Jeffrey Aho

I’ve been chipping away at some Rand books this term, though I’ve taken a one month break from Atlas Shrugged. I like the story, but it sure is long. I just needed a break.

The one I’m reading now on my lunch breaks is The Virtue of Selfishness, a non-fiction collection of essays on ethics, philosophy and morals. While I find parts of it to be repetitive (which is sort of expected for stand alone essays and lectures on similar subject matter), there are interesting topics on rights, collectivized ethics, and various questions posed about objectivist theory. The articles were written in the early 60’s and some parts need to be taken with a grain of salt such as this passage from Mental Health versus Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice discussing morality and self-esteem implying homosexuality is a mental illness due to being “insufficiently hypocritical” on the practice of “traditional morality”:

“Or the adolescent who flees into homosexuality beacause he has been taught that sex is evil and that women are to be worshipped, but not desired?”

I guess I should note that Rand’s “selfishness” is in the strictest sense of “concern for one’s own interests” and not that of the commonly used word with negative connotations. The cornerstone of Objectivism is rational self-interest without force (noting that “without force” is critical). My favourite essay so far in the collection is The Ethics of Emergencies, which discusses aid of others. The last paragraph sums up the ideas well:

“The moral purpose of a man’s life is the achievement of his own happiness. This does not mean that he is indifferent to all men, that human life is of no value to him and that he has no reason to help others in an emergency. But it does mean that he does not subordinate his life to the welfare of others, that he does not sacrifice himself to their needs, that the relief of their suffering is not his primary concern, that any help he gives is an exception, not a rule, an act of generosity, not of moral duty, that it is marginal and incidental - as disasters are marginal and incidental in the course of human existance - and that values, not disasters, are the goal, the first concern and the motive power of his life.”

The act of helping others is based on your love for them (which also determines who and how much help you give) as well as your respect for human life. It should not be based on altruist morality that forces you to sacrifice.

Currently Listening to: Pat Benatar - Love is a Battlefield

Random Wikipedia Article: Special Handling Unit

Despite elections races not officially starting for another 3 months, Facebook groups for potential Feds Exec have started to pop up. In order to fuel unsolicited speculation, I give you a list of potential Feds Exec candidates.

President:

Justin Williams - Current ES Councillor, Feds Director, Past FOC, and general socialist proselytizer, Justin is a (very) early leader in the race to be the next Feds President. A supportive Facebook group already has several councillors as members as well as 3 of the 4 other Feds non-exec directors.

Renjie Butalid - Senator-at-large and past Feds VP AF, Renjie will be completing his degree and could be a star candidate if he decides to run. Part of the Jenjie Hentalid duo that held the Feds together earlier this year, Renjie’s record could bring him a second election win.

Steve Hayle - Arts Senator, Student Governor, and Past Feds Councillor and Board Member, Steve has a long history with Feds that gives him the experience to run Feds.

VP Admin-Finance:

Aaron Stauch - Senator and Coordinator for CRT, Aaron seems keen on running for a Feds Exec position. It’s still unclear what position he’s interested in (Maybe Education), but for the last 9 months he’s had Feds2008.com registered (as well as .ca).

VP Education:

Andres Fuentes Martinez - Andres is a political powerhouse with strong connections to the Liberal Party (He’s been UW President of the UW Young Liberals for 2 years), great for lobbying. Former SJU Student’s Council Vice-Pres, he seems connected to Williams, who has created a Facebook group.

Chris Neal - SJU Councillor, Feds Director, SJU Student’s Council VP, and committee whore, Chris will be a strong candidate for the position he’s been building up to for the past few years. (EAC, OUSA delegate, etc.)

VP Internal:

Dan DesRosiers - Past Service Coordinator and small business owner, Dan has a long history of involvement at UW and in the community.

Andrew Falcao - Past SciSoc President, Feds Councillor and Director as well as Arts Commissioner, Andrew has many connections to clubs and services and has been a tireless volunteer to many causes.

I’m sure there are other people considering a run, but I’ve only heard so many rumours given that I’m not on campus this term. So far it looks like it will be an interesting campaign.

Currently Listening to: Don’t Stop Believing - Journey

Random Wikipedia Article: LOLCODE

Back when I used to be active in competitive debating I attended a lecture at LU on case construction. One of the concepts that I still recall is that of pairs of philosophical concepts which generally are opposites during debate. An example would be Justice vs. Mercy while the one I want to talk about in a very specific context is Freedom vs. Security.

The topic in which I want to discuss this dual with is that of Involuntary Admission, specifically in the case of possible harm to self. Suicide ceased to a crime in Canada in 1961, and within the Canadian Criminal Code the only mention of it is the criminalization of assisted suicide or counselling someone to commit suicide. What distresses me is that within the Ontario Mental Health Act (OMHA) there are provisions for involuntary admission on the basis of self harm.

I suspect that the vast majority of people believe that such a provision is reasonable, so I pose the question: Is it acceptable to hold someone against their will for something they have not done but on the suspicion that they may commit a legal act? I am taking issue here only with self harm as the act is legal while harm of another person is not. They are entirely separate cases. Harm of another person comes down to the security of the public over the freedom of a patient (another debate altogether), while in the case of potential self harm the claim is that security of the patient trumps the freedom of the patient.

Under the OMHA, revised in 2000 with “Brian’s Law“, physicians have the ability to hold a patient involuntarily for 3 days without appeal by just filling out a form, with the provisions for longer times with additional forms (though requiring another doctor). It is worth noting that the patient can refuse treatment during that time, so this can literally result in a patient being held in a locked down facility for having not committed any crime. An issue like this is about freedom of choice. We don’t lock people up for wanting to have an abortion, a self inflicted amputation of sorts (and I don’t suggest we do), but we do for the mentally ill. Such a law could impede assessment and treatment as a voluntary patient may sanitize his response in fear of being processed as an involuntary patient.

Some people may argue that such a patient cannot make decisions of freedom due to their mental illness. I would note then that such an individual is allowed under law to make decisions regarding their treatment. Why not allow the same of their freedom? A person with mental illness, even with suicide ideation, is still frequently capable of making rational decisions. There is a big difference between voluntary admission and involuntary admission in terms of freedoms for a patient. It is completely rational for a patient to want to perseve their freedoms while seeking treatment. To me, it is one who gives up their freedoms willingly who is irrational.

Currently Listening to: Lay All Your Love On Me - ABBA

Random Wikipedia Article: Sola fide