Monday, April 25, 2016
The thing about these essays most commented about is my tendency to look at things differently enough to get people thinking, whether or not they agree with the conclusions. Today let’s look at some apparent inconsistencies.
Emerson said, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds…” Perhaps these are justified on the basis that they are not foolish, but they do seem inconsistent.
First, I wonder how some people can argue that individuals have a right to move from one country to another when conditions in the second country are economically more favorable for them – even if the move is illegal; while at the same time objecting to a company moving from one country to another legally for the very same reason.
Then I ran across this article in a regional magazine. A naturalist writes that the woodcock and grouse are disappearing from southern Indiana. The problem is not predators, poor game regulations or farming practices, but “forest succession away from young forests to middle and older stages of forest development…the unintended result of misguided timber management.” The problem comes from a change in forestry practice due to public pressure from individuals and conservation groups to practice “selective” forest harvest. For sentimental reasons, they favor older trees and forests to younger ones. It is a political decision rather than a scientific one, as every planned cutting is met with “protesters trying to shut down all timber harvest on state and federally-controlled property.” Clear-cutting may be ugly, but so is what nature does with lightning-initiated forest fires. It’s a shame these protesters, who claim to love the trees and animals, work against nature by not taking the time to learn more about it.
Finally, those favoring legal abortion and insurance coverage of all contraception argue that they are “pro-choice” and favor a woman’s right to choose what she does with her own body. If that is the case, and a woman indeed has a right to choose what she does with her body, why don’t the pro-choice folks also adamantly favor both eliminating drug laws and legalizing prostitution. Drug laws restrict a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body. If she wants to take recreational drugs or use prescriptions in any way she desires, the state forbids her to do so. Likewise if she decides to use her body as a source of income by selling sexual favors to those who are willing to pay, she must risk arrest to do so. Sabrina Williams uses her physical abilities to earn a very substantial living, as do other athletes, fashion models and others. If they are allowed to choose, why is there a restriction against those who want to become prostitutes? Of course, many consider prostitution immoral, but many consider abortion immoral as well. This seems like an inconsistency, a selective application of a principle.
Just a few ideas to think about.