ReasonFest 2011

Last night, I attended a debate between School of Faith theologian John-Mark Miravalle and Freedom from Religion Foundation co-president Dan Barker.  The event was the kick-off to ReasonFest, a two-day festival of enlightening and challenging speakers hosted in Lawrence, KS by the Society of Open-Minded Atheists and Agnostics.

The debate was well-attended, filling the Woodruff Auditorium in the Kansas Union.  For those of you who are interested, the festivities continue today with discussions from Darrel Ray, James Underdown, Hemant Mehta, Tom Clark, and yes, Dan Barker.

Here are a few notable quotes from both participants in last night's debate.

John Mark Miravalle

"My hope is to dispel the idea, which seems to me is held by some believers in God and some who do not believe in God, that you have to make a choice between accepting God's existence or accepting the legitimacy of reason."

"I'm hopeful that those in attendance, both atheists and those who accept God's existence, will be in attendance because they are interested in following the evidence where it leads, and I think real good can be done presenting evidence with which people may not be familiar."

"None of this material is mine.  I give all the credit to the Heavenly Father."(after the debate)

Dan Barker

"There is no purpose in life." (in his closing statement)

"The question is not whether religion is useful, it's whether it's true."

"Many false ideas can make people feel good.  It can give them meaning and purpose.  It can give them a sense of morality and cohesion and community, but that doesn't mean it's true."

"The desire to believe in a God, even though it may not be true, is cowardly.  It takes more courage to face the facts, no matter how they make us feel."

Ethics in Marketing

The past few months have been extraordinarily busy, so much so that I have not found the time to do any philosophy.  Fortunately, I recently had the opportunity to listen to an ethics lecture from my marketing professor.  He raised appropriate insightful questions surrounding ethics in the field of marketing, and his lecture got me thinking about the moral implications regarding business.

Marketing is the aspect of business that gets the most flack about its ethics.  I'm assuming this is because marketing is the most visible characteristic to consumers.  Marketing is the face of the business, and it's purpose is to influence, therefore, marketers must interact with consumers daily through the mediums of advertising and sales.

The first issue we must consider is if marketing is even good for society.  Should we be selling consumers what they want?  Most of the food we purchase today is replete with fats, oils, sugar, and sodium.  Marketers must consider the whether selling consumers products proven to cause negative health consequences is unethical and/or socially irresponsible.

Second, is advertising wasteful?  As you probably know, it costs $3 million to run a 30-second commercial on Super Bowl Sunday.  The amount of money businesses spend on advertising expenses is astronomical.  However, there are beneficial effects that advertising causes.  First, advertising creates jobs.  Second, ads inform the consumer about products and services.  Third, without advertising, mass media would no longer be free to us.  As we have seen with satellite radio, when there is no advertising, consumers must pay a fee for radio.

Third, isn't advertising deceptive?  For instance, Axe body spray runs advertisements that in effect argue that if you use Axe, women will instantly be attracted to you.  Without any prior information or experience, a reasonable consumer might believe this message.  In my experience, I have found that most people are repelled by Axe body spray.

If you are considering a career in marketing, I strongly suggest you think about these issues.  Many consumers believe marketing is manipulative and wasteful, and it's your job to convince them otherwise.

The Handshake in Sports

After a game of basketball at the rec center last week, I started thinking about the practice of shaking an opponent’s hand after a game.  Last NFL season, Kansas City Chiefs coach Todd Haley was criticized for not shaking former Denver Broncos coach Josh McDaniel’s hand after a hard-fought game.  

In their book Sport and Character, Randolph Feezell and Craig Clifford ask, “at the end of the game, should we always, without exception, attempt to shake the hands of our opponents?”

Something tells me the answer to this question should be no.  For instance, if an opponent had purposefully injured one of my teammates, I think I would be correct in refraining from the post-game handshake.  Or if an opponent is blatantly disrespectful to the officials or my team, I think there is something disingenuous about shaking his/her hand.  

Here’s another scenario.  I was involved in youth sports for many years, and I  encountered a number of coaches who spent the entire game berating his own players, demeaning the referee, or showing general signs of inappropriate and disrespectful behavior.  Is it justified to skip the post game handshake in this instance?

