Comments for Team Kenan at the Kenan Institute for Ethics

Comment on Much Ado About Foreskin by Hugh7

Hugh7 — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 23:18:02 +0000

Ironic or not, the German ruling flows directly from their Grundgesetz (basic law, or constitution) that was put in place in 1949, at the same time as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and for the same reason, to ensure that no Hitler could ever rise again. It guarantees "physical integrity" (with Mengele in mind) and equality of the sexes, and the court rightly ruled that male infant circumcision violates both of those. Your Kenyan example is a good one. If it is unacceptable to circumcise a healthy adult man, how can it be acceptable to do the same to a baby, when the effect on him as an adult is the same? That he does not remember the act is no excuse. You're right about the multiplicity of reasons. About 1995, it seemed to me that they were just too many and varied, and something else must be going on. I decided to collect them, thinking there were about 30. Today, the list at the Intactivism Pages is more than 500 and still growing. I still haven't figured out what is really going on, but power and control have a lot to do with it.

Comment on Does Free Speech Ride the Bus? by Nicole

Nicole — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:32:42 +0000

Thanks for sharing, Grace. I disagree with the court that the language in the ad, particularly the word “savage,” doesn’t suggest hate speech. Definitely not the same as “fat people are slobs”- although that statement can be very hurtful, it does not put anyone in danger like “Defeat Jahad” does. As you suggested, I think there should be increased censorship in public places. Being bombarded with these messages on a bus can make people feel very unsafe and afraid if they are traveling alone on their way to work.

Comment on Girl (don’t) Look At That Body by Phil Reinhart

Phil Reinhart — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 20:52:46 +0000

Do you think the police would have been involved if they didn’t have an age limit?

Comment on The KKK Mile by Phil Reinhart

Phil Reinhart — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 20:34:54 +0000

I started off thinking I was against the KKK sign, then I was almost persuaded that freedom of speech is too important and the KKK should be granted the right to have the sign, but I then asked myself: Do governments have to support and fund speech in order for it to be free speech? I can go outside screaming white power and possibly get funded by the KKK, a private organization. However, there is no way the US government will support my doings. The Missouri Adopt-a-Highway is a government run program, so the government surely shouldn’t have to give support to the speech of the KKK. However, if the KKK finds a private billboard company that supports them, they should have every right to speak their mind on the board (as long as they aren’t inciting violence). The government shouldn’t be able to deny the private companies right to give free speech to the KKK.

Also, the Adopt-a-Highway signs are super enjoyable and I might have spent like half and hour looking through them, but if you look at the landmark donors for signs only in Missouri, they are boring and the least bit distracting. The state of Missouri may have more conservative views in what donors are allowed. The site below has a link to the landmark donors in Missouri; they are very bland.

I say the KKK shouldn’t have the right to have the highway sign. They are trying to get support from our government, a power that represents themselves with the lincoln memorial, the MLK memorial, and a Black freedom center. It they are trying to get their name out in the public’s eye, why don’t they start a private t-shirt company? If they are trying to clean up the highways, why don’t they buy some stakes and shovels and go to clean some highways?

http://www.modot.mo.gov/services/community/adoptahighway.htm

Comment on The Olympics Spirit (BADminton edition) by Chad

Chad — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 16:56:29 +0000

Hi Leonard! I completely agree with you that it is not fair at all – and I think that’s something we might just have to deal with, for now. Sports itself is a luxury – something that reflects the resources and free time of a nation. Just basing it on sports I am more familiar with, not all families can afford the luxury of having a “soccer mom” or “soccer dad,” and there are also sports with higher entry costs – such as golf, gymnastics, and equestrian. LIke you said, the podium is certainly exclusive – almost reserved for certain countries. Even in sports that you might not consider to be “expensive,” such as 100 meter dash, it still helps to have world class nutritionists, trainers, coaches, and of course, facilities. I doubt Michael Phelps would win all those medals if he was born in war torn Somalia.

As for badminton, the players were so blatantly bad that it was very not fun to watch after the first two minutes, and that’s why people are so upset (the players really need to work on the art of intentionally losing). I agree with you that the badminton players can do whatever they want as long as it is within the rules. The IOC should really blame itself for creating the system, and not expel the players for trying their best to win gold.

