Paul, Heather, and Seal Pups

    Paul McCartney and his wife, Heather Mills, recently flew to Newfoundland, Canada, to draw attention to the seal hunt. The seal hunt has been propped up the Canadian government since the collapse of the market, due to protests. When debating the seal hunt with McCartney and Mills, on Larry King, Daniel Williams the premier of Newfoundland, pointed out that they were animal rights activists: they were against killing animals.

    The couple attempted to stay focused on the seal hunt. Premier Williams is suggesting a slippery slope. If we stop killing seal pups, next it will be chickens. To be sure, seal pups are no more precious than cows or pigs, though they look more attractive, to many. Since sealing is unique, Williams' analogical argument is weak.

    Williams is correct that seals are only one of a number of other animals we mistreat, but that does not buy him exemption. Rather, the seal hunt highlights the sad history of Canada, built on the fur trade. The seal hunt is the more disgusting, though symbolic, expression of cruelty to animals. Never vote for a party that supports the seal hunt. There must be another way of making a living, in the twenty-first century, than slaughtering seals. Traversing immeasurable miseries, like Holocaust survivors, we can only accept and act. In a few short weeks, thousands of worlds will be lost, forever.

Indo-US Cooperation

    Visiting India, the American president, George Bush, signed a nuclear deal between the two countries. The aim is to provide the fuel necessary to sustain economic growth in India. There are also several other areas of co-operation. Without critical reflection, however, it is unclear if any of the initiatives are a good for India.

    With the deal, it is much easier for foreign governments to monitor the eight facilities, in India, used for military nuclear development. By agreeing to have eight of its fifteen reactors open to inspection, there is an intelligence loss.

    The push, further, towards commercializing the American diet has already made headway in India, as the middle class seek to imitate the west. Linking American and Indian agricultural interests with bio-technology threaten the environment and culture of India.

    The Bush administration, in addition, does not acknowledge the green house effect as scientific fact, refusing to sign the Kyoto Protocol. In conjunction with India’s recent economics-first attitude - before, e.g., environmental, labor and social justice concerns - we cannot take seriously environmental initiatives between the United States of America and India. The pomp and show of the visit, to be sure, will entertain and excite Indians sense of the social.

Changing Worlds: Sexual Relations

    Sexuality is an uncomfortable topic where, in liberal states, the private and public domain diverge. Due to the sensitive nature of the topic, public and academic scrutiny is curtailed by self-censorship. Nevertheless, with moral, psychological, and biological overtones, discussion of the appropriateness of various relationships punctuates popular discourse. I need to provide a philosophical comment on what we consider appropriate sexual relations. I shall argue that what relationships are appropriate, ethically, must be guided by respect of individual rights, biology and historical anthropology. I start by looking back.

    In what follows, I presuppose that consent requires a certain level of maturity, which I do not spell out. It is also not my purpose to make specific suggestions about legislation, but rather, to challenge an uncritical psychology.

    In Medieval England, where life expectancy was around thirty-five, marriage was common at ages of fourteen or fifteen. Young girls would, in pre-modern societies, marry as soon as they were able to conceive, or shortly thereafter. In different countries, and states, further, the age of consent varies. It may be sixteen in some (and I think, fifteen, in Canada). The difference between various pieces of legislation demonstrates there is no consensus on an age of consent to sexual relationships.

    Incest, where there is a moral consensus on prohibition, is biologically disadvantageous (leading to higher incidents of birth defects). In considering the issue of the age of consent, we may be guided, at the outset, by biology. There is a developmental stage of puberty, where males and females may become sexually active. Before puberty, it is straightforward to prohibit sexual activity.

    A behavior may be abnormal in the statistical sense that it conflicts with social conventions. Also, there are behaviors that we consider abnormal in (almost) all societies, like incest (and is, further, biologically disadvantageous). In a liberal society, it in important that we not conflate claims to morality that confuse distasteful (a private matter) with wrong (a viable object of legislative prohibition). Wrongness must entail the violation of individual rights or, as I argue, find a basis in both biology and the anthropological record.