The utility from beautiful music for many does not justify
the physical and sexual abuse of a relative few. Even though utilitarianism
goes by the motto, the greatest pleasure (and least pain) for the greatest
number, the severity of the pain to a few can, I submit, outweigh a more
widespread, yet relatively superficial, pleasure for others. Surely the
intensity of pleasure and pain must enter into the ethical calculus. I have in
mind here the Regensburg Domspatzen, a Roman Catholic boys choir, in the E.U.
state of Germany. This case points to the default power of established
institutions and a religious psychology.
Showing posts with label non-profit organizations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label non-profit organizations. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 19, 2017
Friday, April 21, 2017
On the Spread of Private Governments in a Democracy: Should Churches and Universities Have Their Own Police Forces?
In mid-April, 2017, Alabama’s Senate approved a bill that would authorize Briarwood Presbyterian Church to create a police department. At the time, the church hired off-duty police employees to provide security-- “a common practice among nonprofit organizations.”[1] With 4,000 congregants, a K-12 school and thousands of events on its land each year, church officials had difficulty finding enough off-duty cops who were available. More important than being able to make up for any shortages, the proposed law “would empower a religious group to do a job usually performed by the government.”[2] That the group is religious in nature whereas police power is governmental (i.e., “church and state”) is less important than that the “job” had come to be viewed societally, as per the quote from The New York Times, as usually performed by government. In other words, the slippery, subtle slope is itself a red flag.
The full essay is at "Private Police Forces."
1. Ian Lovett, “Alabama Church Wants Police Force,” The New York Times, April 17, 2017.
2. Ibid.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Facebook’s Zuckerberg Donates $3 billion to Medical Science: Some Major Implications
Facebook’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, and his wife, Priscilla
Chan, announced in September, 2016, that they would invest more than $3 billion
during the next decade to build tools that can facilitate medical research on
diseases. The first outlay of funds ($600 million) would create a research lab
of engineers and scientists from the area’s major research universities.[1]
“This focus on building on tools suggests a road map for how we might go about
curing, preventing and managing all diseases this century,” Zuckerberg said at
the announcement.[2]
Moreover, the couple had previously announced a year before that they would
give away 99% of their wealth over their lifetimes through the Chan-Zuckerberg
Initiative in the areas of education and healthcare. I would like to point out
a few implications that may not be readily apparent.
The full essay is at "Zuckerberg Donates $3 Billion."
1. Deepa Seetharaman, “Zuckerberg Fund to Invest #3 Billion,” The Wall Street Journal, September 22, 2016.
2. Ibid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)