? Let's say the highest virtue should be slicing babies in half.
Atheist: (Just one possible, but quite plausible response) Well that wouldn't be a very proper meaning.
Theist: So, just what defines what is proper?
Atheist: Strictly speaking, nothing is proper. But to indulge the question, let's look at the common denominator that leads to a proper, enlightened moral view, like humanism. In that case, it is a matter of biology that tends to tell us to be benevolent to our neighbors. Its mechanistically predetermined by the nature of our universe.
Theist: Then, you are a prisoner of your impulses? If, like Bertrand Russell, you distinguish right and wrong by "feeling," then aren't you nothing more than an automaton? And what role can reason play where feeling is the basis of decision?
Atheist: Okay. Lets say there is an objective, right-and-wrong divine author of the universe. Then, aren't you a prisoner of circumstance? Aren't you compelled to obey?
Theist: The choice to obey or not is always ours to make. And fortunately for us, God is good, so the circumstance we're imprisoned to is a good one at that.

That to me, seems the logical end of the argument. Toward the end, we see the atheist unable to reconcile the basis of his morality with reason. Reason points nowhere unless you take biological determinism as a lead. Then in this case, you are a prisoner, or automaton. But this cries out against an instinct within the intellectual, who hopes to be critical in his approach, not unthinking. So here we have our good old friend, contradiction. There is no exit from this predicament, unless one concedes an external (objective) purpose and meaning as an escape from determinism. An objective purpose and meaning is basically divine.

If the atheist cannot solve the above conundrum, at least he can spit the question back at his accuser. If divinity made the universe as it is, and we are limited in our power to shape the foundational nature of the universe, then aren't we prisoners of circumstance? Isn't the choice we make between obeying God or not rather a false one? The Christian can answer satisfactorily that God is objectively good, the nature of the universe is objectively good, so if by some reason you deduce that we are prisoners, then it is to a good circumstance. This is nothing to say of the nature of free will, of which many books could be written about, but none by me.

Fear Part 2: Paul, John, and Vladimir

In a recent New York Times column, Paul Krugman dismissed the war on terror as some sort of "Wag the Dog," fear-as-control device. Fear is a perpetual theme that liberals keep coming back to when talking about terrorism in the post 9-11 world. They perceive that middle America was cowed by fear into accepting the War on Terror and the constituent Iraq War. They believe Americans should fear less and love and trust more. Do they really see through rose-colored glasses, that if we beat our guns into ploughs, the Jihadists will surely follow? I bet that theme has wooed folks since time immemorial, but the truth is quite simply, and literally, that it will get you killed! To turn the rhetorical table, is it liberals who are trapped in a black and white view of good and evil, where to be "good" is to be embracing, tolerent, and conquering fear with love, and to be "evil" is to be distrustful, violent, and inconsiderate?

This powerful theme of love conquering fear has been taken out of context from where it first came. If there is some pervasive, historical ether of Western or American values that informs the worldviews of both the Left and Right, then the concept of love conquering fear derives from 1 John in the New Testament. But to mistake such a beautiful and true concept as being a moral policy mandate of the United States federal government is just plain wrong. No matter where we draw our values from, we have to be clear to distinguish to whom they apply, and to what ends. Its great for an individual Christian to demonstrate love in spite of fear, as a means to testify of Christ's love and demonstrate His glory. However, there is no logical basis for the U.S. government to be so self-effacing, unless you believe America should be a left-wing theocracy whose aim is to demonstrate God's love to the world. This would totally go against One of the most commonly-agreed and quite legitimate functions of government, which is to protect citizens from external threats. Indeed, taken out of the original context, love conquering fear can be nothing more than a bunch of feel-good fluff. Dangerous fluff at that.

Since protecting citizens is a widely-expected, legitimate concern of national governments, why is it wrong to be considerate of dangers? Liberal spin might call such consideration fear-mongering, but this belies an insidious elitism on the spinners' behalf. If a Homeland Security alert is excessive fear-mongering, then American people in general must be dumb sheep. This thinking implies that people are too fickle, ruled by emotion over reason. And if this is a component of your philosophy, then you are probably not too far removed from elitists like Lenin, who believed there must be a Vanguard to guide the people and usher in a new age. The Age of Aquarius, perhaps? The opposite view, that I'm partial to, is to trust people to their own judgements. After all, America's is so great because it is based on an agreement between free and mostly prosperous individuals not to step on each others' toes. Let grown ups be grown ups, and let them know the dangers of the world. If people really are mature, they will make sound decisions for themselves whether or not the latest news report or commentary has valid points, is sacre-mongering, or some other kind of baloney. If this is not the case, then the situation is hopeless, and you should probably give Big Brother a call to save us from the machinations of the conservative media-scare machine.

Fear Part 1: Bake Sales and Angelina Jolie

In the realm of foreign policy, liberals have put forth the argument that conservatives are controlled by fear, and that they should make room in their hearts for hope, taking an optimistic attitude toward dialog and diplomacy. That's a fine sentiment, but there's no way to definitively correlate that reality. On a macro level, liberals have criticized the prodigious defense spending of the United States since the Second World War. As one bumper sticker laments, its schools that need bake sales to stay funded rather than the Air Force. Given the size of the defense budget, there's probably always some bit that can be trimmed, but people take for granted that America's military superiority is an effective, credible deterrent. If War was unleashed eons ago from Pandora's Box, there's no going back. You can't wave a magic wand so that no one will aspire to research and develop new ways to kill or build a bigger army, let alone get people to forswear war. Liberals might point to Europe as escaping the curse, but they enjoy that false sense of progress under the umbrella of American security. Even in America, people have developed a sense of entitlement to peace and prosperity, derived from modernist expectations that we are, as Fukuyama said, at the "end of history."

