Religious ethics are commonly dismissed by philosophical writers as unworthy of consideration, because they rely on divine authority, and are thus non-rational. In this article, I challenge the idea, by comparative examination of the underlying notions of what makes ethical theories function, as well as the structure of ethical theories.
By understanding the notion of human equality along a single axis (i.e. human rights), we have failed to appreciate the importance of properly identifying and accounting for functional differences. This has, among other things, led to an important problem posed by elements of the politically correct speech and
What does it mean to engage in rebellion against a state? What are the ethical and practical implications of rebellion? Under what conditions is rebellion an option? Given our frequent training and arming of foreign rebels, it behooves us to have a functional understanding of these questions.
Having previously sketched out my perspective on the phenomenon of school shootings, this article delves into the proposed solutions by the generally two sides of the gun-control debate. It points out the problems with the many of the solutions proposed thus far, and makes a tentative proposal on a meaningful solution.
The way we think about school shootings (and mass shootings in general) may be flawed; and a flawed diagnosis results in the wrong treatment. In this intellectual sketch, I offer a different take on the diagnosis.