Homo economicus’ Weblog

There is an issue about assisted suicide. Being able to see what that entails for loved ones is one thing that needs to kick start a debate in the UK. Which makes assisted suicide illegal here but will allow travel to Switzerland as long as there is no public interest in prosecuting travelling companions. Such a journey, and moment of death, was televised last night.

How long the House of Commons will duck the issue, time will tell. Gordon Brown, when not saving the world, announced that biased pressure from others means he is against. I would suggest maybe increasing hospice care would be one consideration – and that going to a foreign land to die, in unfamilar terroritary is the pressure of suffering with death the only release.

Right now the “not in our back yard” approach is the symptom of a government that needs an election to help it on it’s way. They are not prepared to tackle these issues or have a debate. Leadership has to go beyond the one financial dimension of the Prime Minister.

Yet we need to see what the process is like, both in the travel and the reality of assisted suicide. I would welcome comments on whether the program succeeded in that.

The Pregnant Man

This is a program I am currently watching. The narrator is the same guy for “Make Me A Christian” on Channel 4. As my review of that show suggests I have not high hopes for this.

A woman (Tracy) that has hormone treatment to become more mascaline (legally a man named Thomas), and a double masectomy, decides to concieve when their female partner cannot.

Granted most couples cannot resort to the husband as a way of bearing children. However, I find it very difficult to get wound up about this. Given the situation it seems one way round it.

With easy money from the media, that insist it is the first man giving birth, to set the family up – good for them. As far as I can see they are not hurting anyone.

As to the environment the daughter will grow up in – well the fact that they want the child is actually a rather good indication. Two devoted loving parents I can settle for. The documentary will not answer that, as I doubt it would on any couple, as we see YouTube videos dennouncing Thomas and the couple hiding out from a German documentary crew.

I would be more impressed by the science if someone born a man became a woman and then pregnant.

At work all people could talk about was this program; not the issue of assisted suicide. One issue is more important to society than another.

Till then we wait for the first Sea Horse carrying Homo sapien, let alone an artifically inserted reproductive system. And for a debate by Parliament on how we can choose to die.

One topic that seems to get the juices flowing (either of passion or salivation) is the eating of meat, and the morality of doing so.

Whether you accept ethical arguments may depend on how you view animals. As a consumable which can be used for human pleasure, or as sentient beings that are due consideration due to their ability to suffer pain and stress. Evolution tells us that we  have a common ancestor with all species. We may feel that consciousness makes us special in relation to other animals, and that we should act in our interests only (speciesim). That same consciousness allows us to see that differences do not mean that we should have disregard for non human animals.

Concerns over animal welfare may extend to the process that brought the dead animal to your plate. That the animal had plenty of room to roam and was not reared in ways that led to unnecessary suffering. Such concerns may allow you to enjoy the pleasure of eating meat with less guilt. But the more we learn about the intelligence of animals and their capacity to suffer, the more the paradox between how pets are treated and how animals for slaughter are treated is inexplicable.

In the whole farming process the welfare of animals are undermined.

However, while vegetarianism may be a step in the right direction there is more. Because when it comes to eggs or dairy, arguably the worse welfare violations occur in this part of farming. Nor can we claim that leather is just a by product of slaughter for meat when it’s monetary value is 55-60% of the total value. Veganism may not be such an extreme reaction, but the only logical proposition if your concern is the suffering of animals.

It has never been so easy to go veggie. Your health and that of the planet will benefit from the change. The philosophical case, the science behind animal welfare, and the activist impact are well presented In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave edited by Peter Singer.

OTHER BLOGS:

World Vegetarian Day

The Conservatives are having their conference in Birmingham this week, and despite Brown’s speech last week closing the gap the Labour Party is still on course for the worse drumming in an election since Michael Foot was leader in the 1980s with a manifesto described as the longest suicide note in history.

However, it is easy to be popular when you tap into people’s resentment. The real question is what policy alternatives do you have? Whether this is just a gimmick to engage the public or they really do not have a clue on this is unclear. They have opened up policy discussion on their blog to make suggestions for what policy might be on the Conservative Website. Just as Gordon Brown borrowed from America his wife introducing him before his speech, this idea comes from Obama’s website.

