The Conservative Philosopher Saga

Sadly, as soon as I put The Conservative Philosopher on my blogroll, it began to self-implode. Keith Burgess-Jackson decided to disable comments; he claims it was due to anonymous trolls, others say he couldn't take the heat. Max Goss, a contributor at both TCP and WorldMagBlog, decided this was the last straw and quit his association with TCP. Burgess-Jackson then posted on his personal site a rant asserting that he "kicked" Max Goss off the blog for not having completed his doctorate yet. Max has replied on his sub-blog on World.

A few thoughts: Goss has been the one bringing the facts to the forefront, posting the contents of his emails. Burgess-Jackson has been childish and deceitful. I am inclined to believe Goss's claims here. As a undergraduate student considering entering academia, I am saddened by KBJ's actions. Although I don't know either of these guys, I would like to believe that professionalism and decorum are expected in philosophy. This incident combined with a spat I witnessed between a very prominent philosopher (who shall go unnamed) and a questioner at a colloquium is quickly disabusing me of that notion. I assumed that a brilliant person whose job is to think about what really matters would realize the importance of truth and benevolence. Sigh. To sum up, I am adding Max's blog to the roll on my sidebar.

UPDATE (10:53 2/24): If you feel like reading more off-the-cuff opinions, Max has collected all the accounts of this spat that he can find here, including mine. Thank you for the link, Max!

UPDATE 2 (1:37 2/24):I just noticed that some of the links I used are duds. I'm fixing the problem now.

Warm versus Cool Morality

One of the recent developments in ethics has been the creation/realization of a dichotomy between different theories. It is described best as warm vs. cool or feminine vs. masculine. A warm ethical theory focuses on the interpersonal as the most important part of morality. Virtues emphasized here are such as benevolence, friendship, loyalty, and charity*. The warm ethical theory will view courage, for example, primarily important as is it necessary to express love to others in certain situations. A cool ethical theory derives the interpersonal from inner strength. The most important virtues thus include truth and courage. Cool ethics thus sees charity (again, an example) as flowing out of the inner strength and goodness of the agent. The feminine and masculine differences stems from feminist ethical writers, including Nel Noddings.
Applying this to politics, I see ethical flavors as a significant difference between religious conservatives and secular conservatives. Those Christian conservatives that think about this in relation to the Bible will generally come to embrace the warm flavor of ethics**. For example: "Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." (I John 4:7-8 NIV) Christ focused on dying to self and living in God. I see little wiggle room to fit in a cool ethical theory. However, secular conservatives draw their inspiration from figures like Ayn Rand. Often they consider themselves as small-L libertarians, which is very much a political theory based on self-reliance and inner strength. While the substances of the arguments and positions of religious and secular conservatives is usually very similar, the tone and groundings are very, very different.

This fundamental difference in ethical theory accounts for much of the tension between religious and secular conservatives.



*I am using charity in its fullest, classical sense as giving love.

**Embracing the interpersonal aspects of feminist ethics does not necessarily lead to becoming a feminist.

AI scores 60 points

Allen Iverson scored a career-high 60 points against the Magic last night. The 76'ers won the game, too. Scoring 60 points in a basketball game is extrememely difficult. It takes a very, very good player to do it. As a basketball fan, I've come to realize that although there will never be another Michael, the league is blessed with many brilliant players. I firmly believe that this is the golden era of basketball in the US.

The World of Dowd: Facts Don't Matter

Maureen Dowd had an atrocious column in the New York Times today. I have added my own comments in italics to the first part of her column:

"Flush with endorsing license plates discouraging conjugal license - entwined gold rings with the message "Traditional Marriage" - the Virginia House of Delegates is pulling up the fabric of society again.
Literally, this time.
The delegates have passed a bill authorizing a $50 fine for any Virginians - from randy Desperate Housewives to droopy chic teenagers - who wear pants that ride so low that their underwear shows "in a lewd or indecent manner."
Given that several generations now have unsuccessfully tried to meddle in the matter of teens' jeans, you would think lawmakers would know it is the ultimate futility. But the bill's sponsor, Delegate Algie Howell Jr., a 67-year-old Democrat and barbershop owner from Norfolk, told The Virginian-Pilot that he's got high, or rather low, hopes: "I think if there's a law saying you can't walk down the street with 8 to 10 inches of your undergarments showing, at least some of them might stop doing it."

