An accusation of evil

This news story from September 7 features quotes from former Alaska Governor and Vice Presidential Republican nominee Sarah Palin complaining of something she considers evil.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/07/palin-calls-news-org-heartless-and-selfish/

Despite her claim that the image should be "sacred," we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that death is a part of life. In his article "Ideals of Human Excellence and Preserving the Natural Environment," Thomas E. Hill, Jr. argued that refusing to accept aspects of ourselves, including similarities to animals, can lead to troublesome and troubled attitudes, originating from their lack of humility and honesty.

Palin, as many politicians do of other acts, condemned the act as selfish. The "problem" with using selfishness as a measure of good and evil is that almost everyone acts selfishly. To condemn some for a common fault is hypocritical and leads to self-righteousness rather than self-improvement.

In explaining the action of the Associated Press in a way that declared she knew what its motivation was (a very morally dangerous thing to do as, obviously, no one can exactly know motivation aside from the actor, and external acts can have varying explanations and motivations), "exploit[ing] the tragic death of a true American hero," her emotional description tries to set the act as simple, wrong and thus deserving of condemnation.

Relying on emotion is a poor moral measurement as just about anything can be described in a way that makes it emotionally appealing (or at least necessary) or repulsive. Emotions also depend very much on what another person brings with him or her and so are not likely to convince those that feel previously feel differently. Convincing the previously-ignorant, especially with emotional terms, is neither difficult nor admirable, and the persuasion is (as the person could subsequently read an equally-bad or better argument from the other point of view) likely to be short-lived compared to a less-emotional or partisan argument. Trying to reinforce the already-convinced through simplistic methods doesn't deepen understanding but causes debaters to be more firmly placed in their weak positions.

The news media should inform, and inform as accurately, in a manner intended to make audiences understand, as possible. Showing that conflict areas involve deaths, and allowing viewers to see death, a part of military conflict, fits with this mandate. The idea that news products should never be disquieting or disturbing (and they too-often do self-censor) contributes to false understanding of reality, hampering citizen's ability, right and duty to make informed decisions in their self-governance.

Dying in service to your country and the people who placed you in that situation is hardly a private act. While the wishes of grieving family members deserve some consideration, it should hardly be the only consideration because in the real world important considerations frequently come into conflict.

Palin also declares that the fallen soldier was a hero, yet heroism involves both actions and motivations. We don't know Joshua Bernard's motivation nor all of his actions. I believe that in something as morally complex as military service, intention has to matter as do external conditions. There exists the possibility that a nation is in the wrong. While someone who has examined matters and come to the conclusion that the nation is in the right deserves to be respected (again, posting of truth is not disrespect) even if people disagree, there's no obligation to call the person a hero if you feel the actions were, regardless of intention, resulted in bad ends.

Of course, the idea that a soldier is always morally commendable simply because he fights for your nation is one of the worst types of bias and that mindset perpetuates warfare.

Given that an alternative interpretation of the AP's action was to inform readers, that death is part of life and the news and doesn't have to be seen as dehumanizing, to calling it evil goes dangerously close to the traditional definition of evil as being something that one doesn't like, from which point there can be no objectivity. The act doesn't fit my definition of evil as the photographer and decision-makers would likely consent to the idea of having their deaths reported on, especially (with a picture) if the death was of an unusual sort and especially if the citizens of a nation, through their actions, bore responsibility for it. Unless they wouldn't consent to it being done to them, they are not hypocritical and given that it's known that soldiers and wars will receive press coverage, hence soldiers aren't in a position of total privacy, let alone in the battlefield, the treatment was not dehumanizing. Rather, accuracy to the truth can, and in my view should, be viewed as a great form of respect paid to people's decisions.

Evil

Evil consists of dehumanizing others and/or hypocrisy.

Doing things to others you wouldn't want done to you, which breaks my view of morality, clearly would have to be based on one of the aforementioned factors. Unless you genuinely have no concern for yourself (and most thieves, rapists and killers try to avoid getting caught, indicating that they do have self-concern), in doing badly to others you make the others inferior rather than trying to be fair in putting yourself in their place and viewing their feelings and value as important as yours.

