Monthly Archives: March 2010

Dissent: Consumerism does not Implicate Morality

Let’s say that in place of any harrowing revelation from the world of Indonesian forestry, Mr. Benavides’ acquaintance had let him in on a still darker secret: the owner of the antique store has an idiosyncratic policy of celebrating the sale of each Bodhidarma bust by going home and beating his wife. Would Mr. Benavides

CONCURRENCE: WHY PENCILS HAVE ERASERS AND HUMANS HAVE TORT LAW

Mr. Goodwin is right that the accidental infliction of harm is not, on its own, immoral. Mistakenly taking someone else’s umbrella is not theft; accidentally bumping into a passer-by is not a shove; rear-ending another driver is not battery. But that’s only half the story. Blameless as one may be, the umbrella must be returned,

Dissent: He That Hath Not Sinned

Mr. Benavides whimsical trip into an antique curiosity shop raises a raft of compelling issues. Are unintentional “evils” really no less reprehensible? When does a person become complicit in an immoral transaction? Can material possessions acquire a permanent moral taint? I will defer these questions for the time being, though I hope to return to

Essay: Tainted Goods

I s  anyone intentionally immoral?  At the very least, we justify ourselves before taking that next step into moral decay.  But much of the time evil is accidental.  Unfortunately, that doesn’t make it any less evil. I entered the Asian antique store on a whim.  No sooner had the bell hanging over the door signalled