Archive for ethics

Teeth-whitening and tanning package: $269

October 24, 2009 · Filed under ethics, feminism, society

So said the sign outside a “spa” in Port Douglas.  And that gives you a good idea of the type of place it is.  Very beautiful, but teflon.

This got me thinking (again) about the ways in which the culture tries to clone us all into one definition of beauty (tanned, with white teeth!)  Surely something not confined to our own time and place, but now that all the photos are photo-shopped, and you can literally cut and paste and colour your own body, it seems  more extreme.  Plastic surgery actually exists in my own social world (baffling but true.) I particularly remember a child who had her ears “pinned back” as soon as it was legal – aged 7.    It was ‘to save her from being teased at school’.   I wonder what other lessons and values she draws from that experience?  Looks are important.  It’s important to be like everyone else.  Don’t stand out.  You can’t cope with being teased. 

Does she feel sorry for the other kids with sticky-out ears who haven’t  had their ears “done” yet?  Will she ever feel that her body and choices were violated?

Am I just sensitive to this because I have sticky-out ears?

But as it happens I am here to confess that “teeth” is one area where I have been thoroughly socialised into believing that they have to look a certain way.  Blessed with a higgley-piggley mouth of teeth, I had braces when I was 13, and I never questioned the necessity of this, and even now can feel happy that they were “fixed”.   Due to the (painful) rapid movement of my teeth into their “correct” positions, I now have a dead tooth in the front of my mouth that is getting more and more yellow as I get older.  (A dental plot?)

I hope you’re getting a good visual of me, witch-like, with sticky-out ears and yellowing teeth.  It’s amazing I can function in this world at all.

Anyway, I have been advised that the only way to “fix” my yellow tooth, is to have a crown.  Which will involve vast expense, and the removal of a perfectly functioning tooth.  So far I have baulked.  All my principles are at stake:  How can I spend money in this way when other people don’t have *any* teeth and can’t afford them?  The money should be given to a dental clinic somewhere.  If I do this, I will be buying into the whole beauty myth.  The more happy yellow-toothed women out there, the better, as we demonstrate that white teeth are not pre-requisites for a fulfilled life.

BUT (and this is a big but) I *really* don’t like my yellow tooth.  And no intellectual reasoning seems to be able to overcome my flinch of disgust/concern when I see photos of my smiling yellow tooth.  I can intellectually realise that “it doesn’t matter”, but my socialisation doesn’t seem to allow me to emotionally realise the same.  Of course, other people probably have yellow teeth too - I just don’t notice them.

Comments (5) »

Civil Disobedience

April 23, 2009 · Filed under ethics, homeschooling, politics, society, voluntary simplicity

T is now officially in Year 1.   By law in Western Australia, I am supposed to register him with the education department as being home educated.   This would involve a “moderator” visiting me about once a year to discuss our progress (or lack thereof).  Well, stuff that.  I figure this is a crap system.   I mean, come on.  Either attend school 30 hours a week for approximately 40 weeks (1200 hours), or they come *one* hour a year…..  to offer what, exactly?

I’m not a Ronald Reagan fan, but I understand his point, when he said the nine most frightening words in the English language are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”.    The ideology of schooling is such that it is a *compulsory* government service.  Along with gaol and being committed into a mental institution.  Hmmm. 

I am deliberately rejecting their service…  so I am obliged to notify them of same, and welcome them into my home so they can moderate us against their service’s benchmarks?  No thanks.  The only legitimate reason I can think of for the government to want to do this would be as some kind of child welfare check.  Which it demonstrably *isn’t* as

1) they don’t turn up till the child is 6; and

2) under their own rules they can’t insist on actually interacting with the child.

A few months ago I was getting riled up about this bad law, and started looking into civil disobedience, as I was intending to deliberately break this law.  And who should turn out to be the father of civil disobedience….  inspiration to both Ghandi and Mandela?  None other than Henry David Thoreau, author of Walden and inspiration for the whole voluntary simplicity movement!  I love this guy!  I confess I find the old fashioned style of writing somewhat turgid, but when he writes that it is the *duty* of every thinking (wo)man to disobey bad laws, I’m reading him loud and clear!

If the education department ever tracks me down (sirens might start sounding at their HQ when I press “post” on this) I’ll be

a) suitably impressed by their big-brother capabilities, and

b) interested to see what they actually do. 

