| On Gross National Product |
| "The gross national product includes air pollution and advertising for cigarettes, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors, and jails for the people who break them. "The gross national product includes the destruction of the redwoods and the death of Lake Superior. It grows with the production of napalm and missiles with nuclear warheads.... "And if the gross national product includes all this, there is much that it does not comprehend. It does not allow for the health of our families, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It is indifferent to the decency of our factories and the safety of streets alike. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials.... "The gross national product measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile; and it can tell us everything about America except whether we are proud to be Americans. |
Wednesday, 26 May 2010
Society's true value
This has to be one of the finest pieces of rhetoric I have read for a very long time. We should certainly reassess what we value in our society in the wake of this extract because GDP is clearly not an accurate measurement:
Guilty Grammar
I am currently reading Michael Sandel's wonderful book 'Justice', it leads you on a moral journey in which various modern(and true) or hypothetical situations are raised to explore competing theories on justice. If you are a die-hard conservative or a bleeding-heart lefty like myself you will have your beliefs tested and trialled but ultimately justified. The most interesting thing about this book is that it does not seek to convince you whether we should have free-market liberalism, a meritocracy or a Rawlsian egalitarian society; rather it helps you to understand why people have these different views and helps to develop your own justified moral code.
Some of the situations explored are affirmative action, price-gourging and a horrific situation in which four soldiers had to choose between letting two innocent afghans go at the risk of placing their own lives in risk or to kill them in cold blood. The area I would like to cover in this post is however the issue of affirmative action and it's implications for selective education.
Firstly, I am now convinced of the view that we deserve no reward for the qualities we possess, insofar as to say that you have done nothing to deserve greater intelligence, good looks or a propensity for working hard. From this it can be said that any wealth or success that you acculumate as a result of possessing these qualities is undeserved, you are just simply lucky. Here controversy arises, the free-market liberal will dispute this and say we have a right to do whatever we like (so long as it does not infringe on someone else's rights) and anything we achieve is ours to enjoy. Somewhat similarly, the meritocrat will say that you deserve what you achieve provided we all start the race from the same point i.e. if through a progressive tax system we can provide a standard level of education and opportunity for all, then it is fair to let you be rewarded for where you excel. Rawls would disagree, and this is where I find myself torn. By all means we should exploit our natural gifts according to Rawls, but only so that we might contribute to the community or specifically the least well-off. The point is that we have no more a right to what we accumulate through our natural talents than anyone else in our community because the qualities we have that allowed us to accumulate such wealth are not deserved in themselves they are pure luck.
This can be applied to justify affirmative action (positive discrimination). Universities are a tool for doing something, they have a specific mission and their admissions criteria should be catered towards achieving this end. We might say that the universities mission should be to offer an opportunity for study to the most able students in our society in order to ensure we produce the best possible class of intellectuals to run our businesses, courts and parliaments. Conversely, a university's mission might be to improve social mobility or produce community leaders. Here it might be more useful to include a significant proportion of different races or a specific gender, a university would then be justified in operating a system of affirmative action which is technically in place in every university just that the discrimination is focused on academic ability (a policy that might not serve the university's mission best). The point is that if I do not get accepted to Cambridge specifically because I am a white, middle-class, grammar school student, my complain cannot be that I deserve the place more than someone else, so long as that student would be a better choice in order to achieve the mission statement. I might have a legitimate recourse in arguing that the mission of the university is misguided and that it should instead be to focus on producing the most academic students possible -although the university might maintain that a diverse range of students allows greater personal and academic progress through an interchange of more diverse ideas. Similarly, students who are accepted should not consider themselves better students, only that they are better suited to achieving society's or the university's mission at that particular time in history.
This system has allowed me to keep my faith in Rawlsian justice whilst still disagreeing with affirmative action in the form that it currently takes. However, I need to take a long look in the mirror and ask myself whether this is because I cannot bring myself to agree with discriminating against myself or because I genuinely believe in Rawls fairness principle.
Some of the situations explored are affirmative action, price-gourging and a horrific situation in which four soldiers had to choose between letting two innocent afghans go at the risk of placing their own lives in risk or to kill them in cold blood. The area I would like to cover in this post is however the issue of affirmative action and it's implications for selective education.
Firstly, I am now convinced of the view that we deserve no reward for the qualities we possess, insofar as to say that you have done nothing to deserve greater intelligence, good looks or a propensity for working hard. From this it can be said that any wealth or success that you acculumate as a result of possessing these qualities is undeserved, you are just simply lucky. Here controversy arises, the free-market liberal will dispute this and say we have a right to do whatever we like (so long as it does not infringe on someone else's rights) and anything we achieve is ours to enjoy. Somewhat similarly, the meritocrat will say that you deserve what you achieve provided we all start the race from the same point i.e. if through a progressive tax system we can provide a standard level of education and opportunity for all, then it is fair to let you be rewarded for where you excel. Rawls would disagree, and this is where I find myself torn. By all means we should exploit our natural gifts according to Rawls, but only so that we might contribute to the community or specifically the least well-off. The point is that we have no more a right to what we accumulate through our natural talents than anyone else in our community because the qualities we have that allowed us to accumulate such wealth are not deserved in themselves they are pure luck.
