Like its predecessors, X-Men: First Class covers the same thematic material.The importance of TOLERANCE is stressed, but not in the classical sense of putting up with objectionable practices, nor Jerry Seinfield’s non-judgementalism (“Not that there is anything wrong with that!”).Instead, it is the Modern Liberal notion of societal approval.Being accepted by others is what drives Hank McCoy (Beast) to hide his mutation.
Betting one’s happiness on what others think of you is a risky proposition, as Aristotle tells us, and so McCoy’s hankering for human respect turns out to backfire on him.Raven, after some soul searching, rejects McCoy’s inclusion idea in favor of Self-acceptance.“Mutant and proud!” she proclaims.Substitute the word “Gay” for “Mutant” and you have the lesson for the day.
Yet even her Sovereign Self seems restless with such an account of things.She quickly flakes out and buys into Erik Lehnsherr’s (Magneto's) version of SOCIAL DARWINISM. For Eric, the dignity of the human person is replaced with the survival of the fittest. Mutants are the next stage of evolution and their might should make right.Magneto is the series’ villain and his master morality sales talk has repeatedly siphoned off X-Men recruits throughout the films, which makes you wonder whether Professor X’s preaching on diversity and tolerance require a more solid ground than his choir realizes.
Duncan Jones’ two films, Moon and Source Code, deal with the Military and Industry, but not necessarily the Military-Industrial Complex.Thematically, the films are similar: Both address collective v. individual dichotomy and examine the dark side of biotechnology.
The first theme could resonate with a couple of different groups.Lockeans and Christians would be concerned for the employee/soldier against the corporation/military.Both cite the Declaration of Independence, albeit different parts, to defend the individual against the collective.Lockeans reference each individual having “certain inalienable rights.”Christians like to remind Lockeans of the source of those rights: “Creator” or “nature’s God.”Lockeans are into AUTONOMY or the sovereign individual while Christians are into DIGNITY because every human person (including clones) is an Imago Dei.
The Lockean account is clearly the more popular view today; nevertheless, it might not be able to counter a growing alternative view, which ironically finds its roots in Locke: PRODUCTIVITY.The Lockean emphasis on maximizing productivity (or property as Locke would say) pushes the the corporation in Moon to suppress the rights of particular individuals.
Moreover, Peter Lawler has argued that Lockeans would have trouble defending human nature from the biotech enthusiasts. If Locke thinks Nature is worthless and value is simply the result of human labor (Productivity), then why is human nature exempt from this critique? Why shouldn't we play God and redesign human nature in order to improve our profit margins or save a city from ruin?
Today, Lockeans do not bother to defend Autonomy because it is their starting premise.And that is fine for the moment since everyone is willing to accept it.But Jones’ films suggest Autonomy will be called into question when it begins to come into conflict with the bottom line or the greater good.
In this debate on abortion Pro-Lifer Ross Douthat doesn’t want to invoke nature, much less natural law, in it. One can sympathize with his reluctance because he wants to rely on arguments which will persuade his opponent and it unlikely the Pro-Choicer here, Michelle Goldberg, would be interested in what is ‘natural.’
Yet Goldberg repeatedly uses the term “de-humanizing” in the video. What does she have in mind when using such a term? She says it is de-humanizing to be forced to carry a pregnancy to term and humane when freely done (or not done). The guiding principle here is Autonomy or the Free Individual.
Really, the woman’s nature (her babymaking equipment or her motherhood) are presenting obstacles to her freedom. The woman’s nature has to be conquered through technology (contraception, abortion) so she can truly be liberated.
We might ask the following questions to this Lockean account of human beings. Are our bodies simply extrinsic to our very selves? If ultimately we are free individuals and nothing more, does that mean masculinity and femininity are irrelevant to who we are as persons? Does this Autonomy worldview account for or capture our experience?
To return to Douthat, you can see his reluctance about bringing up nature in his answer why the mother should “put up with the burden of pregnancy.” He answers that she is “uniquely situated” i.e. she and no one else is in a position to protect the unborn. This seems like a more complicated way of invoking nature. The woman is the MOTHER of the unborn and thus has obligations to the unborn that no one else, save the father (another nature term), has.
Presidential hopefuls in the Republican Party gathered together to debate the issues in South Carolina. Ron Paul drew the most attention for his provocative understanding of FREEDOM. His Libertarian view is the menu of choice should be expanded to include items like prostitution, cocaine, and heroin. The only limitation to freedom should be choices which directly (i.e. physically) harm others.
