In this paper, I argue that the ‘modified youngest first’ principle provides a morally appropriate criterion for making decisions regarding the distribution of scarce medical resources, and that it is morally preferable to the simple ‘youngest first’ principle. Based on the complete lives system's goal of maximizing complete lives rather than individual life episodes, I argue that essential to the value we see in complete lives is the first person value attributed by the experiencer of that life. For a life (...) to be ‘complete’ or ‘incomplete,’ the subject of that life must be able to understand the concept of a complete life, to have started goals and projects, and to know what it would be for that life to be complete. As the very young are not able to do this, it can reasonably be said that their characteristically human lives have not yet begun, giving those accepting a complete lives approach good reason to accept the modified youngest first principle over a simple ‘youngest first’ approach. (shrink)

Due to COVID-19’s strain on health systems across the globe, triage protocols determine how to allocate scarce medical resources with the worthy goal of maximising the number of lives saved. However, due to racial biases and long-standing health inequities, the common method of ranking patients based on impersonal numeric representations of their morbidity is associated with disproportionately pronounced racial disparities. In response, policymakers have issued statements of solidarity. However, translating support into responsive COVID-19 policy is rife with complexity. Triage does (...) not easily lend itself to race-based exceptions. Reordering triage queues based on an individual patient’s racial affiliation has been considered but may be divisive and difficult to implement. And while COVID-19 hospital policies may be presented as rigidly focused on saving the most lives, many make exceptions for those deemed worthy by policymakers such as front-line healthcare workers, older physicians, pregnant women and patients with disabilities. These exceptions demonstrate creativity and ingenuity—hallmarks of policymakers’ abilities to flexibly respond to urgent societal concerns—which should also be extended to patients of colour. This paper dismantles common arguments against the confrontation of racial inequity within COVID-19 triage protocols, highlights concerns related to existing proposals and proposes a new paradigm to increase equity when allocating scarce COVID-19 resources. (shrink)

Many claim that belief in God is like belief in Santa Claus have it out belief in God, or belief in Santa – is rational, and a direct parallel between the reasoning of the two sides is demonstrated. Many important arguments regarding theistic belief are discussed in some form. The article is intended for use in an introduction to philosophy, or an introductory philosophy of religion course, as a humorous way to foster discussion and expose students to criticisms of theistic (...) arguments, and to consider the possibility that theistic belief is no better than belief in the existence of Santa Claus. Act One. (shrink)

The Society of Professional Journalists' (SPJ) Code of Ethics divides the institutional duties of a journalist into four main categories, designed to capture the essence of what it means to be a good journalist: seek truth and report it, minimize harm, act independently, and be accountable. Clark Kent being Superman first and reporter second means his reporting suffers. He does pretty well with respect to the section of the code that concerns treating “sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving (...) of respect. Clark Kent's dual life and the choices he makes as Superman keep him from meeting the minimum standards of journalistic ethics. Journalists are charged with revealing “unethical practices of journalists and the news media” and abiding “by the same high standards to which they hold others.”. (shrink)

During a controversial Weekend Update, David Spade made the following joke with an image of Eddie Murphy behind him: "Look, children, it's a falling star – make a wish." The crack came at a time when Murphy's career was hurting, and he took offense, refusing to return to the show for twenty years. Like most areas of philosophy, there are a plurality of views when it comes to familial ethics. In this chapter, the author takes this opportunity to consider some (...) of them, and to figure out what each view would say about the Spade‐Murphy family feud. Good news for the Rileys and the Combs, the two families from Dysfunctional Family Feud who can't get through a sentence without being nasty to each other, there is a view of familial ethics that might excuse their behavior. It is known as the No Special Obligations View. (shrink)

This hilarious cast of star philosophers will make you laugh while you think as they explore the moral conundrums, ridiculous paradoxes, and wild implications of Saturday Night Live Comedian-philosophers from Socrates to Sartre have always prodded and provoked us, critiquing our most sacred institutions and urging us to examine ourselves in the process. In Saturday Night Live and Philosophy, a star-studded cast of philosophers takes a close look at the “deep thoughts” beneath the surface of NBC’s award-winning late-night variety show (...) and its hosts’ zany antics. In this book, philosophy and comedy join forces, just like the Ambiguously Gay Duo, to explore the meaning of life itself through the riffs and beats of the subversive parody that gives the show its razor-sharp wit and undeniable cultural and political significance. Our guest hosts raise some eyebrows with questions like: Is Weekend Update Fake News? Does SNL upset dominant paradigms or trap us in political bubbles? When it comes to SNL, how can we tell the difference between satire, smart-assery, and seriousness? Is the Ladies Man too stupid for moral responsibility? What is the benefit of jokes that cause outrage? The Church Lady has a bad case of moral superiority. How about you? What can Wayne and Garth teach us about living a happy life? (shrink)