George Osbourne (Conservative Shadow Chancellor) made the point in 2006 on blogs:

In politics and in the media we’ve both assumed that we do the talking and the people listen. Now the people are talking back.

It’s exciting, liberating, challenging and frightening too.

There are 57 million blogs and the number increases by 100,000 every single day.

Over 125 million people have created their own MySpace page – and 250,000 new people do so each week.

This is not quite virtual democracy, uniting the world. The majority of the world’s inhabitants do not have access to global communications. In 2006 only 57% of UK households had access to the internet. The other point is the impact by which using this medium has on the political process. Organising could not be easier – just start a facebook group, send some chain e mails around. Contacting elected representatives is as easy as a few key strokes. You can write a blog, with no one to edit your content. Political parties are encouraging people to target blogs with comments.

I can see where this is heading. Regime change by blogging, and commenting. It could even be used to encourage dissent, rather than by supplying money or arms, by positive comments to a blogger to keep on undermining a government with their criticism. Or creating blog accounts to coordinate rumour mills in the digital internet age to shape events in the real world through cyberspace. Blogs written by covert agents of the state to influence people both foreign and domestic.

The power to inspire goes beyond the grave

On the one hand a force for good, but also one for conspiracy. Just another medium for the propaganda war. The real significance of what the Conservative Party is doing is making existing activists feel more motivated to take part, and garnering publicity. They can perhaps dream of the website contributing to party funds the way it did for Obama. Cameron lacks the inspiring qualities that make people jump up from their seats and extend their wallets to be part of a movement for change.

Are we too cynical to think change is ever going to happen, or do we just lack a charismatic leader that could inspire us that way here in the UK? Well we did have such a politician that knew how to raise the roof, and in many ways it made me a political activist because I could see the things that needed change. That was Tony Blair, and in many ways I think it is easy for us to forget how popular he was when first elected as we remember him now for Iraq and unfounded public loyalty to George Bush defending the indefensible.

In a world full of bloggers you will not please them all, but you will get widespread opinion out there. But the person busy typing away is still a human being. One motivated to get their message across to people, or vain enough to think people will read and take notice of what is said. The internet offers new opportunities – it does not however change the nature of the political animal.

If politics has taught us anything though, it is that governments have their own agendas often shaped by things beyond the public’s control. It is not so much us the people that influence policy as legitimise a group  to formulate and enact them on our behalf. We have the power of veto by removing a government for a particular bad policy. However, with George W Bush and Tony Blair reelected after sending troops to Iraq and  the incompetence and human rights violations that entailed I do not have the confidence in the electorate being relied on to exercise that veto. But if it is business as usual when you change the faces then what real power do you have?

If you want change it is not enough to just change the people in office:

‘Those who have changed the universe have never done it by changing officials, but always by inspiring the people.’ (Napoleon)

It is often said that power ultimately rests with the citizen if only we exercised it. Perhaps that is where blogging may work in communicating ideas. The change it gives birth too though may be as effective as writing down your frustrations and grievances in a notebook which you keep under your pillow. It makes you feel better having got it off your chest – but are you actually using it as a call to action on others, to inspire others to change the universe?

It is a battle of ideas, with cynicism being the barricade on the way to progress. But that cynicism is not just other people, but what we can have ourselves. Because sometimes we may think even a small thing will not make the difference, and that a blog is no more an instrument for change then a notebook under a pillow. Yet we can do more then dream on them:

Each time a person stands up for an ideal,
or acts to improve the lot of others…
he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope,
and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring,
those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance. (Robert Kennedy)

I suppose the real secret if you can inspire people is not to get killed for doing it.

July 4 is one that while an American celebration is one that heralded the culmination of the enlightenment into political institutions, and to bind ideas of liberty and freedom within the social fabric. It was such a cause that even people on the other side of the pond now (as indeed people did when the original Declaration was written) could appreciate what was at stake – the battle of ideas, as much as the battle of a people. If not the birth of these ideas it was the growing pains of emerging from a superstitious age of viewing the world and our place.

