Good example of a one-sided essay.

You have been told that your GP essays should be balanced, i.e. should present both sides of the argument. However, for those of you who are confident enough in your argumentative skills, have enough material for your thesis, then go ahead and try your hand at writing an lopsided one.

This is a very good example of an essay that states its conclusions clearly, and confidently supports them with solid facts and sound inferences. This would have been a very good response to the question, "Is an authoritatian government required for economic success" or "Is stability required for economic success?"

Distinguishing between things.

As a follow up to the Yawningbread article that argues for greater awareness of the distinction between "state" and "government", here's a few more calls for better knowledge of political structures.

"Police Sergeant says there's no difference between the PAP and Government."

(BTW, if you ever find yourself making public statements, and you make mistakes like that, please don't tell people I'm your GP tutor.)

"What is in a government?"

And just for fun: "Singapore defends financial secrecy". I found the following paragraph particularly ironic in tone:

"This system exists on the basis of integrity. Starting from the top right through, there are checks and balances – not from the media, but as part of the system,” said Mr Lee, who, together with his son, Lee Hsien Loong, prime minister, heads the GIC board. Ho Ching, Temasek chief executive, is the prime minister's wife.

Economic justification II.

Found an old Yawningbread article contesting the idea that economic growth is the end that justifies any (political) means.

Click on the link; read the article before you read the rest of this post.

I thought that the argument needed an additional premise: that an inviolate Constitution is desirable. Quoting from the article:

But the government's responsibility for economic growth and wellbeing has to be discharged within the frame of the state and its preemptive obligation to provide justice and security. And justice includes human rights and fair political processes.

(The "frame of the state", I take it, refers to the idea of a Constitution, the set of principles that are non-negotiable. For example, in the United States, if the Legislature passes a law that the Judiciary judges to be "non-constitutional", the Judiciary has the power to compel the Legislature to repeal the law.)

The presumption is that the "frame of the state" should not be changeable. Whether is "should" or "should not" is a question of political ideology; the United Kingdoms, for example, does not have a Constitution. The article asserts (without arguing much) that having an immovable Constitution is desirable, is good.

Singapore has a Constitution, but parts can be rewritten, if the majority in Parliament votes in favour of the decision to do so. Given the current situation, with an automatic majority vote for any decision (members from the same party are enforced by the Party Whip to vote as the party leadership determines), many political commentators argue that the Constitution is non-viable.

...

Another point: I thought the argument in the last section rather weak. The article criticizes Lee Kuan Yew for using a Straw Man fallacy: LKY's summary of "the West's" opinion is deliberately over-simplified so that demolishing it is easy.

OK, let's accept the article's critique for now: LKY's drawing a link between a multi-party outcome and a democratic process is simplistic. However, having invalidating the link, the article goes on to argue how having a multi-party system as outcome is a good indicator of a democratic process. I think the author contradicts himself here.

Economic justification.

Students are very fond of using economic excellence as justification for any arguments, e.g. prioritizing social stability over freedom of press; today during OP a group argued that one of the benefits of increasing AIDS awareness among youths is that the workforce remains healthy, given that the human resource is Singapore's only resource, etc.

This article argues that the international community supports Singapore's hierarchy of values.

What your GRANDPARENTS ate may affect how healthy YOU are.

"Epigenetics: Genome, Meet Your Environment" -- The distinction between genetic and environmental factors in the development of an organism may not be as simple as you once thought.


Lamarckism -- the long discredited evolutionary theory which proposed that characteristics acquired in one generation is inheritable by the next -- is reconsidered in the study of epigenetics.


Google: EPIGENETICS.


"The Ghost in your Genes" (Documentary)


"Granddad's Diet Affects Descendants' Health" (New Scientist, Oct 2002)


What are the ethical implications of such findings? (This is the crux of GP; the science alone is irrelevant.)

Two controversial issues immediately spring to mind: (1) racial/cultural/sexual determinism and (2) sexual orientation.

***

(1) Should Scientific Research be Dictated by Ethical Concerns?

This op-ed in the International Herald Tribune, "Your genes are not the real you", takes a look at how public backlash against certain research as being "sexist" or "racist" may not just be political correctness gone out of control.

