Torture is bad, but killing isn't?

Meat-eaters (like myself) really have incoherent ethical beliefs about animals. We get worked up about something like dog-fighting or foie gras while we are snacking on a cow that was killed for our enjoyment.

That's all I've got to say

In the case of AIG, they just paid employees for work that they had already done*. In the case of GM, are they trying to take away money that the workers are owed or just change what happens in the future? I don't really know, I'm asking.

There is a big legal and moral difference, IMHO between changing the conditions under which future work will be performed vs. altering a contract for work that was already performed.

*Yes, they did a lousy job, but their contract didn't stipulate that they had to a good job, just keep coming to work until a certain date.

The government is economically coercing the unions to accept concessions while shrugging about the bonuses.

While I support unions, and in fact belong to one, and I don't see how you can blame the government for wanting GM and Chrysler to end unsustainable union contracts. The root problem is that the Japanese companies are giving consumers a better value for their money because they have lower labor costs (and perhaps for other reasons). Subsidizing cushy contracts is not going to help GM and Chrysler solve this problem, in the long run.

It sounded like he was building up some metaphor about human relationships being as fragile as a swivel phone. Then he basically said to flip the f***er...

It's time to rescue the debate about organ transplant policy from the deck chair rearranging and simply treat potential donors with the same generous spirit with which they have offered their kidneys. No donor should spend a single dollar in the process of giving an organ. And donors should have the safety net they need to stay healthy, to support their family if they cannot work and life insurance should they die.

I basically agree with Kissling, but she glides over the legitimate ethical problem here with dubious reasoning.

(I'm being picky with her because she is a bioethicist and not a regular Jane. She has my sympathies.)

Kissling frames her new paradigm this way: organ donors chose to act out of altruism, and then society happens to reward them. But this presupposes that the donor is unaware of the rewards that are coming their way when they make their decision to donate. In reality getting something of considerable value, like a lifetime of health insurance, could unduly influence a donor's decision.

To make the point a little sharper, let's just suppose the the state started paying donors $100,000 cash (not what Kissling proposes). A young person happens to have $100,000 worth of credit card debt and student loans, and does not having bright career prospects. If this person decides to donate, is he really choosing out of free will?

Yes, the student who chooses to give in order to pay off her credit card debt is exercising free choice. It may or may not be a wise decision but assuming the person was well informed about the risks, fully met the medical and psychological criteria for donating, they exercised as much free will as the person who choose to give because they wanted to save the nobel laureate or mother of six's life.

I have to disagree with you. The words "free will" (which I used) have a lot of philosophical implications, so I'll put it again this way: Being rewarded or punished for making one choice or another fundamentally changes the nature of choosing, until at some point it is not much of a choice at all. Think of Don Corleone making "an offer you can't refuse".

But my main point is this: There is an inherent conflict when Person A rewards Person B for a "generous" act, especially when the award was agreed to ahead of time. If the reward large enough then at some point they are simply participating in a transaction, and we are back to the question of whether it is ethical to sell organs.

There is a real slight of hand going on when people compare the workers in the auto industry to bankers. This completely overlooks the fact that banks themselves do create employment, both directly by hiring people and more importantly by making loans to consumers and business. If you want to create a fair comparison, think about the well-being of autoworkers compared to the general public which depends on the banking system. Or, alternatively, compare auto executives to bankers.

I am constantly amazed at the ability of the GOP to make up new rules as they go along, like saying that the President shouldn't use a teleprompter. So Dubya always gave his speeches from memory? Who knew!? Actually, that would help explain some of the gobbledygook that came out of his mouth...

For several years I've had the following theory about shaved pudenda. When women first started shaving, it turned men on because it was new, shocking, and transgressive. Once shaved pudenda become ubiquitous, however, it loses that value. Pubic hair, on the other hand, gains sexiness as it becomes more taboo... until it isn't again. Maybe pube fullness will become a cyclical phenomenon like skirt length.