* The New York Times just published what could prove to be a debate-changing article that explores the science behind the so-called “morning after pill” and shows — contrary to what many or even most people think — that the pill does not induce abortion, but instead delays ovulation. Take a look.
* You might have heard that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently announced a plan to ban the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters and street carts throughout the city. But should government work to change people’s behavior for the better, or is that job best left to society at large? You can read six answers to that question here.
* The website Patheos has published a collection of essays to which I contributed (alongside esteemed colleagues such as Ron Lindsay) in an e-book called “The Future of Religion: Traditions in Transition.” Which means I’m published!
(Full disclosure: If you don’t want to spend the $2.99, you can view the Future of Religion series on the Patheos website here, or just my article here.)
* A former Objectivist writes in The Guardian on why she now considers Ayn Rand’s rational egoism a “pernicious philosophy.”
* Ethics blogger Tauriq Moosa discusses on Big Think several major problems with defending one’s moral views by invoking one’s religious views.
* In case you were in doubt over whether Cardinal Timothy Dolan’s moral compass could use some readjustment, read this and this.
I hold no brief for Objectivism: I find it philosophy naive, silly, and cultish. That said, Victoria Bekiempis' Guardian article is horrible. It reads more like a high school essay than an informed report on one's considered experiences & intellectual evolution. (She writes how she went from Objectivism to anarcho-syndicalism!) Amongst other incivilities, she cannot keep her criticisms of rational egoism straight; indeed, throughout she herself commits the same sin she accuses Rand: she conflates psychological egoism with rational / ethical egoism.
ReplyDeleteThe New York Times just published what could prove to be a debate-changing article that explores the science behind the so-called “morning after pill” and shows — contrary to what many or even most people think — that the pill does not induce abortion, but instead delays ovulation.
ReplyDeleteThat would only be debate-changing under the naive assumption that the anti-choice side is actually motivated by anything but a desire to control other people's sexuality.
Alex,
DeleteAll of the self-reflective, self-identified pro-lifers I know have never presented to me an argument against abortion (or the morning after pill) predicated upon 'a desire to control other people's sexuality'. Methinks your comment is a distortion (straw man?).
Eamon,
Deleteforgive me, but you may be a bit naive here. Nobody would present an argument on those grounds, but that does not at all means that controlling sexuality isn't at the bottom of it.
Would anyone trying to restrict voting access by passing cumbersome regulations present it as an attempt at disenfranchising minorities? And yet that's what it is.
Massimo,
DeleteI think your voting example is right. But I do not think that *all* or even most pro-lifers have an explicit view to controlling another's sexuality. Now, I do think that most pro-lifers are at base engendered to take their stance by a religious belief that has as a consequence the subjugation of human sexuality, but at the point of their pro-life arguments, they really do think a one-hour old fetus is a human life.
Massimo,
DeleteI should like to add that this is not to say that I think pro-life positions do not amount to controlling one's sexuality (I would put matters in terms of self-ownership: pro-life views amount making claims of ownership over another's body resulting in a grotesque violation of another's person).
Eamon,
Deleteoh, I agree, there is a huge difference between "rational" (or rationalizing) motives and psychological motives.
As for ownership of the body, I'm with you most of the way, but I do recognize at least the theoretical possibility that society may have - at times - a larger interest that trumps the individual's.
Re: "but I do recognize at least the theoretical possibility that society may have - at times - a larger interest that trumps the individual's."
DeleteYes, I agree too. Though I think such instances are relatively rare.