So from 1776 to 2008 we have President George W. Bush at Jefferson’s House as people from 30 nations become citizens of a nation that, loved or hated, is the lone colossus of the world stage leaving others in it’s shadow. Not all approve of the darkness cast as the link shows when Bush was heckled, over fascism and Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7491278.stm

To my mind that was the wrong setting for protests. It was the right location and ceremony for a President to be, on a day to celebrate the birth of a nation and to reaffirm what the USA is founded on. Free speech being one of them, a put down that at the same time reaffirms ideals that Zimbabweans can only hope would come at the price that it did for the American protesters.

It is difficult to argue that fighting for these ideals 232 years ago, with both foreign and domestic enemies during its brief history, means that the USA should sacrifice the blood of it’s children and wealth to give freedom to other nations. These struggles are inherently one for the people so affected to fight first and foremost. Yet when they do so the world should support them because we recognize that these values are one essential for the human condition to live life to the full – the recognition that people are an ends in themselves and not a means to a supposedly higher goal, whether the whims of a tyrant, creating a kingdom of heaven on earth, or a cog in a wheel of utopia. The extent of that support, there lies the rub, and one that free citizens should exercise mindful of the liberty they have to choose was not born alone.

The extent of independence in an ever interconnected world is another issue. Jefferson was wary of entanglements with other nations, and yet world problems require world solutions. Looking only within your own shores to protect the self interest of a nation has never been the optimum position in the global era.

The next President will have these issues to grapple with; their view of history and vision of the USA in the world will be a factor in how they behave as rational actors not only on the world stage. In the court of public opinion a change of face will be greeted sympathetically by the world but actions rather than words will be the litmus test. But for Americans perhaps there is no better test then to see how their country measures up to the aspirations of 56 signatures over 200 years ago.

Much has been made in the atheist blogging community that in the poll by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation religion was seen as being a net negative to the community. However, there is more to the poll which I think bears reading besides that sound bite. The responses in the summery were:

I think there is a slight misconception that only the ungodly, laced with baby oil watching same sex pornography would want a secular state. They may well do, but they are not the only ones that may feel that such a state safeguards their freedoms to conscience, liberty and to pursue their own meaning while on this earth.

In Turkey at the moment the establishment is trying to unseat a democratically elected government on the basis that it is pro Islam – by means of the courts. While the government’s attempts to allow head scarves may be unconstitutional (the court could strike such laws down) to remove an elected government of the people after it is elected would not bode well. It could all be politics in trying to scupper EU membership. Either way even as a secularist I am concerned with what the court is doing.

There will be tensions in any pluralist society. People have a sense of justice, and conceptions of the common good differ. An appeal that my ideas belong to God, to Marx, to the Pope, to Friedman – when determining what action as a society we shall take we need a mechanism by which dissent can be managed, institutions which allow citizens to play their part, and a well ordered society that the whole thing does not descend into anarchy. The rules of the game need to be fair, and the consequences of following the rules people can live with the consequences, even if they may still disagree if on the loosing side.

Would such a society be best served by a government that was religious rather than not? Well the question would be which religion, what variant of creed. How is that decided and how is the government to act in its use of power? Will it give preference in legislation to its faith or to all?

It could be argued that a faith inspired government could tolerate and have equal laws for all faiths (including the officially recognized one). But when the power of the state acts with the authority of god, and determines what is true doctrine and how that impacts on what citizens can and cannot do on the basis of faith and not what citizens want and need there is a concern.

Not least because citizens become in the eyes of a faith government the means by which god’s will is done (the end). In effect legislation is done to be pleasing in his eyes; that does not mean that it will be for the earthly bound subjects.  Your right to disagree with another faith means nothing when a faith claim (that an embryo has a soul) stops you from getting treatments or an abortion. That you may believe in Christ Jesus but reject the Trinity – but that puts you outside the one faith of the nation.

People are ends in themselves. To be treated with respect as individuals, liberty and people’s rights are important. The secular government attempts to stop the most dangerous thing that can happen – a real split between the people and the government on a matter that has often led to the bloody repression of citizens. That is faith which sees pluralistic democracy, and the State not enforcing power for God’s word as wrong.

Could we live in a “defender of faith” nation where all faiths and none are equal? That would be best of all in the secular state because not one faith is held above another by Government. It does not require that people that serve office pass a religious test, or refrain from having a religion. It stipulates that faith is not imposed upon people by the state.

