Should I send out cards? To whom would I send them?
But seriously, folks, I was never happy with that name, so why not change it? I am white therefore I have social privilege, therefore I mostly get what I want, on a global scale. It's all relative, right?
So, yes, the new blog is here.
ta ta
Friday, January 23, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Philisophical Musings on the "Good Life" and the problem of "Dirty Hands"
I did not watch the Inauguration of the new American President, although it seemed that's what many others were doing yesterday, in my facebook community, in the world of blog, in the online news sources I religiously read. I'm not quite sure what Obama said, and, to be truthful, although I'm still ecstatic that a black man was elected, a historic event, to be sure, and one that brings hope to many of the dispossessed, marginalized, colonized people of the world, I'm getting to feel a little jaded about the man himself. Not that he's not marvelous. Just that I wish he was a little bit more liberal, a little bit more of a social democrat. I read a blog the other day, citing a news article saying Obama supported Prop 8 in Cali. Yuck. Don't be a hater, is all I gotta say.
And then this morning I read one of my favorite blogs, Living the Frugal Life. The author, Kate, did watch the inauguration. And she had the following criticisms. She disagreed that we need to choose between safety and "our ideals" which she interpreted to mean freedom. In her counter-argument, she quotes Benjamin Franklin: "any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and loose both." She further disagrees that we do not need to apologise for our "way of life" and argues that the [North] American way of life is both excessive and hideously impoverished. Good arguments, Kate!!
Kate's post reminds me of my last assignment in my Philosophy class this semester, titled Ethics & Public Policy. We were discussing the problem of Dirty Hands. This is when a government (or a person) must make a choice between what is right (in a utilitarian sense) and what is moral. Thus, an example would be a political leader who must choose to condemn a person to torture in the hopes that said person will reveal the location of a bomb that will likely kill hundreds or even thousands of people. The utilitarian argument is that the right thing to do is to save the hundreds of people, and torture the individual who may or may not have knowledge of the location of the bomb. Thus, by ordering the torture of said individual, the politician now has Dirty Hands.
The assignment was to describe the problem of Dirty Hands, using Pinochet, the Chilean military dictator, as an example. However, now I see examples everywhere. My man and I are watching the Jessica Alba TV series, Dark Angel. Every episode I have seen so far could be an example of Dirty Hands! This is because the utilitarian arguments that resolve the problem of Dirty Hands do so by declaring that it just isn't a problem. By doing what is right for the majority, the moral dilemma disappears. But how can this be, in the era of international human rights? I argue that this just isn't so.
We always have a choice to do what is moral. Thus, in my torture/bomb example, I say it is perfectly acceptable to take the moral high ground, and refuse to torture one individual person, even if it could possibly save thousands. Consider this: what if the individual really knows nothing about the bomb? Then, the ends do not justify the means. They only do so if the individual has knowledge of the location of the bomb, and if the bomb can be defused in time to prevent harm to anyone. My problem with utilitarian arguments is that they use people as means. I protest. I say this is both immoral and unjust. I say this becomes the tyranny of the majority, and it's what justifies ethnic cleansing, genocide, holocaust. I say we have to retain our moral values, or we are lost.
But back to Kate's post. Choosing between safety and freedom looks like a problem of Dirty Hands to me. Politicians decide it is okay to take away people's liberty so as to ensure their safety? Okay, it sounds familiar. That is what I do with my child nearly every day. But he is a child, and he is (currently) incapable of assuring his own safety. But that is because he is a child, and I fully expect him to progress, in developmental terms, to a point where I no longer need to be responsible for his safety. I'm hoping that comes in the teen years, when he progresses to formal operational thought. However, I don't think it works to treat nations as children. Thus, paternalistic attitudes towards Third World countries, or to one's own population, are just plain insulting. As Franklin said, if we give up liberty, we don't deserve it. And, if we knowingly take liberty from others, we threaten our own.
And then this morning I read one of my favorite blogs, Living the Frugal Life. The author, Kate, did watch the inauguration. And she had the following criticisms. She disagreed that we need to choose between safety and "our ideals" which she interpreted to mean freedom. In her counter-argument, she quotes Benjamin Franklin: "any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and loose both." She further disagrees that we do not need to apologise for our "way of life" and argues that the [North] American way of life is both excessive and hideously impoverished. Good arguments, Kate!!