Michael Gerson correctly notes that Paul would be undeterred by data which shows areas which have decriminalized drugs has increased drug addiction rates. This is because of Paul’s modern, or libertarian, understanding of VIRTUE and VICE:
Quote 1: “How many people here would use heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody would.”
Quote 2: (He is making fun of an addict here) “Oh yeah, I need the government to take care of me. I don’t want to use heroin, so I need these laws.”
For Paul, in order for a person to be truly virtuous, he must do so to a heroic degree. If the Law “helps” him by eliminating temptations, then that doesn’t count as virtue. A virtuous person is one who lives in a dump but doesn't get dirty.
Gerson points out that this is a repeat of Herbert Spencer’s SOCIAL DARWINISM. Citizens compete, not cooperate, against one another in a game of 'Survival of the Fittest.' The Addict's inability to resist temptation does not garner the community's concern. It is simply every man for himself. A Public Philosophy of this kind would cultivate contempt, not compassion, towards the the weak in a society. A community of free individuals ultimately means the individuals are free from each other, which isn't much of a community at all.
Men today are more sensitive and likely to help their wives with the kids and housework. They have clearly changed from the patriarchal men who we see portrayed in Mad Men. We’ve gone from Don Draper to Ross and Chandler in Friends. (Or Jim from The Office for our current TV watchers.) Feminism and Political Correctness, both children of the Sexual Revolution, have made women’s lives better in this regard.
On the other hand, it has also given us Joey, or worse, his alter-ego, Tucker Max. The Sexual Revolution has to take the blame for him since his type isn’t possible without the Pill and the corresponding celebration of Libertinism. Mad Menshows us that Don Draper had such proclivities, but was restrained by the public shame such behavior would receive. Women’s lives today are much worse in this regard.
We live in a time in which men are told to be sensitive to be women's needs, while bombarding them with images which can only desensitive them.
We can see the Enlightenment assumptions underlying the American Right and Left in two events from last month: Glen Beck’s Restoring Honor Rally and debate over the 9/11 Mosque.
Here is Harvey Mansfield on the ‘Restore Honor’ Rally:
Usually, Libertarians want to reject loyalties to country or God and replace it with enlightened self-interest.Their belief is these traditional loyalties are merely irrational prejudices and so they can’t provide the basis for public policy.Yet appealing to your self-interest isn’t going to inspire the public in a rally.And its not going to unite the citizenry together either.In the end, calculation and contract are not enough to form a community.
Liberals believe this preference creates a distinction between insiders and outsiders.For example, the current controversy is making Muslims feel like outsiders.And since no one should be made to feel like an outsider, Liberals reject the “love of one’s own” as unjust.
Carson Holloway explains how this view began in the Enlightenment:
The commonality between the Libertarians and Liberals then is they strip human beings of all ties which make life meaningful (faith, family, and friends).Both reject patriotism; Libertarians replace it with collective selfishness while Liberals emphasize cosmopolitanism e.g. they’re citizens of world (which is to say they’re citizens of no place in particular).
Is the “love of one’s own” aka inherently unjust?Holloway thinks not:
Instead of rallying around the flag, these Enlightenment extremes would either say every man for himself or we shouldn't play favorites when it comes to attending rallies.
The American Right and Left commit the same error when it comes to politics.See if you can catch it.
On the Right, Glenn Beck was interviewed by NY Times Magazine: "Progressives speak of putting “the common good” before the individual, which “is exactly the kind of talk that led to the death camps in Germany,” as he said on his show in May."
On the Left, Slate’s William Saletan argued Christine O’Donnell is a Socialist because she believes certain private acts which occur in the bedroom are immoral.
Catch it?In both instances, the reader is given a false dichotomy.The suggestion is there are only two choices, individualism or collectivism, when really there are more.Ross Douthat explains: “[they’re] reflecting the modern tendency to reduce all of human affairs to a state/individual binary (or a Marx/Rand binary, if you will), with no room for family, community, and other intermediate areas of effort, collaboration and self-sacrifice." Beck and Saletan mistakenly think that any denial of an individual right is an endorsement of the centralized government.
Both sides of the political spectrum see the only possibilities for ordering society are two Enlightenment extremes: Individualist Capitalism or Totalitarian Government.If that's the case, its just a matter of picking your poison.