I’ll also be interested to see whether I am more or less welcome than outlaw bikie gangs down at the Australian Council for Civil Liberties.  I’m not yet saving the world, but I’m staking a claim on our own space in the world.

Comments (2) »

Morality, Freedom & Responsibility

March 24, 2009 · Filed under ethics, politics, society

Ok, more ruminations on political line-ups.

Here is an insight on morality that I would like to share with you all, as I found this quite interesting.  This is lifted from the work of Jonathan Haidt, as reported by Don Arthur in “Policy”.  According to Haidt, morality is intuited – and only rationalised afterwards - and moral intuitions rest on five foundations:

1)  Harm/care.  This flows from our ability to empathise and creates an aversion to seeing other people suffering.  It generates feelings of compassion as well as approval for people who care for the vulnerable and protect those in danger.

2)  Fairness/reciprocity.  The foundation of judgements about justice and is associated with feelings of anger, guilt and gratitude.  Fairness is about following rules that enable individuals to cooperate in mutually beneficial activities.  When people believe that they or others have been treated unfairly they feel anger.  When they feel that they have treated others unfairly they feel guilt.

3)  Ingroup/loyalty.  Is about putting the group first.  To be loyal to the family, tribe or nation is to put its interests and welfare above your own and those of outsiders.  It is associated with feelings of trust towards other group members and wariness and distrust towards outsiders.

4)  Authority/respect.  Is associated with feelings of awe and admiration towards the group’s governing institutions and leaders.  It gives rise to virtues such as respect, duty and obedience.

5)  Purity/sanctity.  Is associated with the emotion of disgust.  To do with an aversion to things linked to the spread of disease (rotting meat, pus).  To be pure is to keep yourself clean and disease-free.  It gives rise to rules about food, personal hygiene and sexual behaviour.  A person who feels that they are morally unclean feels shame.

Social conservatives subscribe to all five moral intuitions, and see all of these as the basis for public morality and government action.  Social progressives (libertarians and liberals) only subscribe to the first two intuitions, and think that the last three are matters of personal preference or prejudice.   Hence the tension between the groups about what types of matters should be subject to government action, and differing views on issues such as gay marriage.

This helps to understand conservative angst about “post modern” morality, and their concerns that we are all going to hell in a handbasket as there are “no moral truths” anymore.   Turns out they extrapolate that social progressives don’t subscribe to *any* of the moral intuitions, when in fact the first two remain a basis for consensus.

Now to the freedom bit.  It seems there is a (class-based) argument from social conservatives that many people can’t cope with the personal freedoms promoted by social progressives.  For example, not everyone has the personal and financial resources to cope with the fall out from easily available divorce.  So, the argument goes, we restrict people’s personal freedoms in order to protect people from themselves/predatory forces (and not uncoincidently promote our own moral agenda at the same time.)

Now this is interesting to me, because isn’t this a version of the same (class-based) argument from social democrats/liberals that many people can’t cope with economic freedom?  That is, they would not be able to negotiate their own conditions of employment, would not be able to plan their own retirement etc etc?  So we restrict people’s economic freedoms in order to protect people from themselves/predatory forces (and not uncoincidently promote our own worldview at the same time.)

I’m not saying either argument is completely wrong….. and of course I support some type of safety net that catches people before they descend into hopelessness/homelessness/helplessness.   But it’s interesting to think about how much freedom – and therefore responsibility - our ‘leaders’ think we, as individuals, as families, as communities, can cope with.  And I guess my argument (as a freshly minted libertarian) is that they under-estimate us…… and thereby undermine us.

Leave a comment »

Insurance

March 18, 2009 · Filed under ethics, society

Just a general gripe about the insurance industry.   You know, those vultures preying on people’s fears and our litigious society, taking our money and then never paying out.  I am continually astonished by their uncanny ability to phrase their policies in such a way that the particular thing that you wish to claim is “not covered by your policy”.  Or another favourite, not offering insurance at all if there is a chance that the event might actually happen.  Ie, you can’t get flood insurance if you live in a flood-prone area.  I’m sure it’s a fab business model. 

My hate-affair with insurance companies began when my work included liaising with insurance companies in regards to workers compensation.   No doubt there are some “malingerers” trying to get undeserved payouts.  But the standard heartless approach to any claimant was disturbing, to say the least.   And a system that penalises honest people needs a serious overhaul.

So, as a matter of principle, we try to avoid buying any insurance.  We’re self-insured, so to speak.  However, we do have a car insurance policy, in case we crash into a Ferrari.   Despite searching for a third-party only policy, the costs of these were equivalent to full coverage, so that is what we have.  Of course, we have never crashed into a Ferrari. 

However, last week we returned to the carpark to discover that our windscreen had been cracked.  Ah, the joy – finally a return on all those premiums!  But, wouldn’t you know it, we haven’t selected the “Windscreen Option”, and the cost of a windscreen is just less than the excess we would have to pay if we were to make a claim.   How can their policy design be so perfect?   After contacting the company and receiving this information, I reviewed our policy document, and found the Windscreen Option sandwiched between the Hire Car Option and the Choice of Repairer Option.  Sigh. 

P queried:  “Well, what parts of the car does the policy cover?”  Seemingly everything but the windscreen.  I couldn’t see a Bonnet Option, or a Driver’s Door Option.  But no doubt  I will be referred to those if I ever wish to repair those parts.

Leave a comment »

Renouncing Vegetarianism

March 8, 2009 · Filed under environment, ethics, health

P & I have decided that this label is no longer useful.  It’s just getting embarrassing tying ourselves up in knots trying to explain our food choices to others.  Essentially we are vegetarian at home, but in order to facilitate our participation in community, we are more flexible with what we eat when we are out.  So therefore, it is easier to just ditch the label…. which doesn’t strictly apply anyway.

In a recent conversation I was reminded of this Buddhist idea – to receive a gift of food in the spirit in which it was given.  In order to do this, I think that we do away with people’s discomfort if we don’t announce any label or preferences.  Like all -isms, sometimes the dogma just isn’t useful.

It’s actually a relief to get rid of this label.  Particularly when I’m anticipating meeting and eating with a lot of new people on our trip,  it’s nice to be a fresh slate.

After making this decision, we went to an “up-market” burger place for dinner.  Normally I would order the veggie burger, but it seemed appropriate to break out, and order a meat one.  It was gross of course.  Mince (no matter how “up market”) is mince, with that particular texture….  not found in any plant based food.   Regardless, I was able to enjoy the company and ambience of the restaurant, and know that next time I can choose the veggie burger.

Comments (1) »

Thoughts on Adoption

January 28, 2009 · Filed under ethics, parenting, politics, society

Some readers may be wondering…. well, what happened to that plan?   After immersing myself in adoption readings, what do I think now?   Well, I no longer think I can do it.  The politics of adoption *are* fraught. 

There is the psychology of the adopted child.   Even a tiny newborn baby experiences and grieves the loss of their birth mother to a significant degree.   And this primal wrench echoes through their life in issues of attachment, abandonment and insecurity.   Apparantly the ‘genetic markers’ of a child’s appearance and mannerisms that are reflected by the biological family are very important in a sense of belonging.  Many adoptees who discover that they were adopted later in life, experience almost a relief:  “I knew there was something not right”.

These issues are compounded by transcultural adoption.   I found advice that you should not contemplate a transcultural adoption unless you already have friends from that culture – to provide at least some reflection of the ‘look’ and culture from which the child came.  Initially I found this idea difficult.  Surely it was clear that “culture” was not genetic – it was a social construct.  If you were brought up in Australia, then surely you would identify with Australian culture?  Also, wasn’t the need to ‘look alike’ a reflection of racism that we should be working against – not reinforcing?  (In my sideline investigation into racism, it turns out I am a moderate racist www.implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ , but on the upside, I have no bias against gay people).   A friend referred me to Jung’s Collective Unconscious for a theory that in fact culture *is* genetic.  Ok, now I’m wading in waters that I’m likely to sink in.  I looked into this briefly, and I concede the possibility.    Blogs of transcultural adoptees would support this.   These peoples’ search for identity is ongoing.   

Ok, so no great surprises here.  I assumed that it would be better for the child to stay with their biological family, but we’re talking about cases where that option doesn’t exist, right?

Well, no.  In my naivete I thought that children put up for adoption would be orphans – that is, had “no family”.  But the truth is that many of the children put up for adoption have “no family that can afford to keep them”.  It seems that the issue is ultimately one of social justice.     I read some disturbing stories whereby the adoptive family actually met the poor (in all senses of the word) mother/extended family of the relinquished child….. and didn’t seem to consider that if they sent this family some regular money, it might well be possible for the child to stay with their biological family.   Even if the child *doesn’t* have any living relatives, it would be better if their culture of origin had the resources to accommodate them.

