A Plea to the Presidential Candidates

Both John McCain and Barack Obama must discontinue their nationalistic views immediately. John McCain’s assertion that Americans are the best workers in the world is false and even dangerous. Considered most simply, what factual evidence does he have to base this statement upon? Is it actually true that America contains the best workers? McCain would have benefited from simply stating that American’s are hard working individuals. No one can or should deny this. Furthermore, he would still sound patriotic, and patriotism seems to be his overall message. The problem with stating that Americans are the best workers is that it breeds unnecessary favoritism. Our society becomes increasingly global with each passing day, blurring the lines between Americans and other human beings. Therefore, we should be breeding good relations between America and other countries by asserting that all human beings are capable of being great workers. Moreover, the coffee farmer who receives disproportionably low wages works much harder than the average America worker, simply in dealing with degradable conditions—not to mention the Asian sweatshop employee. By stating that Americans are the best workers, the candidates are asserting that America is one of the best—if not the best—country in the world. Can we say this with a straight face while simultaneously acknowledging the dependence America has on the world market? It is worth noting that Barack Obama, the apparent liberal in the campaign, has maintained this same notion, even if less often than McCain. To better our relations in the world, it seems necessary to begin treating all human beings in the manner we try (and often fail) to treat Americans. This discussion is obviously blurred when one realizes that all Americans are not treated equally. Human beings are human beings, plain and simple. For the love of your apparent God, please start thinking this way.

Distraction as a Political Tactic

For a moment, the presidential race seemed far too easy for Barack Obama. Nonetheless, the announcement of the Republican vice presidential nominee presented a formidable challenge for the Democratic party. Not because the nominee had much merit in terms of political doctrine, but because she provided the distraction needed for the Republicans. Sarah Palin's entrance into the presidential race seemed to be an attempt to pull Clinton supporters towards the right. This theory is quickly forgotten when one recalls that Sarah Palin stands in opposition to Hillary Clinton on virtually all issues. Therefore, a vote for Sarah Palin will be a vote based upon feminist aspirations rather than relevant political and social issues. That is not to say that women don't deserve an equal say in the political sphere, it's actually quite the opposite. Women deserve to be valued on their judgments, beliefs, standards, and experience, in the same way a man would. In other words, to favor a woman on less substantial points is to downplay their values and magnify the importance of their gender. Sarah Palin's presence in the election is having this unfortunate effect. Polls show that voters favor her for her "hockey mom" background, seemingly ignoring her stance on women's reproductive rights among other issues. Sarah Palin is a needless distraction from an important political discussion on the current issues.

Flawed Ethics

Immanuel Kant’s historical conception of morality was absolutely accurate insofar as it dealt with human relations. He argued that we must treat other human beings as ends, rather than simply as means. This argument is logical and even morally sound. Unfortunately, it says little concerning the treatment of non-human creatures. Kant’s justification for the moral treatment of human beings is human rationality. Because humans are rational creatures, it would be immoral to treat them as simply means to a desired end. The type of rationality which Kant refers to is specific to human beings and seems to separate us from other living creatures. But does the lack of rationality among non-human creatures justify treating them as means? When we abstain from harming or disrespecting a fellow human being, we don’t do so simply because of our acknowledgment of their rationality. Instead, we also acknowledge their ability to experience fear and pain. Kant’s conception of morality loses its strength here because it seems to ignore this fact. It is clear that non-human creatures can and do experience fear and pain, and this fact is ample justification for moral treatment of said creatures. Therefore, Kant’s conception of morality must be expanded to include all creatures with the ability to experience fear and pain. Indeed, rationality seems largely irrelevant in terms of moral treatment.