Kate's post reminds me of my last assignment in my Philosophy class this semester, titled Ethics & Public Policy. We were discussing the problem of Dirty Hands. This is when a government (or a person) must make a choice between what is right (in a utilitarian sense) and what is moral. Thus, an example would be a political leader who must choose to condemn a person to torture in the hopes that said person will reveal the location of a bomb that will likely kill hundreds or even thousands of people. The utilitarian argument is that the right thing to do is to save the hundreds of people, and torture the individual who may or may not have knowledge of the location of the bomb. Thus, by ordering the torture of said individual, the politician now has Dirty Hands.
The assignment was to describe the problem of Dirty Hands, using Pinochet, the Chilean military dictator, as an example. However, now I see examples everywhere. My man and I are watching the Jessica Alba TV series, Dark Angel. Every episode I have seen so far could be an example of Dirty Hands! This is because the utilitarian arguments that resolve the problem of Dirty Hands do so by declaring that it just isn't a problem. By doing what is right for the majority, the moral dilemma disappears. But how can this be, in the era of international human rights? I argue that this just isn't so.
We always have a choice to do what is moral. Thus, in my torture/bomb example, I say it is perfectly acceptable to take the moral high ground, and refuse to torture one individual person, even if it could possibly save thousands. Consider this: what if the individual really knows nothing about the bomb? Then, the ends do not justify the means. They only do so if the individual has knowledge of the location of the bomb, and if the bomb can be defused in time to prevent harm to anyone. My problem with utilitarian arguments is that they use people as means. I protest. I say this is both immoral and unjust. I say this becomes the tyranny of the majority, and it's what justifies ethnic cleansing, genocide, holocaust. I say we have to retain our moral values, or we are lost.
But back to Kate's post. Choosing between safety and freedom looks like a problem of Dirty Hands to me. Politicians decide it is okay to take away people's liberty so as to ensure their safety? Okay, it sounds familiar. That is what I do with my child nearly every day. But he is a child, and he is (currently) incapable of assuring his own safety. But that is because he is a child, and I fully expect him to progress, in developmental terms, to a point where I no longer need to be responsible for his safety. I'm hoping that comes in the teen years, when he progresses to formal operational thought. However, I don't think it works to treat nations as children. Thus, paternalistic attitudes towards Third World countries, or to one's own population, are just plain insulting. As Franklin said, if we give up liberty, we don't deserve it. And, if we knowingly take liberty from others, we threaten our own.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
On taking on another child
So once again, I have failed to live up to my revised blogging goal of once a month (down from the initial once a week goal in August, when I dipped my toe into the world of the blog). It has been over two months since I wrote a proper post. A lot has changed.
For one thing, the semester ended at the beginning of December, and exams were over by mid month. Along with all school-related stress, for a few weeks, at least. However, nature abhors a vacuum, and the car required a new radiator, which came with a $700 price tag. Gulp. Thank goodness for VISA.
As well, I acquired a new housemate in December, which brings with it a host of adjustments. So far, so good, but I struggle daily with control issues. And I still feel like a single parent.
We had his son with us for much of the holidays, which was both delightful AND exhausting. Our boys are 3 months apart in age, yet a year apart in the school system, so it's almost like twins... and I felt like a single parent to two demanding boys, one of whom I hardly know.
Just recently, his son declared to his mother (they live in Kelowna, 4 to 5 hours away through high mountain passes) that he wants to live with us. Although this is delightfully exciting to my fella, I am only looking forward to the end of the Family Maintenance hassle of regularly reduced pay-cheques. I don't know that I can gracefully cope with taking on the lion's share of caring for another 6 year old. Who will be the one to get them both off to school/daycare in the mornings? Who will be the one to struggle to make the grocery budget stretch to feed another mouth? (This kid eats like a teenage boy already!) Not to mention sussing out his food likes and dislikes. Who will chauffeur them around to school and extra curricular activities and playdates (Fiance doesn't have a driver's license)? Who will be the one to put them to bed every night, read stories, do homework with them, etc.? I have a sneaking suspicion the answer to all of the above is li'l ol' me. Sigh. I am exhausted just thinking about it.
I have a confession. I do not love the boy. And this makes perfect sense - I hardly know the boy. Unlike my own child, I have not carried him in my own body, I have not suckled him at my breast, I have not helped him through all the many 'firsts' of the baby and toddler years. In the past year, I have seen him a total of 5 times. Two of them were extended visits, but the other three were short, a single overnight visit when his folks were in town visiting and wanted free childcare to go out partying. But despite this understanding, I feel guilty for not loving him. I am fond of him, and I kiss and cuddle him, but when we have power struggles, that affection goes out the window. So I feel guilty, like I am a faulty mother. Send me back to the factory, there's an error with my feminine mystique!
