Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Shooting Ethicists For Fun And Profit

Well, just the fun part anyway. Still haven't made a profit of this blog or any of the shootings I've been involved with. But, I digress. The New York Times inhouse not-so-Ethicist Randy Cohen has sent his commandments down from on high. Thou shalt not kill wolves for fun. http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/killing-wolves-for-fun/?ex=1269835200&en=564ba59ad5a3c718&ei=5087&WT.mc_id=GN-D-I-NYT-MOD-MOD-M116-ROS-0909-L2&WT.mc_ev=click

As a good liberal, he, of course, does not confuse the issue with thinking, but in an appeal to a higher authority, Peter Singer, of child-killer fame. He also agreed that rape is different from rape-rape and does not apply to Hollywood celebrities.

Interestingly he concedes on the non-recreational issue of shooting wolves: "To be clear, I concede all putatively practical justifications for hunting and repudiate only the idea that hunting is a legitimate recreation." Of course, the operative word is "putative", which will be challenged once the author gets the Wise Latina to impose a ban on recreational hunting. A ban on non-recreational hunting is certainly around the corner for those unwilling to take their own food, just as Stalin was unwilling to shoot Trotsky, Buhkarin, Kaminev, etc, himself. A good liberal always has a functionary to do his wet-work.

So, just what is the moral dimension of hunting for food if you enjoy it? And if his unholiness Peter Singer approves of child-killing, what is the status of shooting ethicists at bankrupt newspapers? Do ethicists at bankrupt newspapers serve a purpose similar to immature children and those unborn as Singer says? Does it matter if one would enjoy shooting an ethicist? And what of the putative benefits of shooting ethicists? Is it still moral if you enjoy it? What if you approve of the benefits? Like few dead trees. Do trees have rights like wolves? If not, what separates them? We make board games of paper. Is a board game recreation? Or just a game? Is it worth the life of a tree? Is it ethical to allow ethicists to have a carbon footprint? Because the EPA says carbon dioxide is a pollutant, is an ethicist a polluter?

Inquiring minds want to know. Do tell Randy Cohen, if that is your real name.

No comments: