Category Archives: ethics

There is a Parallel

Posted on by
Reply

Virginia Republican legislators are looking at updating and tightening Virginia law regarding fentanyl deaths.

Under current case law, it is difficult to charge a drug dealer with the murder of a user who died from fentanyl they had purchased unless they are in the proximity of that dealer, according to GOP legislators.

Thus:

State Senate Minority Leader Ryan McDougle, R-New Kent, told Fox News Digital on Tuesday that Virginia hopes to address that legislative insufficiency.
“This [new] [law] would say if you sell the drugs, it doesn’t matter if you’re in physical proximity,” he said.

When a person is killed in the course of a crime of which he’s a victim or bystander, all of the participants in that crime are as guilty of murder as is the one who did the actual killing. This is well established case law.

It’s eminently sensible that participants in a drug activity (and not just involving fentanyl) during the course of which or as a result of which a person is killed by the drug should all be guilty of the murder as is the individual who was proximately involved in that killing. Bullets and knives have, in the main, pretty prompt effects from having been delivered in the moment. Drugs, though, have prompt effects when taken, the taking often is delayed. Hence the need to expand that proximity to the dealer bit. The drugs the dealer delivered might well have their prompt effect later, when the addict takes the metaphorical bullet/knife stab.

Unfortunately, though, this law has little chance of passage in the current Virginia legislative session: the Progressive-Democratic Party will hold a one-seat majority after a pair of special elections are completed. Party has shown over the last four years that it has no stomach for punishing criminals, lacking even the stomach to hold them in jail pending trial, or even to bring them to trial at all.

Are They or Aren’t They?

Posted on by
Reply

The McDonald’s burger chain now is claiming to be doing away with its DEI foolishness in its corporate hierarchy.

The company said it would phase out some diversity commitments among suppliers and said its diversity team would now be called the Global Inclusion Team. The name change, it said, was “more fitting for McDonald’s in light of our inclusion value and better aligns with this team’s work.”

Then the company said it would instead

focus on “continuing to embed inclusion practices that grow our business into our everyday process and operations.”

The name change and backhanded admission that it would continue doing precisely what it intimated it would stop doing insult the intelligence of us average Americans.

This sort of weasel wording is why we cannot trust business managers who claim to be doing away with the intrinsically racist and sexist DEI…foolishness. They aren’t. They’re just hiding it in their back rooms.

Self-Driving Cars

Posted on by
Reply

This Luddite remains strongly opposed to letting robots drive me around. However, the software that runs one version of a robot car, that package “guiding” Tesla’s latest iteration of its Full-Self Driving car, version 13.2, is a vast improvement of past efforts, according to BARRON’S.

Absent from the testing, though, at least as publicly reported, is how well 13.2 handles random (and frequent) traffic violations by the cars of other drivers that would endanger the occupants of the FSD or pedestrians or other vehicles. Such violations include the relatively minor, such as speeding; as well as the more dangerous wobbly bicycle(s) and inattentive bicyclists; pedestrians darting, at the last moment even, in front of the FSD in his last ditch effort to cross the road; crossing traffic running the red light or stop sign; oncoming traffic deciding to make a left turn at the last moment; the list is extensive.

Other risks are mostly in the residential neighborhood: the toddler in front of a parked car at the last moment darting into the street and the small pet under that parked car making the last moment dart into the street.

Many of those situations are difficult enough for a human driver to answer, often too difficult and the collision occurs.

Any robot-driven car needs to be able to handle those random situations at least as well as any experienced human driver.

Then there’s the classic moral paradox, usually cast in terms of a railroad exercise regarding which track to be switched to given the certainty of some measure of death regardless of the choice. Those choices occur on roads with cars and trucks, also, and they’re often badly handled by the human drivers involved. What can we expect from robot software?

To repeat: I remain strongly opposed to letting robots drive me around. The software involved is improving, but enough so? What constitutes sufficient improvement? At the least, satisfactory handling of the above situations.

Pointless Resolution

Posted on by
Reply

“Journalistic institutions” are being offered a New Year’s Resolution, by many of us average Americans, for how to execute their function in the coming year.

Americans across the country were united in their New Year’s resolution for the media: “Tell the truth.”

It won’t happen, though, not in any believable way, unless there’s a complete replacement of the current crop of editors and news writers. It’s the current crop that has been so blatantly biased and outright dishonest on their “news” pages and dishonest on what passes for their opinion pages. These incumbents have trashed their credibility far beyond repair with their determined and studied bias and dishonesty over the last decades.

And one more Critical Item criterion: the journalist guild must restore the erstwhile practice of at least two on-the-record sources to corroborate the anonymously sourced claims that news and opinion writers make. That was the original standard of journalistic integrity, and it’s instructive that the current crop of guild members have no concrete, publicly accessible and measurable standard in its place.

I, for one, am tired of those worthies masquerading the voices in their heads and their childhood imaginary friends as actual sources. I’ve had done with their “sources who were present” and “senior officials.” I’m especially fed up with these writers’ ubiquitous sources “who speak only with anonymity out of fear of blowback.” Such cowards—if they exist and aren’t just another set of imaginary sources—cannot ever be believed: they’re putting their personal welfare ahead of doing a right thing.

One More Reason…

Posted on by
Reply

…to stop doing business in New York. This time, it’s the State’s move to tax energy producers who sell their fossil fuel products in the State on the risible basis of those producers’ (global) CO2 production over the years 2000 through 2018. Never mind that, as the Wall Street Journal‘s editors put it,

It’s impossible to determine a company’s contribution to climate change since the effects of CO2 emissions on temperature and natural disasters are mediated by myriad variables.

New York’s bureaucrats will make their assessments anyway, and those assessments will be, of necessity, wholly arbitrary. Then there’s this, too, which New York’s government personages consider irrelevant:

Most fossil-fuel emissions stem from their combustion rather than production….

The fossil fuel energy producers shouldn’t waste time litigating this in court, even though they’d likely win given the plethora of court decisions that hold moves like New York’s illegal.

These folks should simply stop selling their products in New York, and that should include no longer selling their products to utilities that provide electricity- and natural gas-related energy in New York. They’ll save more money that way, money that could be used for innovation and better fossil-fuel-related products for their other customers.

Nor will New Yorkers be harmed by the withdrawal. They have plenty of energy flowing from all those “green” and “renewable” energy sources. And those nuclear reactors on the horizon. The State government’s personages assure us so.