Initially I came to the conclusion that based on all this, international adoption was not for us, but maybe we could consider adoption of an older Australian child who needed a family.  But then I thought – isn’t this essentially the same issue of social justice?  Whoever heard of a middle class child being removed from their family by child protection authorities and put up for adoption?  Again, it’s an intersection of poverty and social dysfunction (though in this case  society seems to find it easier to blame the individual parent.)

None of these concerns adequately address my initial position, which was that yes, there are all these crappy social conditions that need to be vastly improved, but in the meantime what about the children caught in limbo?   Already in state care. Don’t they deserve a loving (albeit non-biological) family?  Well, of course they do.  So I conclude that adoption is a reasonable individual answer to collective problems.    How much this individual answer corrupts or postpones solutions to the collective problems is unknown, but in my view it probably does.   

I am left again, bereft of a black and white answer in this grey world.  At this stage my personal answer is not to adopt, but to *somehow* come up with a way to work towards the collective solution.  Sigh.  Talk about lessons in feeling inadequate.

Leave a comment »

Tuvalu

December 19, 2008 · Filed under ethics, politics, spirituality

Twenty six square kilometers, north of Fiji and east of PNG.  Lyrical name, and I’m sure a slice of paradise on earth.  Tuvalu first crossed my radar a few years back when it rated a mention in the ‘weird and wonderful’ type news.  Namely, that it had sold off it’s internet country identifier.  These may have an official name that I don’t know, but I’m talking about Australia (.au), United Kingdom (.uk) and America (.com).  Tuvalu was given .tv, which they sold for $30 million, from memory.

More recently I heard on RN that the 10 000 Tuvaluans are likely to be the first of the estimated 100 million people displaced by climate change.  Apparantly in this devout Christian nation many aren’t concerned, as God promised Noah that the floods would never return.   That’s probably as valid as believing that world governments will reach an effective agreement to mitigate climate change in Copenhagen next year.

Readers may be familiar with the problem of the commons.   A small village has a circle of houses around a common field, on which each family grazes a cow, to provide themselves with milk and cheese.  One family has the brilliant idea to get a second cow, and sell their surplus dairy products to the next village.   Other families join suit, and before you know it, the field has been eaten bare by all the extra cows, and can no longer support any cows.

One would think that a primary role of government would be to protect the commons (you know, boring stuff like clean air, clean water, biodiversity, top soil) but rather, governments seem to specialise in assisting people to exploit it.  And in international negotiations, their narrow view of the national interest makes all of us poorer.   As there is no world government to lobby on the issue of climate change, we are forced to lobby our national government, in a vain attempt to convince them that yes, we do know what we’re talking about, and can they *please* show some leadership on an issue that threatens us all. 

I note that faith aside, Tuvalu has approached Australia to see whether in the worst case scenario they can establish a sovereign nation within Australia’s borders, so that their nationality, culture and heritage is not lost.  I don’t want to be too pessimistic here, but based on our recent history of welcoming refugees ……. I think it’s unlikely.  A brief search for the Australian government’s response to this request found a “no comment” from foreign minister Stephen Smith. Ha!  Perhaps he doesn’t think it’s an election winner?  (Aside:  should elected officials be able to ‘not comment’ on their area of responsibility?  Sigh.  Maybe it’s more painless than paragraphs of obscuring claptrap.)

Black humour aside (and there seems to be a bit of it around – “Pacific solution” turns into Pacific problem) wouldn’t it actually be easier for governments to reduce greenhouse emissions than to grapple with 100 million displaced persons?   Do we really care so much about short term economic growth that we are willing to let other countries – people’s homes and history and livelihoods –  literally disappear beneath the waves?  And then no doubt we’ll expect them to be grateful if we let them land on our shores and start them off with a Centrelink pension.

Leave a comment »

Global Financial Crisis

November 30, 2008 · Filed under ethics, politics, voluntary simplicity

I notice that governments are going to borrow money to prop up our economies.   Am I the only one who is struggling to make sense of this?   Firstly, I have only a rudimentary understanding of Keynesian economics (and I don’t belong to the ‘budget deficit = bad’ school), but if *everyone* is borrowing at the same time, then who are they borrowing from?  I can only assume from the graphics on the news that the US are actually just printing more money - in the manner of failed dictatorships everywhere.  Essentially they are borrowing money from future generations, and some future government will have the unpleasant task of withdrawing the $1.5 trillion from the economy.  Perhaps if hyperinflation kicks in, it won’t hurt so bad.