This can be applied to justify affirmative action (positive discrimination). Universities are a tool for doing something, they have a specific mission and their admissions criteria should be catered towards achieving this end. We might say that the universities mission should be to offer an opportunity for study to the most able students in our society in order to ensure we produce the best possible class of intellectuals to run our businesses, courts and parliaments. Conversely, a university's mission might be to improve social mobility or produce community leaders. Here it might be more useful to include a significant proportion of different races or a specific gender, a university would then be justified in operating a system of affirmative action which is technically in place in every university just that the discrimination is focused on academic ability (a policy that might not serve the university's mission best). The point is that if I do not get accepted to Cambridge specifically because I am a white, middle-class, grammar school student, my complain cannot be that I deserve the place more than someone else, so long as that student would be a better choice in order to achieve the mission statement. I might have a legitimate recourse in arguing that the mission of the university is misguided and that it should instead be to focus on producing the most academic students possible -although the university might maintain that a diverse range of students allows greater personal and academic progress through an interchange of more diverse ideas. Similarly, students who are accepted should not consider themselves better students, only that they are better suited to achieving society's or the university's mission at that particular time in history.
This system has allowed me to keep my faith in Rawlsian justice whilst still disagreeing with affirmative action in the form that it currently takes. However, I need to take a long look in the mirror and ask myself whether this is because I cannot bring myself to agree with discriminating against myself or because I genuinely believe in Rawls fairness principle.
Monday, 24 May 2010
Tits and Swallows
It seems good weather has struck at the most inopportune time, during revision. Whilst rain, frost and gusts would foster a better working enviroment, there are perks to the sunshine as I'm discovering. The best thing is that my fear of failing exams is significantly reduced by my increasingly simple satisfaction derived from nature.
As I watch bluetits, swallows and wood pigeons feed from the newly installed (anti-squirrel) birdfeeder I am overcome with an extraordinary sense of wellbeing. Watching a few sparrows gathering feathers and sticks for the nests was even more extraordinary; one sparrow had a length of straw-like debris in it's beak that was say half a foot to a foot long-too long to fly effectively with as demonstrated by a short practice flight with it-the sparrow then proceeded to hold the strip down with one foot and manipulate it so that it was folded over in several places so as to reduce it's length. Similarly, the first evidence of wildlife attracted to the newly built pond in my back garden came today in the form of two dragonfly-esque creatures. They were two-fold, a crimson colour and about an inch and a bit long; they flew attached at one end around the pond delicately trying to land on the pondweed. The irony that I was watching something so incredibly intricate and perfectly designed as I read cynically about the teleological argument was not lost on me!
As I watch bluetits, swallows and wood pigeons feed from the newly installed (anti-squirrel) birdfeeder I am overcome with an extraordinary sense of wellbeing. Watching a few sparrows gathering feathers and sticks for the nests was even more extraordinary; one sparrow had a length of straw-like debris in it's beak that was say half a foot to a foot long-too long to fly effectively with as demonstrated by a short practice flight with it-the sparrow then proceeded to hold the strip down with one foot and manipulate it so that it was folded over in several places so as to reduce it's length. Similarly, the first evidence of wildlife attracted to the newly built pond in my back garden came today in the form of two dragonfly-esque creatures. They were two-fold, a crimson colour and about an inch and a bit long; they flew attached at one end around the pond delicately trying to land on the pondweed. The irony that I was watching something so incredibly intricate and perfectly designed as I read cynically about the teleological argument was not lost on me!
Sunday, 23 May 2010
Tips On Grocery Shopping.
I have been told never to go grocery shopping whilst you are hungry, you inevitably buy more and you buy things you want to eat then and not during the week-I learnt this well a few weeks back staggering home from a gatecrashed party in wimbledon when my good (obscenely spoilt) friend insisted and walking to the 24 hour tesco nearby to buy ready meals: 2 hours, a bleeding blister from my deckshoes, and £30 worth of shite tesco ready meals later and we've woken my entire household with our inebriated attempts at microwaving. I wake up the next day to a hairy, sweaty and snoring teenager half on the sofa bed and about £24 worth of uneaten or halfeaten ready meals around us, do not ever go shopping when hungry or drunk and especially not when both!
