Compromise
Morality as outcomes vs. morality as process, revisited
In response to opposition from Republicans and some conservative Democrats, on Sunday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius signaled that the Administration might be willing to compromise on a government-run health insurance program – the so-called “public option” – in the health care reform plan and would consider proposals for a nonprofit health cooperative instead.
To political ideologues, “compromise” is a four letter word. It means giving in to beliefs; not standing on principle. It might suggest moral weakness; that the individual admits the possibility that the beliefs are wrong.
But, morally, is compromising really that bad?
Out with the old
In today’s New York Times, Richard Dooling presents what can only be described (though not necessarily pejoratively) as a utilitarian view of healthcare:
With so much evidence of wasteful and even harmful treatment, shouldn’t we instantly cut some of the money spent on exorbitant intensive-care medicine for dying, elderly people and redirect it to pediatricians and obstetricians offering preventive care for children and mothers?
–Sam
Everything I know I learned in philosophy class
In a long and fun Atlantic article, philosopher and former management consultant Matthew Stewart rails on the management consulting field and business schools, arguing that everything he knows about management science he learned in philosophy class. More power to him.
-Marc
Should the NFL give Michael Vick a second chance?
Life, learning and football
Since we’ve been writing a lot about punishment lately, it’s worth taking up the case of former Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick. Recently released after an 18-month stay in federal prison for operating a dogfighting ring in his own home, Vick signed a contract last week with the Philadelphia Eagles.
Should Vick have the chance to play football again?
Should old people go to jail?
Slate’s Christopher Beam asks an interesting normative question: “Can someone be too old for jail?” Granted, he goes on to answer the question in an entirely descriptive manner – explaining the legal systems of the U.S. and Europe. Nonetheless, it’s a good moral question: What is the purpose of sending people to jail – punishment? deterrence? desert? – and is there a point in one’s life at which jailing them no longer serves that purpose?
-Marc
A Prisoner Dilemma
The justifications for punishment in California
The California budget crises led the 9th Circuit to order the State to reduce its prison rolls by 40,000 inmates. There are generally four justifications for imprisonment and its interesting to see how this order might mesh with them.
1. Incapacitation. Keep criminals off the streets, thereby lowering crime.
2. Retribution. Criminals deserve the punishment.
3. Rehabilitation. Doing time can reform the criminal mind.
4. Deterrence. Imprisonment deters future criminals.
Looking at each category individually might reveal certain groups of prisoners especially eligible for release.
Segregation and Game Theory
Yesterday Marc asked:
…Should the government act to undo residential segregation that has occurred largely because of the choices individuals make about where to live (racist or not), as opposed to because of discriminatory laws or outright racism?
Here’s an interesting video that examines how slight racial preferences in terms of residential housing can lead to complete racial segregation, give time:
-Jake
Supreme ideology
Fun stuff over at The Monkey Cage on whether the Supreme Court is conservative or liberal.
The conclusion?
This helps explain why conservatives like the Court less than liberals, but in a different way. It’s not that the public hasn’t “caught up” with the Court, it’s that they are hearing and learning more about the Court’s liberal decisions than its conservative decisions.
Once again, the mainstream media is to blame for the world’s problems.
–Sam
Play-by-play
Why we need public philosophy
Political consultant and commentator Paul Begala writes on healthcare reform in today’s Washington Post. Rather than evaluate any of his claims, I think it’s worth walking through his piece to see just how many distinct moral claims he makes in less than 800 words.
Should government undo residential segregation?
In a story I missed from Monday, Westchester County has agreed to a lawsuit settlement according to which it will increase the amount of low- to moderate-income housing it provides in largely white communities. Though the settlement stems from the county’s alleged misuse of Community Development Block Grants, which are designed to provide “decent housing, a suitable living environment and opportunities…for low- and moderate-income persons,” it is expected to greatly decrease residential racial segregation in Westchester.
According to the New York Times article, the Westchester County executive attributed the settlement to “a historic shift of philosophy” by federal housing officials to take action against local governments that take federal housing funding but have done little to reverse the tide of residential segregation. This raises an important normative question: should the government act to undo residential segregation that has occurred largely because of the choices individuals make about where to live (racist or not), as opposed to because of discriminatory laws or outright racism?
-Marc
Share us