***

(2) The debate whether sexual minorities (homosexuals, transsexuals) should be accorded the same civil rights (marriage, adoption of children, state benefits for couples) has very often featured the "Nature vs. Nurture" argument.

Put simply, if

a) sexual orientation is genetically determined (inference: "gay people do not choose to be gay"), then the case for equal rights is stronger; if

b) sexual orientation is shaped by environmental factors (inference: "gay people can choose to be straight"; "gay people can be changed"; "gay people should change"), then the case for maintaining the status quo (i.e. gay people do not deserve certain civil rights) is stronger.

...

It has been argued that the clear distinction between genes and environment is false; read for example this article "Playing fast and loose with science" on Yawningbread. The study of epigenetics will be a new chapter in the ongoing search for a better description of the relationship between genes, environment, and sexual orientation.

...

To take it further: so what if we eventually do find a valid scientific theory relating sexual orientation to genes / environment?

I have always been uncomfortable with how conservative groups make the leap from "can change" to "should change". Before X "should change", X must be "wrong". Assuming that X "can change", and assuming the "wrong" is definable, the fact that X "can change" does not necessarily make X "wrong".

I am equally uncomfortable with how gay activists argue "inborn" or "natural" equals "right". The idea of what is "natural" has not been consistent across time:

"The natural place of women is at home" used to be the argument against the emancipation of women.

"The king's natural right to rule" and "the people's natural right to decide who governs them" are mutually exclusive "natural" laws -- logically, only one of them can be right -- yet democracy is only widely accepted in the last century or so.

The idea of "natural" is not even consistent across existing societies:

The "natural law" of "survival of the fittest", which gives rise to meritocratic (or at least capitalistic) societies, is opposed by the "natural law" that "all men are equal", which favours the development of socialist systems. Both types of societies exist today, with various degrees of success.

Hence, "naturalness", being an unstable idea, is not a good criterion for determining "right".
...

We superficially understand that something is "natural" if we "observe" it in "nature".

However, both the processes of "observation" and the selection of what is a "natural environment" are not necessarily objective; both processes are conducted by human communities, which are inevitably governed by various agenda, whether cultural or political. For example, people who use observations of killdeers luring predators away from their chicks to justify the "naturalness" of "nobility" and "self-sacrifice" will often ignoring the other, equally persuasive argument that "self-sacrifice" is essentially a selfish act of perpetuating one's genes -- it's one of the tactics of survival, rather than an act of love.

The use of "naturalness" as justification has also been inconsistent. Going back to our topic of justifying civil rights for sexual minorities, one argument has been that homosexual behaviour is aberrant, not observed in "nature", and therefore "unnatural". Hence, civil rights should not be accorded. However, with increasing evidence that homosexual behaviour among animals is widespread, another argument has been proposed, asserting that since humans are not animals, humans are above what is "natural", humans are "civilized", all the more humans should not practice what animals practice, i.e. same-sex relations. The only clear conclusion here is that there are many, contradictory theories and notions of the relationship between Man and Nature -- Is Man natural? -- so much so that debate is still necessary.

...

Do check out the various philosophies working out the relationship between "nature" and "right": "Natural Law" (Wikipedia)

***

While interesting, and certainly illuminating, I think scientific theory alone does not provide us with the ethical framework to determine the rights of sexual minorities.

Check out the various ethical theories (and follow the links in the article!) that are more sufficient in providing frameworks for moral behaviour, for deciding what's "right" and "wrong", and how has "rights".

International Herald Tribune:

China aims to increase its clout in Africa. Unsaid goal: Redraw world's strategic map.

Quotes:

"They are not the first big foreign power to come to Africa, but they may be the first not to act as though they are some kind of patron or teacher or conqueror"


"The Western approach of imposing its values and political system on other countries is not acceptable to China."


Some African economists complain that China wants to extract raw materials for industry and then sell manufactured goods back to Africa, repeating a mercantilist pattern that failed to spark sustained growth in the past.


"China insists that it will not interfere in other countries' domestic affairs, but it also claims to be a great friend of the African people. But that doesn't square with staying silent while mass killings go on in Darfur."


"The Africa forum would address human rights and good governance, and specifically mentioned Sudan... The humanitarian situation in Darfur should be improved... We will adopt our own method and use the upcoming summit to do our part."