Marquette University rescinded its offer to Dr. Jodi O'Brien to be the new Dean of the arts and sciences. The Catholic University decided not to hire O'Brien because she is a practicing lesbian who has published articles on homosexuality.
Thomas Kozinski has a Mercatornet Article in which he discusses the dilemma this presents for Libertarians who place "Autonomy" as their bedrock principle:
"....Jodi O’Brien has the individual right not to be discriminated against by any institution with regard to her preferred sexual lifestyle, then it stands to reason that Marquette University has an institutional right of autonomy. Surely the individuals who govern Marquette have the right to govern in a way that conforms to their own preferences, even if that means discriminating in hiring criteria... if Marquette does not have this right, why does Jodi O’Brien retain hers?"
In other words, the principle of Autonomy cannot resolve the 'conflict of wills.' If the individual will is sovereign, then how do we adjudicate disputes between them? Should we side with Marquette's President, Fr. Wild, who has a right to hire whomever he wants or Dr. Brien who has a right not be discriminated against? A principle other than Autonomy has to be invoked in order to resolve the conflict.
Libertarian Rand Paul, son of Congressman Ron Paul, won the Republican Primary for Kentucky's Senate Seat this week. Since he is now in the national spotlight, NBC's Rachel Maddow questioned him about his views on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Paul opposes parts of the Act; he believes a private business owner should be free to practice racial discrimination if he so chooses. To be fair, he is NOT advocating they do so. He just doesn't think Congress should criminalize such actions.
This is a classic instance of "Locke being let out of the lock box." In such a view, all human relationships are reduced to calculation, contract, and consent. Libertarians of this stripe think autonomous individuals should be free to do whatever they please short of harming one another; 'harm' being defined in a rather narrow sense. The only type of harm they recognize is PHYSICAL harm. You can see this assumption underlies Paul's view of racial discrimination. A white private business owner who discriminates against an African American is not assaulting him and so is not "harming" him.
Hopefully, Paul's troubling comments will force us to rethink the old saw about "sticks and stones..." and develop a fuller understanding of what it means to hurt someone.
While several developments have taken place since this debate aired, this video is still helpful in understanding the underlying debate in regards to viewing military detainees as enemy combatants or prisoners of war. If they fall under the latter category, then they should be accorded Geneva Convention rights.
The 3rd Geneva Convention has a four pronged test to determine whether a person deserves its protections. If he meets these criterion, then he is prisoner of war:
1) "commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates" i.e. he must be an agent of a state. 2) "a fixed, distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, if not a uniform than something to set them apart from the civilian population." 3) “The members of the militia must carry their arms openly” 4) "in accordance with the laws and customs of war" e.g. he does not directly target non-combatants
It looks like Al Qaeda detainees fail all 4 criterion, or at the very least, the last 3 and would not qualify for Geneva Convention rights; however, the Civil Libertarian’s counter is that the 3rd Geneva Convention states it is the responsibility of a competent authority to make this determination. There could be others in Guantanamo Bay who are entitled to such rights, and the way to determine this is to have a judicial proceeding of some kind.
That is a fair point. If there are innocents in Guantanamo Bay who have been mistakenly detained, then a proceeding could correct the mistake. The question then becomes what constitutes a proper judicial proceeding. It is interesting to hear that Erwin Chemerinsky, the Civil Libertarian in the video, thinks a Military Tribunal would be sufficient and in accord with a Geneva Conventions i.e. the proceeding could be as simple as “just two or three officers in the field who examine someone who's captured in the field.”
I say that is interesting because something very close to that occurred after this 2004 debate. Military Commissions were issued, but the Supreme Court, in Hamdan v. Rumsfield, ruled against them and said they, not the Tribunal, should hear the detainees’ cases.
President Bush responded by getting explicit Congressional authorization for the military tribunals in the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Congress added more protections for the detainees by amending the Act in 2009.
As I said in a previous post, Civil Libertarians see civil liberties as ABSOLUTE i.e. no or few restrictions during wartime. Now we see they also think they are UNIVERSAL: non-citizens are just as entitled to these rights as citizens. This is why they usually take the position (leaving aside Cherminsky’s approval of Military tribunals) that enemy combatants should be tried in civil, not military, trials. My reply is natural rights might be ABSOLUTE and UNIVERSAL, but civil rights, which are MAN-MADE, are not. They only apply to citizens and can be curbed.