Now my argument connects that living in a pluralistic society, with multiple ideas is one best served by the secular state. It is especially so when it comes to religion and also to ideology as well. This is where the criticism of secularism goes wrong when citing Communist countries or Nazi Germany as examples of evil done in secularism’s name. What has happened is that rather than a state sanctioned religion that will not tolerate dissent, an ideology has become state sanctioned in this way.

In essence the secular state should combat such acts by how the constitution is written. It is to prevent the abuse of power by or on behalf of the state infringing on your rights and mine to disagree or to think differently. Liberty is undermined if we allow the state to enact laws that will give one group of worshipers more rights and privileges then another group.

Does this mean that faith groups should not be allowed to lobby their points of view, or that their members should not be able to speak about their consciences? Well I would argue that they can, but their argument should not rest on having to believe their faith to agree – rather there should be a universal principle that exists independently of the claim that God’s will is at issue here - which even an atheist could in principle agree too. The validity of the claim is independent of whom issues it in the public sphere (God or man). In the private sphere you may voluntarily submit to such beliefs.

When we talk about reason in the public sphere we are talking about how do we resolve competing pluralistic views in a democracy that respects people as equal citizens? If that is to be achieved religious claims over the constitution, judiciary or legislative would be unproductive in coming to terms with resolving such issues in the body politic. It would not promote fairness or equality. A religious argument does not meet the requirements of public reason – by definition it can only be accepted if you believe that faith.

The cultural background and right of people to have a religion or none is assured. Indeed it is part of our humanity, our history. When asked if I thought religion should disappear in an interview I said it depended how you imagined that – I want the rights of people respected on all sides, the ability to disagree, the hope that reason and rational people will contemplate the importance of separating the church and state in protecting citizen’s liberty to be as they will.

In short the freedom of religion is a political value I agree with. But when it comes to rights that individuals have, religious claims do not trump them – not least because people become a means and not an end in public policy. In the political sphere religion undermines the liberty of others and the ability of the State in using public reason in the safeguarding of citizen’s rights.

I know that quite a few people I get on with do have disagreement with my position on Iraq. Which in a nutshell was a realisation that we were being lied to about going in, but the case should have been made on humanitarian reasons and that the world could not rise allowing tyrants that threatened peace and security to die peacefully in their sleep when they murdered whole families for having satellite television. But in all cases it should be for a society to have the facts, and agree to the aims if their children’s lives are to be sent to die. The cause must be true, and the sacrifice though painfully felt considered to the good of humanity.

The reduction in UK troop numbers from 4,000 to 2,500 have been halted due to conditions on the ground. Violence in Basra has increased between militia and the Iraqi army. Whether we are there as a support or actually prepared to be actively involved in the fighting with full support is unclear depending on what you mean by the term “overwatch”. To get any sense of what is going on is not helped by language that is used to camouflage the facts and to smooth the fragile senses that may react in a way that may displease Her Majesty’s Government.

Yet my acid test for withdrawal remains the consequences of us leaving. Remember in France 270,000 civilians died in WW2 and 600,00 deaths were military – Iraq is far less then that and yet what we are trying to do is have a government that is accountable to the people of Iraq and does not have the fear of terrorists or tyrants nationally or locally dictating the whims by which people may live and die. I do not propose a blank cheque or believe that the blood and treasure already spent stays our hand in remaining. Containing the violence is one thing – and reducing troop numbers if it allows that to return would be real folly.

I wish we could live in a world where the power of the people to overthrow their oppressors could be assured to bring about social change and justice. However that is not always the case. On what terms will I see a France citizen of 1944 less deserving of freedom then an Iraqi of 1999? Is it the foreign imposition of power on a country that allows us to expand much sacrifice to other people’s freedom, or is the tyranny over an other’s freedom that moves us to such action – the conquest of an individuals liberty, where an unjust constitution gives no respite save for a grave that the state will prepare for dissenters.

Or are we to really say that if people are so far away it does not affect us? Such voices were to be heard in the late 1930s in the USA; that to my shame as I walked the World War Two memorial in Washington DC I saw the years 1941-45 chiseled in and thought of how many lives were lost in the preceding years before Congress finally acted. Are we only to feel for the suffering of others if it takes our fancy, and only to sacrifice when it is others on our behalf and not our blood and our treasure at stake?