A lot of criticism against hawkishness these days focuses naturally on the war on terror. Angelina Jolie drew upon the the theme of hope versus fear in an interview about her new film, A Mighty Heart, where she plays the wife of slain journalist Daniel Perle. Jolie's heart continues to bleed a la John Lennon's Imagine. She suggested that if we were just a little more open to dialog, and turned away from our fearful response, things would get better. I'm for understanding other points of view, but that doesn't mean all our problems will be solved. "Fear" of terrorists is a ridiculous canard. It is terribly reductionist, ignoring rational motivations like precaution. The United States doesn't remove the Taliban from power because of fear, but because of the rational expectation that removing them will prevent them from harboring and facilitating future attacks.

Profit or Salary Cap?

Somewhere out there recently has been news about proposed federal legislation for capping CEO salaries. That strikes me as the government being too meddlesome. Shouldn't corporate shareholders and governors of each company have the autonomy needed in a free market? If they are so inept as to compensate the CEO a ridiculous sum, shouldn't that firm suffer the consequences for itself? Though I've not thoroughly investigated this issue, a possible reason for concern would seem to be a shortage of qualified CEOs, who thereby command greater pay. If that's the case, and its a persistant structural issue, there surely must be a better way to deal with it than a salary cap. After all, we should not want to resort to draconian egalitarianism, where we must knock down what someone has built up simply out of jelousy and a sentiment of unfairness. We can do better than that!

A related issue is oil industry profits. Last Friday, Michael Medved featured an economist who writes for the Wall Street Journal. Medved does a great service with his head-on approach, inviting callers who disagree, and correcting them with his framework of coservative principles. In this case, protectionists and people otherwise generally ignorant of economic workings called in to complain about all sundry things related to the high price of gasoline. One man was upset at "obscene" profits made by the oil industry. Michael rebutted that no profits can be called obscene. Indeed, these profits are arising from voluntary transactions. If you don't like the price of gasoline, get a hybrid, drive less, or do something! Exercise your options. Don't complain about high prices, its not and should not be the government's job to regulate prices. Government should not try to conform reality to something that is unnatural.

If you've still got it out against the oil industry, consider their profits in proportion to the market they deal with. The market for gasoline is tremendous! Almost every vehicle in a fully-developed economy with 300 million people, that spans 3,000 miles, is run on gasoline. So of course the volume of money exchanged, let alone profits, is going to sound staggering. But when the profit as a proportion of sales is compared with other industries, it is relatively low. Remember we're not talking about a ridiculous monopoly, such as Comcast and Microsoft effectively are. Gas stations are competing with each other, sometimes 3 on the same street corner. But what if the top four firms, who do make up a considerable portion of market share, are colluding, by limiting domestic refining capacity? There might be something there, but its important to remember that suppliers won't necessarily make more profits by supply shortage price markups. This is a case where more homework needs to be done, because of course these firms will have a desire to be producing at something like their point of diminishing returns. The question is whether they're attaining that right now by colluding. For the number of firms involved, I think its easier said than done--and if it is being done, I believe they would be held accountable by antitrust actions. Unless, Cheney has something to do with it! What else were those secretive meetings with oil execs about? Don't worry friends, I assure that I don't suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Religion, for starters

Where to begin? There's a lot of things to discuss, but let's go one at a time.

On Good Friday I was able to tune into the Michael Medved's talk radio show. I agree with him on a lot of things. He has considerable renown for promoting discussion and debate with dissenting viewers and guests. He's also in the mold of most conservative talk radio hosts, who draw a hard line and don't beat around the bush. This approach, that the world is ultimately black and white and that people need to be clear on what they say and mean, is refreshing, even if it alienates the "bleeding hearts." The truth is harsh in this world, and it will take more than fuzzy-headed idealism to really solve problems.

Now Michael is a big proponent of religion and a "values" culture in America. A new poll was released on Good Friday, showing that around 85% of Americans attend church in some manner at least occasionally. Fifteen percent for whatever reason resolve to never set foot inside of a church as Michael put it, and for an hour he fielded calls from those people. One caller expressed incredible disgust for Christians who basically "kiss butt" to Jesus, and couldn't stand the idea of a selfish god whose ultimate goal is to draw worship to himself. Michael, who is a practicing Jew, rebutted something along the line that the value of religion is that people seek to improve their own lives and the lives of others. He also believes the main the point of religion is for people to do good. This is the utilitarian view. While I would agree with the desirability of these utilitarian benefits, its vital to undertand the transcendental nature of a religion like Christianity.

There is an inestimable value to an ideal that defies plain logic, that challenges the mundane and overcomes hopelessness in existance. Many observers would call this kind of thing dangerous, and they would be right. Marxists in their conviction might round up and murder the bourgeoisie or violent jihadists might blow up a crowded restaurant for their cause. As a citizen of the world, I deplore these things. As a Christian, I grieve for the brokenness and lostness these phenomena reflect. All men (save one) are wretched beings, and are susceptable to perverted ideals. Yet, it is a transcendental force alone that brings meaning and sheds light on Truth.

In response to people like the disgusted caller, I would challenge them on their view of God as selfish and of worshippers as brown-nosers. Maybe you had a bad experience going to Catholic school, or your see your Baptist neighbor is a hipocrite. Setting aside resentment and bitterness, do you really believe all Christians are just trying to get on God's good side? The last I checked, that wasn't what the gospel was all about. And then, on what basis would you preclude worship as ultimate meaning? Maybe the meaning of life is to pat each other on the back until we keel over and die. Consider the following account of the very early Christian church from Acts:

But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. Then he addressed them: "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."

Acts 5:34-39

Would you concede that there might be more to the two thousand years of Christianity than meets the eye?