Uncategorized

The issue of free speech has been directly addressed by at least one recent post   and raised during the course of a number of other discussions.  So, here are some of my own observations on the subject.

1        As a rough generalisation, I would say that those who discuss the subject tend to fall into one or the other of two categories. On the one hand, there are those who take a tough line and insist upon the right to express an opinion openly, however unpopular or offensive to others it may be. On the other hand, there are more tender souls who express worries over – e.g. – speech which is threatening, inflammatory, or in some way offensive.   Members of the latter group are sometimes prone to argue that, while the freedom of speech and expression may be of great importance, it is necessary to ‘strike a balance’ between it and other values.

The trouble is that Read More »Free Speech: Some Comments

[This is a revised version of the Editorial which appears on the JME home page. It will replace that version.] I am personally opposed to the legalisation of infanticide. However, as the Editor of the Journal I would like to explain why the Journal would publish an article defending infanticide. The ethical discussion of infanticide… Read More »Why Did the Journal Publish an Article Defending Infanticide?

“Shyness, bereavement and eccentric behaviour could be classed as a mental illness under new guidelines, leaving millions of people at risk of being diagnosed as having a psychiatric disorder, experts fear,”

reads the title of a news article earlier this month in the wake of the publication of the most recent draft of the American Psychiatric Association’s proposed revision to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), which is used as a handbook for psychiatrists in the United States.

With this blog post, I hope that we can begin a discussion of a) the reasons undergirding fears of being “diagnosed as having a psychiatric disorder” and b) whether  – counter intuitively – there might be a moral reason to include common behaviors in the DSM,  because doing so might  help us avoid these feared consequences.

Read More »Is there a moral argument for including more common behavioural phenomena in the DSMV?

Here are my initial thoughts on Baroness Warsi’s recent outburst on the subject of ‘militant secularism’. There are two.

The first relates to her reference to ‘totalitarian’ regimes. Can anyone out there tell me what ‘totalitarianism’ is? Does the term  refer to a distinct category of regime, or is it simply a fancy new name  for something quite familiar, namely good old fashioned tyranny or dictatorship?Read More »Warsi on ‘militant secularism’.

Dick Pound afirma, en su autobiografía titulada Inside Dope que repasa los años que pasó luchando contra el dopaje al frente del Comité Olímpico Internacional (COI) y de la Agencia Mundial Antidopaje (AMA), que un periodista de L’Equipe solía referirse a él como “el sheriff del salvaje oeste”, porque se concibe como el chico bueno de la ciudad que tiene que atrapar a los chicos malos: los deportistas que se dopan.

Dick Pound fue el ideólogo, principal promotor y primer presidente de la AMA. Dedicó todos sus esfuerzos a declarar una guerra total al dopaje, sin importar los medios, las formas y, sobre todo, la realidad que vive el deporte de élite –incluso las investigaciones criminales encubiertas le parecían “excitantes”. Lo importante es que, como él mismo afirma en su otra biografía Inside the Olympics, “los tramposos podrán correr, por un tiempo,  pero no podrán esconderse para siempre”. El problema es que la AMA y todas las asociaciones deportivas que apoyan su guerra contra el dopaje han heredado la agresividad y beligerancia de la posición de su fundador.Read More »Reflexiones sobre el caso Contador

Dick Pound says in his autobiography Inside Dope, that a L’Equipe journalist used to call him the “sheriff from the Wild West”. The reason for this nickname is that Dick Pound thought of himself as the good guy who was in charge of catching the bad guys: the athletes who used enhancing-performance substances.

Dick Pound was WADA’s ideologue as well as its main promoter and first president. He spent his entire career developing a bellicose anti-doping campaign. The actual situation of athletes in contemporary sports or the means used to fight against that “evil” did not matter to him –in fact, he found the idea of undercover criminal investigations “exciting”. The only important thing to him was, as he assured the world in another autobiography, entitled Inside the Olympics; that “the cheaters may run, for a while, but they can no longer hide”. Read More »Reflections on Contador’s case