This doesn’t mean the detainees should be ‘indefinitely imprisoned’ either because even non-citizens have natural rights which cannot be abridged; but that does not mean we are morally obligated to give them anything more than a hearing in front of a Military Commission. The Rights of the Declaration are guaranteed to ALL; however, the Constitution's rights are only for US.
In my previous post, I made an argument for why civil liberties may be curbed during wartime. It might be easier to see the merit in this argument if we placed the problem in a fictional context, allowing us to look at the problem with fresh eyes. The film I have in mind is Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight. Like Andrew Klavan, I thought Nolan was commenting on the War on Terror e.g. terrorism, torture. The issue I want to focus on here, however, will be ‘privacy v. security’ debate and how it comes up in the film in at least three different scenes.
Scene 1: During dinner, Bruce Wayne, his date, Harvey Dent, and Rachel Dawes discuss whether it is legitimate to take extra legal means in order to secure a city’s safety. Dent, who is supposed to be THE good guy, offers the example of the Roman Empire which would give emergency powers to a Dictator for a period of six months. Dawes responds the last time they did that they ended up with Caesar. This conversation reveals the dilemma posed by the problem and that it does not have an easy solution.
Scene 2: Bruce Wayne is talking to Alfred about defeating the Joker, who is referred to as a terrorist several times in the film. He asks how Alfred captured a criminal who, like the Joker, did not seem to play by any of the rules which most enemies abide by. Alfred curtly replies, “We burned the forest down.” In other words, such a villain required taking measures that would be considered extreme under normal circumstances.
Scene 3: Batman is able to use cell phones to create images which would allow him to know what is going on throughout the city. Leaving aside how implausible this is, the point is he will know where Gotham residents are and what they are doing. This is, he believes, the only way he can defeat the Joker. Lucius Fox explicitly says this is immoral and that no one should have this much power. Notice Christopher Nolan pays his respect to the Civil Liberty position by having one of the film’s good guys make their case.
Batman acknowledges the problem and says this is why he does not want to be the only person using the program. Instead, Fox should manage it while he simply follows his directions. Moreover, he tells Fox to type in his name when he is finished, which will destroy the device. The program is supposed to be temporary; its existence is the result of the extraordinary situation they find themselves in.
To relate this to the previous post, Batman institutes the very safeguards which were mentioned before: oversight and expiration dates. Taken together this should alleviate the concerns raised by Civil Libertarians.
The Dark Knight was a critical and commercial success. Nolan’s ability to raise these types of questions in a subtle and thoughtful manner while not antagonizing either critics or the crowd is a testimony to his talent. It will be interesting to see where he goes from here.
Are Civil Liberties sacrosanct or do they contract or expand depending upon the circumstances (peacetime, wartime)? To say they are sacrosanct would mean they are inalienable, but the Declaration of Independence only uses that adjective to describe natural rights. Those rights come from a transcendent source which is why they are absolute. Civil Liberties, on the other hand, are given to us from the State and thus are man-made. Being man-made, they are susceptible to change.
It follows that during wartime, civil liberties could be restricted for some greater good, say National Security. But what if the restriction of our civil liberties would endanger our God given rights? Indeed, this is the argument the Founders made in the main body of the Declaration as they cited George III’s violations of their ‘chartered’ rights.
It is this latter argument that Civil Libertarians have been making since the Patriot Act has been passed and renewed. Watching the debate above, however, one wonders if their concerns have not been addressed, at least somewhat. Peter Robinson argues that each of the controversial provisions has a safeguard: 1) judicial oversight e.g. FISA Court 2) Legislative oversight e.g. regular reports to Congress 3) sunset provisions (automatic expiration dates).
For Civil Libertarians, that might not be enough. From both videos, it looks like the argument is that it is still too secretive and the Public needs to be in on this. At that point the debate turns on whether secrecy is a necessary quality in a government when dealing with an enemy.
Women’s Lib is about liberation from…being WOMEN. Birth control and abortion enable women to divorce themselves from their baby-making equipment. Having unshackled themselves from their feminine natures, they become free-floating individuals. Lawler continues, “We too often, in the name of autonomy, reject as authoritative the guidance nature—our social natures– gives us…But much of what we think we can reject or discard remains real or real enough.”