Such do tyrants and evil warlords hope – that they can make enough trouble that we shall not interfere. That such problems with such obstacles and cost shall put us off even suggesting the fight. That we shall by omission not act, and by such inaction shall we declare ourselves peacemakers and by such tokens as this be glad that we shall live while others shall die and forget that our pasts often relayed on people believing that the fight for our freedoms was worth the price paid.

Some like Bertrand Russell believed that only a world government could end war, and solve the problems that impact us. But it would take something far more then a structure of government, far more then the organised labour of many, far more then the co operation of free people fulfilling an enlightened self – interest.

It will take an idea, that has forever burned in the hearts of people, but is rarely shown for fear that it’s light may be quickly blown out. From it much hope is arisen and many small deeds of compassion, charity and hope is accomplished. It is done not for personal gain, nor done under the lash, to obey a great leader or appease a thuggish god.

It is the noblest of things – that of a common humanity, a recognition that goes beyond kin ship to those close. It may not be a natural instinct. Maybe we do not look to our biology to help reinforce the idea. Yet, it is something that exists, and the more we know of what is happening in the world the more we must be prepared to help those who do not have the means to fight off disease, poverty, war and tyranny.

It comes to an idea – one where the end is the betterment of the condition we find ourselves in, thus shall we choose the means when it comes to the fight. But let us never say we are not prepared for it – for our survival depends on it.

It is simply wrong that terminally ill people not just in France, but also in the UK, who are suffering unbearably are not being given the choice to die with dignity.” (Sarry Wooton, Dignity in Dying)

Chantal Sebire is a french woman who suffers from esthesioneuroblastoma. She wants to end her life, but wishes to do so with professional medical help. The french court’s rule it is against the law, but it leaves the issue that if this life is your own  do you have the right to end it in a manner that causes less suffering?

Now the issue at stake is that the law (in France and the UK) does not recognise the deliberate proactive action in ending your life. Denying life saving treatment is acceptable, having medication that has a double effect of treatment that reduces your life expectancy is acceptable. A medical intervention with the only intention of ending some one’s life is forbidden by law – even if consent is given by the patient. We are not here talking about involuntary euthanasia.

Is it rational to want to end your life – that a point of human existence may be reached that to continue to live is worse then not existing? That a terminal case, where no recovery is in site, an individual may choose death – and wants it to be painless as possible – a choice that life does not naturally give unless you take matters into your own hands.

Where the decision is the individuals, and there is no chance of recovery what possible legitimate claim can society make on an individual to stay alive? The slippery slope argument does not exist when checked that the individual concerned makes the request and the call in these circumstances.

The dignity of life is reflected in the decisions we make – these things are up to the individual, not legislation prohibiting an action which would reduce suffering of someone for which their only hope is death. The law needs changing, the dignity of people deserves nothing less.

UPDATE 20/3/08

Chantal Sebire passed away the BBC News reported late last Wednesday night – which I missed due to flying out to the USA.

While not clear yet the circumstances surrounding her death, my sympathies to her family and friends. Compassion should move us to right action and if that requires the law to be changed then so be it.

 The above is a video of Christopher Hitchens debating Rabbi Shmuley Boteach at New York’s 92nd Street Y.

“So little evidence for such a horrible proposition.” Hitchens is always entertaining to listen too, and makes the case that belief in a supreme being was more about explaining a strange alien world in which we live – the first idea about a theory of everything which became so entangled with our way of thinking, culture and institutions in ancient times that the hangover is still with us.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach makes the romantic inspiring defense for religion – it gives purpose, a sense of belonging and lifts us up to virtues making us beyond an animal state. It misses the point that as social beings we have the capacity to come together, and do, over many things from leisure activities, work and political. A sense of belonging and hope is possible “without invisible means of support” for those reasons are shown in our daily lives. Virtues are recognised, not based on faith claims, on how those that have them are respected and the consequences of having them.

Hope you enjoy the video – Hitchens also covers the science that suggests the world we live in was not jump started by certain gods I could mention. That it is a serf wish to suppose, and thank goodness that theocracy is not the rule that we live in.

The freedom of religion and none is one way out of the shadows in our thinking.

I did laugh at the “Non-Prophet organisation” joke. Reminds me of the one that “Atheism is myth-understood”.