I want assurances from my fiance that he will take on an equal share of the child-rearing tasks if his son is to come and live with us. He says he is willing, but, as with the housework and food preparation tasks, willingness may not be translated into action. I am silently resentful about the amount of unpaid household labour I preform, and I am unwilling to feel this way about his kid - it wouldn't be fair to the boy to be raised by someone who resented doing so.
So I wait, and worry. None of this will come to pass for months. The legal child custody agreement will have to be changed, which involves lawyers and legalese and the filing of documents. Will we need to go to court? I have no idea, as I have de facto custody of my own child, and all arrangements for child support are made privately. We can't take him on before this is complete, as we can't afford daycare out of pocket. We will need to apply for childcare subsidy from the provincial government, which we cannot do if his mother has legal custody.
However, I'm the only one with reservations. His dad is (of course) thrilled, my son is also thrilled (a built in playmate - there's no sibling rivalry at this point). My sister/roommate's response was, "I don't care, he's funny." Sometimes I wish I had a 'dangly' (as CannedAm said in her recent comment to my last post, the one that's over 2 months old - and my first ever comment, exciting and amazing as that is). If I wasn't a woman, all these concerns would vanish. Perhaps I need a wife of my own? ;)
For one thing, the semester ended at the beginning of December, and exams were over by mid month. Along with all school-related stress, for a few weeks, at least. However, nature abhors a vacuum, and the car required a new radiator, which came with a $700 price tag. Gulp. Thank goodness for VISA.
As well, I acquired a new housemate in December, which brings with it a host of adjustments. So far, so good, but I struggle daily with control issues. And I still feel like a single parent.
We had his son with us for much of the holidays, which was both delightful AND exhausting. Our boys are 3 months apart in age, yet a year apart in the school system, so it's almost like twins... and I felt like a single parent to two demanding boys, one of whom I hardly know.
Just recently, his son declared to his mother (they live in Kelowna, 4 to 5 hours away through high mountain passes) that he wants to live with us. Although this is delightfully exciting to my fella, I am only looking forward to the end of the Family Maintenance hassle of regularly reduced pay-cheques. I don't know that I can gracefully cope with taking on the lion's share of caring for another 6 year old. Who will be the one to get them both off to school/daycare in the mornings? Who will be the one to struggle to make the grocery budget stretch to feed another mouth? (This kid eats like a teenage boy already!) Not to mention sussing out his food likes and dislikes. Who will chauffeur them around to school and extra curricular activities and playdates (Fiance doesn't have a driver's license)? Who will be the one to put them to bed every night, read stories, do homework with them, etc.? I have a sneaking suspicion the answer to all of the above is li'l ol' me. Sigh. I am exhausted just thinking about it.
I have a confession. I do not love the boy. And this makes perfect sense - I hardly know the boy. Unlike my own child, I have not carried him in my own body, I have not suckled him at my breast, I have not helped him through all the many 'firsts' of the baby and toddler years. In the past year, I have seen him a total of 5 times. Two of them were extended visits, but the other three were short, a single overnight visit when his folks were in town visiting and wanted free childcare to go out partying. But despite this understanding, I feel guilty for not loving him. I am fond of him, and I kiss and cuddle him, but when we have power struggles, that affection goes out the window. So I feel guilty, like I am a faulty mother. Send me back to the factory, there's an error with my feminine mystique!
I want assurances from my fiance that he will take on an equal share of the child-rearing tasks if his son is to come and live with us. He says he is willing, but, as with the housework and food preparation tasks, willingness may not be translated into action. I am silently resentful about the amount of unpaid household labour I preform, and I am unwilling to feel this way about his kid - it wouldn't be fair to the boy to be raised by someone who resented doing so.
So I wait, and worry. None of this will come to pass for months. The legal child custody agreement will have to be changed, which involves lawyers and legalese and the filing of documents. Will we need to go to court? I have no idea, as I have de facto custody of my own child, and all arrangements for child support are made privately. We can't take him on before this is complete, as we can't afford daycare out of pocket. We will need to apply for childcare subsidy from the provincial government, which we cannot do if his mother has legal custody.
However, I'm the only one with reservations. His dad is (of course) thrilled, my son is also thrilled (a built in playmate - there's no sibling rivalry at this point). My sister/roommate's response was, "I don't care, he's funny." Sometimes I wish I had a 'dangly' (as CannedAm said in her recent comment to my last post, the one that's over 2 months old - and my first ever comment, exciting and amazing as that is). If I wasn't a woman, all these concerns would vanish. Perhaps I need a wife of my own? ;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