You can see this premium on Autonomy in Justice Kennedy’s decision in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, the Supreme Court Case which revisited Roe:
“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life”
It can also be found in this exchange between Peter Robinson and Stacey Karp, President of the San Francisco Chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW)
Stacy Karp: …Women are not here to be married, to have children, those are not their sole responsibilities and purpose for being. Peter Robinson: You're pretty interested in metaphysics, too. What are women here for? Stacy Karp: Whatever they want to be here for.
Of course, if every individual is free to decide what it means to be woman, then that just means the word doesn't really mean anything at all.
Here is Lawler’s take on Kennedy and Karp’s view: “There’s little that’s more hellish than my being stuck with the perception of “pure possibility,” the perception that every door is open to me with no guidance at all concerning which one to choose.”
Tocqueville argued that the power vacuum created by the absence of authority will just be filled by something or someone else because most people will not be able to live unaided. In the 1830’s, the authority was the MAJORITY. Today’s authority can be detected in statements like “Studies show…” or “Experts say…”
The dubious promise of these technological devices is women can be happy without having to be virtuous (chaste, temperate). My hunch is if it liberates anybody, it will be predatorial men. Here is Peter Robinson on the matter: “..the beginning of the period, the 1960's society, if a man got a women pregnant he was expected to marry her and provide for her and the child. Society imposed sanctions of responsibility on the man. Now if a man gets a woman pregnant it's her fault. She should have been on the pill. And she's forced to either have an abortion or to raise the child alone. She falls into poverty. We know that single mothers raising children tend to be in poverty at much higher rates than other sectors of the population."
Looks like women, and men for that matter, will be ‘stuck with virtue’ for the near future.
Michael Gerson has an op-ed today on the Communitarian Michael Sandel. Professor Sandel is making several of his lectures available online at http://justiceharvard.org/. What makes Sandel an anomaly on campus is that he is willing to critique the cultural libertarian view which says, “that government's only job is to set fair rules and procedures; it is entirely up to free individuals to choose the best way to live.”
"I do not think," He says, "that freedom of choice -- even freedom of choice under fair conditions -- is an adequate basis for a just society." For Sandel to say something like that on a campus which is filled with professors and students who assume it as a matter of fact is quite gutsy. Gerson’s nicely summarizes Sandel’s Communitarianism:
This equation of justice with freedom, he says, is unrealistic about the way human beings actually live. Our views of right and wrong, duty and betrayal, are not merely the result of individual free choice. All of us are born into institutions -- a family that involves our unconditional love, a community that elicits feelings of solidarity, a country that may demand a costly loyalty. Sandel argues that a liberal individualism cannot explain these deep attachments. We are "bound by some moral ties we haven't chosen." Sandel, in the good company of Aristotle, contends that knowing "the right thing to do" in any of these institutions requires a determination of its purpose. And the purpose of government is not only to defend individual rights but also to honor and reward civic virtues -- patriotism, self-sacrifice and concern for our neighbor. This third definition of justice, by nature, is a moral enterprise.
Hunter Baker has an interesting post in First Thoughts on the differences between Libertarians and Social Conservatives:
“My fellow panelist (Doug Bandow) will speak better for libertarians than I can, but I think it is fair to say that in their view, the reason we choose to live together in political association rather than as hermits in the woods is so that we can enjoy the benefits of mutual defense and commerce. Thus, all the government we really need is a military to protect against external threats, police to protect against internal ones, and maybe courts to enforce contracts between individuals. Social conservatives, in contrast, line up more or less with Aristotle, who insisted that political life is about more than just mutual defense and commerce. Instead, political associations exist to enable us to develop a civic friendship whereby we will discover moral excellence as a community. For social conservatives, that Aristotelian civic friendship means there is value in turning the law to certain moral purposes beyond things like mutual defense and enforcing contracts. Instead, we hope to make law in such a way that it promotes human flourishing and prevents or discourages things that lead to decay and decline.”
I appreciate Hunter offering Aristotle’s thought, not Edmund Burke’s, as representative of social conservatism; however, I would parse the divergences with Libertarians this way:
1) The nature of freedom. Libertarians are concerned ONLY WITH exterior freedom-meaning they are worried about the pressure the state can apply. Social Conservatives, on the hand, are concerned with a deeper understanding of freedom, interior freedom. There are things other than the state which can enslave you e.g. your appetites. A drug addict or alcoholic is free according to a Libertarian, but not according to a Social Conservative.
2) Human nature and Bioethics. The Libertarian values Autonomy so he recognizes no authority outside of the self. In this scenario, redesigning human nature through biotechnology is permissible. The Social Conservative values Human Dignity and which requires a transcendent reference point. Tampering with human nature then would be playing God.