Comment on The Olympics Spirit (BADminton edition) by Leonard

Leonard — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 05:45:24 +0000

Chad, at least NBC covered something! KBC had zero coverage!!
Talking about the Olympic spirit in general, I believe that spirit is a very inconsiderate spirit at its best. How do you have more than 15 events in swimming alone? Tell me, how many countries in Africa and the developing world in general can afford to built Olympic size swimming pools? Very few! Kenya, for example, has only 2 public Olympic size swimming pools and they are both in Nairobi! How then do you expect Kenyans to participate in such events? How does the Olympic committee justify such injustice? Why doesn’t it try and include more sports that do not require expensive equipment for the sake equity? As far as I can see, the medals in the Olympics are reserved for the countries with the highest per capita income! It is an exclusive event!
Concerning badminton, no rule says that you are not allowed to lose to a weaker team. How do you tell whether someone lost intentionally or not? Even if they did not play to their best, I do not believe that they had an obligation to entertain the fans. The only obligation they had was to win a medal within the confines of the game…

Comment on The Death of a Hamster by sehej randava

sehej randava — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 20:55:48 +0000

what kind of person are YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comment on PETA goes explicit (more so than usual) by Too Much Baggage? » Team Kenan

Too Much Baggage? » Team Kenan — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 13:22:28 +0000

[...] Notably, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) jumped at the opportunity to snatch half-a-million dollars and contacted Tucker Max about becoming the beneficiary. Assuring Max he could still help prevent unwanted pregnancies, they proposed using the money to purchase a mobile spay-and-neuter truck for animals. They even came up with a charming title: “Fix Your Bitches! The Tucker Max No-Cost to Low Cost Spay and Neuter Clinic.” PETA clearly has a different code of ethics when it comes to its marketing. (We saw this last year with the pornography site PETA plans to launch, which Eddie discussed.) [...]

Comment on Stop “Stop Kony 2012″? by Leonard

Leonard — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 00:44:21 +0000

I would say that this campaign is ill-timed as far as the residents of northern Uganda are concerned. As for other people, whether they get informed 3 minutes or 100 years after an incident doesn’t really matter if they are not going to do anything meaningful to the people who suffered harm. If this campaign doesn’t result on pressure being applied on the Ugandan government to change its stance on Northern Uganda, then Northern Ugandans would have been better off without all the publicity.

Does having 100 US soldiers in Uganda really help the situation? I believe not. Museveni is taking the world for a ride because the situation is as it is simply because of its negligence of Northern Uganda. If indeed it was committed to defeating Kony, it would not only have waged war on him and LRA, but also committed resources to the economic development of Northern Uganda instead of leaving the welfare of the people to be taken care of only by aid agencies.

So what are 100 US soldiers doing advising the Ugandan Army when Kony is reported to be somewhere in the jungles of the DR Congo? Shouldn’t these soldiers have been forwarded to the Congolese Army?

Comment on Anti-gay sentiments in Africa by Christian

Christian — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:49:51 +0000

Well argued, Michael. Two thoughts and then I’ll take a break from trolling this post for a while.

1) I take your point about radical relativism meaning your status as a Coloradoan discounts any opinion you might have about Kansas. We can both agree that it’s a step too far to say that. Principles are important, but so is context; heading too far in either direction probably leads us away from wise decision making. Sometimes this is relatively simple–I’ve spent time in both Colorado and Kansas and am comfortable saying there’s not sufficient difference between the two to invalidate your views on Kansas. It’s not a meaningful boundary, in other words. The question of whether nation-state boundaries are more meaningful than the Colorado-Kansas state line is a little harder for me to dismiss. National political borders have very real and manifold consequences for the people on either side of them. And so my default is caution. As you point out, too much caution can be as much of a sin as too much relativism. There’s an opportunity to abdicate any responsibility in the name of avoiding the wrong choice.

2) If I’m understanding you correctly, your argument is essentially, “I understand that this policy might do something we could call ‘harm,’ but the potential good from such a policy outweighs the harm.” I think that’s totally defensible. We’ve expended quite a few words going back and forth now, but I initially joined the fray here because I didn’t read anyone recognizing this need to balance goods (or “bads”). Making difficult choices is critical to living ethically, seems to me. There’s an ocean of difference between being thoughtfully decisive and being self-righteous. It’s often easy (and sadly, kind of fun) to be self-righteous, but it’s usually not very helpful. Glad no one seems to be falling into that trap.

Thanks for engaging. I’ve enjoyed it!