The more I listen to people talk about politics and philosophy, the more I realize everyone has inconsistencies in their reasoning from time to time. Conservatives usually argue against big government, but some have backed the huge bailouts in recent news. Liberals often are staunch proponents of free speech, yet will try to prevent a racist speaker from coming to campus.
However, some inconsistencies are particularly disturbing to me. For example, in response to my concerns about the bodies exhibit (see Bodies... and capitalism ), those who still wanted to go regardless gave their justification when they said they were in. One response was something along the lines of, "while the possibility that they use chinese prisoners disturbs me, when I weigh the probability of that against the potential benefit to my patients, the patients win."
This is moral equivocation at its worst. Are you seriously trying to make the argument that going to the equivalent of a death freak-show is going to teach you more about medicine than you learned in medical school? Particularly for someone who is concerned about human rights, are you really that willing to turn a blind eye to "injustice" for a chance to see something you already covered in school? Or are you just using that as justification to do what you wanted to do, so you could be morally beyond reproach (from both yourself and others)?
Now, there are obviously too many injustices in the world to do something about them all, but if one of your goals is to live a socially conscious life, then shouldn't you do so even when it's inconvenient for you? Maybe I'm a little radical, but I think people should try to practice what they preach. If you are against government handouts, then don't submit receipts to get reimbursed by FEMA for an emergency generator. If you stand against illegal immigration, don't go pay one of the workers standing outside of home depot to help you move. And in the above mentioned case, don't lean on the potential to save lives as justification for everything. That sounds a little too Nazi-esque for my comfort level.