Secondly, isn’t a large part of the problem that we in the west have all been living above our means….. spending money we don’t yet have?  Here is a moment in time where perhaps we can use people’s renewed sense of caution, and start to shift from a consumer economy to a conserver economy.   Let’s not waste a crisis……  let’s do things differently.  If you take the view that every dollar spent represents roughly one unit of embedded resources and energy used, then here is a chance for us to spend less dollars, and thereby use less resources and energy!   I’m as guilty as the next person of dithering around trying to make an “ethical” purchase….. fair trade? organic?  non-sweatshop? earth-friendly? second hand? durable?  The hard truth is that in many cases the most ethical choice is not to buy anything at all. 

If you spend less money, you won’t have to work so much…. and hey presto!  You might have created a part time job and income for someone else!

It’s just depressing to see the lack of imagination around when all the Australian government can come up with is to spend more money – to make up for the money that consumers aren’t going to spend!   The problem isn’t that there “isn’t enough money out there” – the problem is that the money isn’t well distributed.  Damn right we need to “spread the wealth around!”   In this dog eat dog world, everyone feels they need their own piece of the pie, because no one can trust that anyone else will share.  What about investing in some truly sustainable resources – like community spirit?

Leave a comment »

Meditations on an egg

November 17, 2008 · Filed under cooking, ethics, gardening

I am currently experiencing some cognitive dissonance, as in one part of the kitchen I carefully rotate my eggs in their incubator, while over at the stove I crack them open for cooking and eating.   Last night I had a bad dream that my incubator eggs were dropped and cracked and I saw the dead chicks inside.

I am forced to contemplate what I am actually eating.  I have a (non-vegetarian) friend who refuses to eat eggs as they are “ovulation”.  Hmmm.  I don’t want to have to give up eggs! Whenever I have an inward twinge about not feeding my kids meat, I think, “at least they eat eggs!!”  Plus, one of my most satisfying meals is when I make a quiche of home-made pastry, filled with garden greens and home-laid eggs.

I think eggs are in our diet to stay, and I salve my conscience with the fact that they aren’t fertilised, and that it is a very local part of our diet.

Comments (3) »

Still can’t save the world – or even one person

November 15, 2008 · Filed under ethics, parenting, politics

This week I followed up on a thought that P & I have contemplated on and off for years.   Overseas adoption.   We currently have two beautiful children.  We love our children.   I still feel that we have room for more, but we are older, so having more biological children is not a given, and does involve some small risks.   In addition, I can’t help but feel that having more biological children is not the most ethical choice for us.  A combination of feeling like a bit of an eco-vandal by having more than two children, plus the knowledge of the many many children out there who don’t have anyone to care for them.   

I’m aware of the arguments against overseas adoption. I think these are valid.  Wouldn’t it be wonderful if all children could be raised in loving homes by their biological parents, or at least, in “culturally appropriate” households?  But we don’t live in a perfect world, and children need succour right now – they can’t wait for governments to develop and fund wonderful local programs that solve these issues.

We are incredibly lucky.  We’re relatively affluent in terms of both time and money.   I think we have a safe, happy, welcoming home.  An article in the weekend paper revealing that there are 103 million orphans in the world was the trigger to actually do something.

But despite the impression created by Angelina & co, to make the connection between one’s own family and an orphaned child borders on the impossible.  I mean, I expected a complicated process, but this seems just wrong.  Last year Western Australians adopted just 21 children from overseas.  This doesn’t seem to be very many compared to the 103 million mentioned earlier.  The information available suggested that orphaned children from overseas just aren’t made available for adoption.  I can see that you don’t want a system that would encourage any kind of “baby market”, but can no-one come up with ways around this?  I informed P of my findings in this regard.  He was unsurprised, and reminded me that world systems can’t even distribute food.  How depressing.

I was left with the impression that if we were to proceed down this path, far from providing a loving home to a child that would otherwise remain in institutional care, we would be depriving an infertile couple of the chance to have a much-wanted child.

Hmmmm.  Anyway, as a ex-public servant I am not to be defeated by bureaucracy!  No doubt these are the first tests of one’s commitment.  I’ve made an initial enquiry, and will see where this leads.

Leave a comment »