Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Another apologist for ISIS. What this man doesn't realize is that, when ISIS takes over, he will be among the first to be beheaded.

Rupert Murdoch is correct. Barack Obama is half black. His mother is as white as my mother. Obama's father is Kenyan. Obama, therefore, has no connection to American slavery, unless, of course, his mother descends from slaveowners.

Utilitarians—as well as moral philosophers who have not been utilitarians—have not always failed to notice the fact that we think actions are right if they are of a sort which would produce good consequences if generally practised, or are wrong if they are of a sort which would produce bad consequences if other people did the same. Mill, for example, remarked: "In the case of abstinences—indeed of things which people forbear to do from moral considerations, though the consequences in the particular case might be beneficial—it would be unworthy of an intelligent agent not to be consciously aware that the action is of a class which, if practised generally, would be generally injurious, and that this is the ground of the obligation to abstain from it." But utilitarians have not always realised that, in admitting that the performance of such actions is a duty, they are departing from, or, at least, modifying, utilitarianism as it is stated above. And that they are departing from, or modifying, utilitarianism, as it is usually thought of, is clear. For actions which are permissible, according to utilitarianism as I have defined it above, might well not be permissible, according to utilitarianism in this modified form. For it may very well be true of an action, both that there is no other action within the power of the agent that would produce better consequences than it, and that it is an instance of a class of actions which would produce harmful consequences if they were to be generally performed. In this case, I should, according to utilitarianism as it is normally thought of, be acting rightly if I performed it; whereas, according to this modified form of utilitarianism, I should be acting wrongly.

(J. Harrison, "Utilitarianism, Universalisation, and Our Duty to Be Just," Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, n.s., 53 [1952-1953]: 105-34, at 113 [footnote omitted])

Note from KBJ: Here is an example. Suppose I am shipwrecked with my grandfather on a deserted island. Before he dies, he asks me to promise him that I will bury his body. I make the promise. According to act utilitarianism, I should break the promise, since keeping it will (1) do no good and (2) do some bad. (It's hard work digging a grave.) According to rule utilitarianism, I should keep the promise, since breaking it "is an instance of a class of actions which would produce harmful consequences if they were to be generally performed." This example shows that act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism are distinct theories. It does not tell us which theory is best or preferable. Some people prefer act utilitarianism; some prefer rule utilitarianism. Some people reject both theories.

Leftists have a death wish.

I watch both CNN and Fox News Channel during the evening hours. (I no longer watch Shepard Smith, The Five, Greta Van Susteren, or Megyn Kelly.) Night after night, CNN reports that Donald Trump said this or that Ben Carson did that. The tone of the reporter's voice indicates that he or she is appalled, and expects everyone else to be appalled as well. What the reporter doesn't realize is that the people who support Trump or Carson are not appalled. In fact, they like what was said or done. CNN is a joke. I tune in because I like to laugh.

Here.

Here.

To the Editor:

Re “Do We Value Low-Skilled Work?” (Op-Ed, Oct. 1):

Brittany Bronson is right that repetitive work, often wrongly defined as “unskilled,” is simply undervalued, as I know from personal experience.

In the 1990s, tasked by the International Ladies’ Garment Workers Union to improve the performance of our members and employers, I informed myself by taking a short course in sewing. My college degree notwithstanding, I was a miserable failure. I expect that many wealthy executives would have failed as well.

Authority and pay distinctions reflect supply, demand and power, not “skill,” as normally understood. We have long misused that term to give ourselves moral comfort. But in a time when pay scales of university presidents and highly educated adjunct faculty diverge as widely as those of casino owners and waiters, that pretense is increasingly unsustainable.

The skill, or good fortune, to work your way into a position of power is all that matters.

CARL PROPER

Bethesda, Md.

The writer retired as education director for the New England Joint Board of Unite Here!, the garment, textile and hospitality workers union.

Here.