The broader question I’m trying to answer is this-- Is the post game handshake in sports dependent in some sense on how an opponent conducts themselves?  Furthermore, are there any times when it is morally justified to avoid this tradition?

On the other hand, if you only shake the hand of the opponent whose behavior you respect, then that effectively reduces the handshake to an award your opponent will receive if s/he lives up to your personal standards of ethics.  The post-game handshake is viewed by some as a sign of respect for the game and the spirit of the competition, not the specific opponent.  

I can see both sides of this argument, and it is an interesting topic to consider.  

How to Think In Times of Uncertainty

About two years ago, a young man sat in the vast auditorium of a student union.  His mind was racing, a barrage of self-doubt washing over him.  For the first time in his life, he felt he was in over his head.

He had never spent any time inside a building on this campus outside of a few trips to the basketball field house when he was a kid.  He was given a binder of information which was far too much to absorb in the two days allotted for orientation.  In a desperate moment of uncertainty, two questions flashed across his mind-

-Was this worth it?

-Will I succeed here?

A half a year later, the young man still had deep doubts about his future at the university.  He had endured loneliness and a lack of motivation in his first semester in college.  Over winter break, he was unable to sleep because he was stressed out about his future.  

He thought back to the two questions he had asked himself on that sunny summer day.  The young man decided he must put in his dues before any reward was realized.  He concluded it was worth it and if he wanted to achieve anything, he must work relentlessly.  He was still unsure of whether he would succeed, but he felt more confident than the day where his mind was overburdened with information inside that auditorium.  “One step at a time,” he thought to himself.

In my first year of college, I was fortunate enough to have parents, mentors, and friends who talked me out of my doubts and fears.  I was taught that the great people in this world all have one thing in common- they never give up and they are the ones that work the hardest.  The people that make the greatest impact are rarely the same ones that are the most talented or gifted individuals.  If you are willing to overcome all obstacles, you will see your doubts fade away into the abyss.

The moments when we feel uncertain and overwhelmed by our current situation are also the moments when we must consider two vital questions...

Is it worth it?

Will I succeed here?

Picture Tuesday

It has been a chaotic week on all fronts.  The end of the semester has arrived, and during this time, the word "busy" takes on a new meaning.  I have created a collection of photos for today's post.  Enjoy!

Osama bin Laden is Dead

As you probably already heard, terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden was killed by a small U.S. military team of Navy SEALs.  With a few exceptions, the world is celebrating the death of a man who is responsible for thousands of deaths.  Bin Laden was the founder of the jihadist organization al-Qaeda, and previously received overt and covert financial aid, arms, and training from the United States from 1979 to 1989 to fight the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan.

Here are a host of links to stories about this monumental current event.

How bin Laden was Killed (CNN)

A Death Blow to Al-Qaeda? (CNN)

How the U.S. Tracked Down bin Laden (USA Today)

The Evolution of al-Qaeda (The Economist)

Global Reactions to bin Laden's Death (Al Jazeera)

U.S. On Alert After Al-Qaeda Warns of Retaliation (Fox News)

Big Government?

The government’s role in the American economy has shifted dramatically over the past century.  During the Great Depression, the federal government instituted many relief programs to pull the US out of the Great Depression.  Since then, the US has endured a fluctuation between neo-decentralization and regulation.  One fact no one can dispute is that the standard of living has increased steadily despite increasing taxes, regulation, redistribution of wealth, and government intervention.  Is government the problem or the solution?  Would be be even freer and more prosperous without the government, or has the increased role of government spurred the improved living standards of Americans?

Imagine a time in the future- let’s say 250 years from now.  Technology has advanced beyond what our imaginations can conceive of right now.  The entire world population can be fed.  The innovative minds of tomorrow have created a way to provide health care for everyone at affordable costs.  As we all know, the costs of technology go down as time increases, so these products quite possibly be available for pennies.  

What role will the government play in this future time period?  If everyone has their basic needs provided for at a low government expense, does that mean taxes will decrease?

Would a centralized government even be necessary anymore?  In this scenario, everyone’s needs are met, so what will be the purpose of government?