I deviate, my original point is that from an early age I have consistently been fooled by my mothers promises that we are only stopping in to waitrose to buy a loaf of bread, instead of walking up to the house (five minute walk tops) I will wait or go in to hurry her up. Everytime we will come up with a weeks shopping and a further disgruntled grammar school student. This was beautifully illustrated this afternoon, my mother asked me to go buy us ice-cream-I was rather tired from working and being in the sun and wanted to sit down-she then said she would drive me down to get it. At this point she said we will drop into waitrose instead of parking so I can go to the tesco express on the other side of the road, this change of plan instituted because it 'will be quicker'. We go in to buy ice-creams, between us we reasonably decide that we DO need creme fraiche to make my mean guacomole, avocados and tomatoes. Immediately I find myself reading the best before dates on bouquets of flowers for my mother and wondering the hell just happened in the last two seconds, did I dream the previous conversation?!? 32 minutes later I found myself at the checkout till with £46 of food including: pastrami, olives, chorizo, wine, flowers, flower-pattern plastic bowls, spinach and the aforementioned necessary items. I beseech you to just write a list of what you NEED and for gods sake wait till you've eaten before you go food shopping.
I used to find this problem would occur when going to the pub after country walks with my parents. Being too young to have an interest in beer (oh how the mighty have fallen) I would sit sulkily watching my father take sips of his drink and calculating the approximate volume drunk per sip and by calculating the sips per minute I could then estimate our rough departure time (I wanted to play sodding computer games at home alright!) You should have seen my face as another round was bought, at least they would have the courtesy to buy me off with a packet of McCoys; not only would they keep me detained from my busy childhood schedule of sweets, computer games and tantrums for an extra half an hour but the bastards would eat half the packet of crisps they had bought me! Of course now this problem has been solved in the same way that an increasing number of my problems seemed to be solved, with a lovely, refreshing pint.
P.S. Similar childhood stories are welcomed below.
I deviate, my original point is that from an early age I have consistently been fooled by my mothers promises that we are only stopping in to waitrose to buy a loaf of bread, instead of walking up to the house (five minute walk tops) I will wait or go in to hurry her up. Everytime we will come up with a weeks shopping and a further disgruntled grammar school student. This was beautifully illustrated this afternoon, my mother asked me to go buy us ice-cream-I was rather tired from working and being in the sun and wanted to sit down-she then said she would drive me down to get it. At this point she said we will drop into waitrose instead of parking so I can go to the tesco express on the other side of the road, this change of plan instituted because it 'will be quicker'. We go in to buy ice-creams, between us we reasonably decide that we DO need creme fraiche to make my mean guacomole, avocados and tomatoes. Immediately I find myself reading the best before dates on bouquets of flowers for my mother and wondering the hell just happened in the last two seconds, did I dream the previous conversation?!? 32 minutes later I found myself at the checkout till with £46 of food including: pastrami, olives, chorizo, wine, flowers, flower-pattern plastic bowls, spinach and the aforementioned necessary items. I beseech you to just write a list of what you NEED and for gods sake wait till you've eaten before you go food shopping.
I used to find this problem would occur when going to the pub after country walks with my parents. Being too young to have an interest in beer (oh how the mighty have fallen) I would sit sulkily watching my father take sips of his drink and calculating the approximate volume drunk per sip and by calculating the sips per minute I could then estimate our rough departure time (I wanted to play sodding computer games at home alright!) You should have seen my face as another round was bought, at least they would have the courtesy to buy me off with a packet of McCoys; not only would they keep me detained from my busy childhood schedule of sweets, computer games and tantrums for an extra half an hour but the bastards would eat half the packet of crisps they had bought me! Of course now this problem has been solved in the same way that an increasing number of my problems seemed to be solved, with a lovely, refreshing pint.
P.S. Similar childhood stories are welcomed below.
Nature and Scumbags
I just got in from walking the dog round my local park; there were several youths of about 17 years playing aggressively on the newy installed equipment (a zipwire and everything!) -irritated parents (and one disgruntled grammar school student) watched them. The young lads were engaged in jejune and pathetic attempts of masculinity and bids to woo their scantily clad (wouldn't your father be proud) female companions; so selfishly absorbed in their pursuits that they failed even to notice the awkwardness of young children who wanted to play but obviously were so intimidated that they remained in the boring corner of the playground. Not that it was just the children who seemed intimidated, parents seemed reluctant to say anything and I confess I did not say anything as it seemed so pointless. A volley of poorly expressed verbal abuse and the inevitable 'Do you want beef?' or 'Would you like to fight?' as expressed in english. Of course this would provide just another chance to prove their masculinity (how terribly insecure, who gives a shit!) and my nervous response of 'No I don't want a fight I just want you to stop embarassing my generation with your thuggish and cringeworthy behaviour and let these poor children enjoy an idylic sunday evening playing in the sunshine'.
Despite this incident I did manage to enjoy a pleasant evening in the park and I have to conclude that if A Levels go Pete Tong then I have no qualms about absconding to Spain to pick grapes and enjoy the sunshine- the best things in life really are free.
Despite this incident I did manage to enjoy a pleasant evening in the park and I have to conclude that if A Levels go Pete Tong then I have no qualms about absconding to Spain to pick grapes and enjoy the sunshine- the best things in life really are free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