A very nice sleight-of-hand is pulled here. The endorsement of marital fidelity (which, apparently, Dowd does not think is a good policy) is linked to an admittedly ridiculous bill about indecent exposure of underwear. Thrown in, almost as an afterthought, is the fact that the sponsor of the bill is a Democrat. One party endorses a vanity license plate about marriage, and the other makes people pull their pants up. Yet, apparently, they are linked by more than geography! Notice that one of the bills restricts and the other expands our options. If I lived in Virginia and was so inclined, I can get a license plate that expresses my views. These are not the official plates of Virginia. The no-gangsta-pants law, however, enforces a dress code on everyone. Of course, we know it’ll only be targeted at skaters and other disreputable elements of the corrupt youth. Now, when I drive through Virginia, I better be wearing a belt on my jeans.

This guy should be on the Bush team. Controlling what does not need to be controlled is its specialty.

Oh, I see. They aren’t linked at all! The anecdote was just a way to get a jab in at President Bush. However, the impression still lingers Bush secretly ordered Virginia Republicans to pass the no-gangsta -pants law.

Condoleezza Rice plays hardball with foes and allies around the world. But she's afraid of a few French schoolkids?
Keith Richburg reported in The Washington Post that the Bushies ensured that Condi's appearance at the elite Institute of Political Sciences was more sheep pen than lion's den. "Only a handful of the school's 5,500 students were allowed near the auditorium where Rice spoke," he wrote, "and the initial questions were vetted in advance by the school and the State Department."
The article said Benjamin Barnier, the son of Foreign Minister Michel Barnier, asked the first question, about the possibility of a theocratic government in Iraq. But the real question he wanted to ask was vetoed after he submitted it to the school on Monday. It was: "George Bush is not particularly well perceived in the world, particularly in the Middle East. Can you do something to change that?"

Perhaps Dowd should have read the article more closely. These “schoolkids” are hardly children. Benjamin Barnier (who, by the way, is not related to the Foreign Minister) is 24 years old, according to the article. He submitted two questions, and one was chosen. The question about the Shiites was the better question, in my opinion. Rice was not there to discuss the President. I do not know general procedures here, but checking out questions before they are asked is generally a good idea. After all, we did that ourselves in the “townhall” debate last fall. Extraneous, obscure, or insulting questions are liable to be asked if no oversight occurs. I am not endorsing this policy in all cases, but here, at a formal speech, it is a good thing.

Only a handful of students were let in because there were only 500 seats! Here were the allotments of seats: “Of 500 seats, only 150 went to the school's students and staff. Another 150 were given to French opinion leaders and government officials. Fifty went to American organizations, including the American University of Paris, the French-American Foundation, the American Chamber of Commerce and Sisters, a group of black American professional women. Seats were also reserved for officials of the French Institute on International Relations, which initially had been considered as a possible venue for Rice's speech.” Those all seem like reasonable choices. It was, perhaps, bad planning, but hardly Rice’s fault or any devious scheme by the State Department.

Surely, the "princess warrior" and "Madame Hawk," as she has been dubbed in France, could have handled that one.
But Bush officials prefer to write the script, or "create their own reality," as one Bushie put it, whenever they can. Besides the W.M.D. scare, there was the Kabuki "Ask President Bush" campaign sessions where voters had to take written pledges of support before they were allowed in, and the micromanaged town hall debates, where Bush strategists would not allow truly undecided voters to ask W. questions. And don't forget the administration's payments to conservative "journalists" to sell programs they would have promoted anyway.

Here is the punchline. Apparently, only filling 150 of the 500 seats with students and checking the questions beforehand is the same as the bizarre campaign sessions that President Bush had."

The column continues in this idiotic way.

Updates

I've been AWOL for a while. A heavy school workload and lack of desire contributed to my lack of posting. To make up for it, I've made a few updates to my page. I added a few blogs and decided to include my name, since many of my readers know me personally. Since Andrew Sullivan and Tacitus are shutting down temporarily,(*sigh*) Oxblog, Althouse, and Conservative Philosopher have been all added to the blogroll. As always, only blogs that require careful reading and thought are on here: the 5-star winners.

*EDIT* Oh yeah; Volokh's on the roll, too. Yes, like you, I don't understand half the things he says.

Libertarians are not all Conservatives

I have recently heard libertarians being called "conservatives" quite frequently. This misses a important distinction that exists: there really are two types of libertarians. Libertarians come in distinct conservative and liberal flavors. The difference between a conservative libertarian and a liberal libertarian is that the conservative wants low taxes and legal marijuana for philosophical consistency and prevention of totalitarianism, while the liberal wants low taxes so he can buy more marijuana.