The goodness and flaw of the United States

The goodness of the United States lies in its freedom. From appreciated freedom comes diversity of views and actions and people can choose what they feel is best and most pleasant. There can also be some consensus, of whatever strength and duration the people want it to be.

The United States' biggest flaw comes from intolerance, prejudice and insecurity (which is perhaps a major contributer to the other two negative qualities). There is still too little appreciation for freedom and diversity and too much desire for conformity.

Entrenchment and resistance to the status quo

In his September 9, 2009 speech to Congress, President Barack Obama bluntly declared, "our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem."

This statement reflects Obama's celebration of the active government mentality of many of his supporters and his attempt to entrench that viewpoint in the public. When faced with what he considers an unsustainable situation for the taxpayers, rather than reduce what taxpayers pay he feels that it can't be that the government has asked too much and given too much to taxpayers but that the whole system is wrong.

At least in its ideal form, the pricing feature of capitalism results from the differing desires of makers, sellers and consumers interacting, each with an interest to themselves, so that the final price, based on what people are willing to hold on to or give up of their interests compared with those of others. That the participants voluntarily participate and believe that they benefit from the interaction are big parts of what make the price legitimate.

However, Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democratic Representative from California, don't believe in the legitimacy of capitalistic pricing. Rather, they want the national government to help some at the expense of others. As Pelosi said July 31, she wants legislation to switch the leverage to the consumer, having caps on payment but not on service.

Obama also declared that the "irresponsible behavior" of individuals and businesses who choose not to buy health insurance "costs all the rest of us money" and that without everyone doing their part, many sought reforms "just can't be achieved."

In order to save society money it feels it has to give but would rather not, he'll require individuals make purchases. Saving money, especially the people's tax money, is a good thing but when it requires restricting rights and making demands, the results suggest that the initial premise that the money has to be spent, the specific result has to be achieved are faulty. Making sure a political idea works is a worse reason to restrict freedom.

Obama quoted a letter from the late Senator Ted Kennedy, who claimed the matter was "above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country."

While some Democrats, including Obama, think that public health care can be achieved without raising taxes, others think tax raises to pay for current and added spending are appropriate but that taxes should only be raised for the very rich; Obama has said he won't increase taxes for the bottom 95% of Americans, conspicuously not talking about what could be done to the top 5%.

The idea that liberal politicians demand sacrifice by some for a program that will help others, that they and their supporters support forcing some to act charitably but aren't willing to voluntarily contribute as much on their own, does indeed reveal a troubling immorality of the public.

Unfortunately, Republicans, sticking to bad traditions, are unwilling to challenge Medicare or Medicaid. Without this challenge, Democrats have an advantage in the public debate, easily able to argue that the government already subsidizes the elderly and poor and that paying for all, particularly when that involves manipulating price, could lower the prices overall. The lack of directness of Republicans about what should be cut is a big reason for their lack of credibility and the acceptance of big, active government.

Democrats arguing for cheaper products is a hard approach to defeat, particularly if Republicans aren't willing to challenge the idea that the product should be cheap and socially provided (indeed, most of them want to lower prices by lowering the prices of doctors' malpractice insurance, throwing away respect for the legitimacy of how capitalism determines prices).

But while the current struggle for the preservation of economic rights is bleak, bits of hope emerge. Michele Bachmann, Republican Representative from Minnesota said August 18 that citizens need to let liberal Congresspeople know that "under no circumstance will I give the government control over my body and my health care decisions."

Some websites noted that the statement reflects a pro-choice perspective, an odd and opportunistic tactic for a conservative Republican to use (and indeed Bachmann supports legislating her views of when life starts), I think it reflects a deep truth: while government control can seem very appealing when it's used against people you don't like for a cause you do, it's unjust in itself and incredibly dangerous as it can be applied to you. Moral and personal autonomy resides in the individual person. Governmental controls should be as limited as possible in order to continue.

If people commit to this ideal, we may develop a more sincere appreciation of freedom but this will be very difficult when we accept governmental controls over more and more aspects of the economy.