The flip side of radical autonomism is known as radical moralism. Splitting the difference between radical autonomism and radical moralism is the view known as moderate moralism, endorsed by contemporary aesthetician Noël Carrol. Radical moralism traces its roots back to Plato, who was all too aware of art's power to sway the hearts of its audience. The joke slightly depowers the powerful person, by transferring that power to the audience who laughs. John Belushi's Samurai Futaba sketches are more cringy than (...) funny to modern sensibilities, because the butt of the joke is Belushi's fictitious Futaba – a stand‐in for a stereotypical 1970s American understanding of a Japanese person. The butt of an impressionist's joke is usually, pretty straightforwardly, whoever they are doing an impression of. So, the butt of a typical Chase‐as‐Ford pratfall is Gerald Ford, and the butt of Carvey's famous “read my lips” antics is George H.W. Bush. (shrink)

Participation in sports such as football puts youth athletes at high risk of injury. helmets cannot protect players from the possibility of traumatic brain injury, and repeated concussive injuries can lead to chronic traumatic encephalopathy later in life. in light of such facts, the morally appropriate role of physicians who treat patient-athletes comes into question. i argue that pediatricians ought to be committed to a high level of shared decision making, whereby their goal, rather than being to provide the medically (...) best advice (which, let’s be honest, would be to not play football at all), would be to provide the medically best advice in light of patients’ honestly professed plans and goals. if patient-athletes see their doctor as an ally, who wants them on the field as much as they want to be there, they will be more likely to trust their pediatrician to help in the realization of those goals, even if they report an injury. while this approach could feel like a medical betrayal, in that the physician could feel complicit in helping a patient to continue engaging in high-risk behavior, i argue that medical outcomes will be better than if patientathletes see physicians as an obstruction to their athletic goals. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: The First Noel: Christmas's Pre‐Christian Origins “Do they know it's Christmastime at all?” What Should Naturalists Do At Christmas? Why Deck the Halls? The Importance of Ritual When I Was Small I Believed in Santa Claus, Though I Knew it Was Dad: Why Belief is Not Important Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire: What Christmas is All About That Spirit of Christmas: Christmas's Secular Humanism Festivus for the Rest of Us.

This paper attempts to determine the best way to understand-and, thus, treat—patients who claim to hold certain health—related values and goals yet consistently act in ways that undermine and work against those values and goals. Since at least the 1970s, this phenomenon has been known in the medical community as patient noncompliance. This can come in the form of failure to take medication as prescribed, as well as failure to adhere to any number of doctors' orders, including recommendations to modify (...) diet, exercise, quit smoking, and so forth. Such cases are a source of great frustration for health care professionals because these patients present in their clinics with a health problem... (shrink)

This hilarious cast of star philosophers will make you laugh while you think as they explore the moral conundrums, ridiculous paradoxes, and wild implications of Saturday Night Live Comedian-philosophers from Socrates to Sartre have always prodded and provoked us, critiquing our most sacred institutions and urging us to examine ourselves in the process. In Saturday Night Live and Philosophy, a star-studded cast of philosophers takes a close look at the “deep thoughts” beneath the surface of NBC’s award-winning late-night variety show (...) and its hosts’ zany antics. In this book, philosophy and comedy join forces, just like the Ambiguously Gay Duo, to explore the meaning of life itself through the riffs and beats of the subversive parody that gives the show its razor-sharp wit and undeniable cultural and political significance. Our guest hosts raise some eyebrows with questions like: Is Weekend Update Fake News? Does SNL upset dominant paradigms or trap us in political bubbles? When it comes to SNL, how can we tell the difference between satire, smart-assery, and seriousness? Is the Ladies Man too stupid for moral responsibility? What is the benefit of jokes that cause outrage? The Church Lady has a bad case of moral superiority. How about you? What can Wayne and Garth teach us about living a happy life? (shrink)

In a reply to Ross, I argue that, as head injuries often lack external indicators, it is imperative that youth-patient-athletes themselves be convinced to report these injuries. Parents, although part of the pediatric triad, will be no help if the adolescent chooses to conceal the information from them as well. Further, I explain why a more deliberate focus on the role of parents in this relationship does not alter my support of the compromising interpretive model as a harm reduction strategy.

Based on Robert Baker's metaphorical view of damaging language, I argue that morally responsible individuals are obligated to refrain from using the word as a negative adjective directed towards that which the speaker dislikes. According to the metaphorical view, while a speaker may understand her use of the word as devoid of homosexual connotations, the hearer is likely to conclude that his puts him in the same hated category as all of those other objects, events, and persons who are negatively (...) called. (shrink)