That it is a problem is not a self-evident proposition to readers of The Atlantic Monthly. Fortunately, Ross Douthat is brave enough to engage them on this issue. He makes a series of arguments obliterating the fantasy-reality distinction which Libertarians hide behind. Unfortunately, his attack stops there as he concludes the piece taking a realist “put-up with it” position.
I wonder, however, if his realism is really just a form of resignation. He concedes too many arguments in the second half of the article. For example, he thinks that there is no correlation between porn use and violence. But Paul Hunker, an U.S. government attorney, has reported that thousands have been arrested because of this very thing. Douthat also seems to think that the Internet cannot regulated. Like David Rowan, he thinks censoring the Internet is “like trying to catch the wind.” Yet Michael Cook has discusses how many countries are working on the problem. Australia’s “internet traffic has to pass through a handful of “pipelines” which could be filtered.” Malaysia recently signed a contract with Internet Traffic to filter their websites. And Harvard Law School reports that Iran “has one of the most sophisticated government filtering systems in the world.” (Usually, I do not cite Iran for examples of good governance, but just because it is bad in some things, that doesn’t mean its bad in all things. Thinking only in black and white categories, like U.S. is the Great Satan, is exactly what we fault Muslim Fundamentalists for.)
Anyway, this is where the debate needs to go. Constant technological innovations suggest an effective filtering device could be created. There just has to be a market for it. The only reason there isn’t one is because of the fatalist tendency of good guys like Douthat on this question. Where there is market, there is way.
Each essay is by an different author and comments on a particular social encyclical. This isn't to say the essays are merely summaries; each one critically examines the strengths and weaknesses of the encyclical it addresses.
I found the essay on the Declaration on Religious Freedom especially helpful. The author distinguishes three stages in the Catholic understanding of Church-State relations:
Stage 1: The Throne and Altar arrangement. This is the time of religious establishment as the Monarch and Church both endorse each other. The French called it the Ancien Regime, the Old Order. The problem with this arrangement, from my perspective, are twofold. First, the monarch ends up wanting to control the Church e.g. investiture controversy. Second, the Church's fortunes are tied up with the existing regime. If the monarch makes a mistake, then in the eyes of the people the Church is guilty by association. This is what happened in the French Revolution.
Stage 2: Continental Liberalism. This is the worldview of the thinkers behind the French Revolution: Democracy, autonomous individualism, and human rights. In the name of these ideas, the Revolutionaries unleashed the Reign of Terror and De-Christianization. It was these atrocities which were in the minds of churchmen when they opposed liberalism until Vatican II.
Stage 3: American Liberalism. A Jesuit, John Courtney Murray, argued that there was another form of liberalism which respected religion and would not lead to atrocities associated with Continental Liberalism. The Catholic Church had done well in America, even though it was a primarily Protestant Country. This occurred because the state did not establish any particular religion in the United States. Murray urged the Church to embrace this form of liberalism and in Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae, she did.
The battle between the American (Personalist) and Continental (Liberal Individualist) meaning of democracy continues. It is occurring within America and the rest of the world generally. The first meaning views human beings as persons: social beings with rights AS WELL AS corresponding duties. Moreover, Personalist Democracy presupposes a transcendent reference point which is the source of our moral obligations. In contrast, the Liberal Individualist model sees humans as autonomous, self-interested beings. The source of moral obligations is either consent or utility.
The collection of essays is filled with interesting discussions like the one above. It was a difficult, but helpful, book to read.
Peter Lawler, who was on the President's Bioethics Council during the Bush Administration, has an interesting argument about the future of the Conservative/Libertarian alliance we currently have in the Republican Party. Here is his prediction:
The two groups are currently aligned b/c they both believe in limited gov't. This is because they share the same view of human nature, "Out of the crooked timber of humanity, nothing straight was ever made." The Gov't undertaking large social engineering projects are doomed to failure b/c of the imperfect human beings who will be in charge of it.
But Biotechnology changes all that. It promises to redesign human nature (cloning, mood management, etc.) so that perfect beings can now run things. They say we can fix what God botched.
The Libertarians will buy that argument while Conservatives will not. The former will say yes b/c "people should be free to do whatever they like so long as they don't hurt anyone else..." The latter will be reminded of Brave New World and Gattaca and how badly such projects turn out.
