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

A final view of the Bavarian Belle Riverboat, on the Cass River in Frankenmuth, Michigan. Click to enlarge.

The American college campus has become one of the least open, least free places in the nation—and with respect to many subjects, not just a few. Genuine debate about abortion, affirmative action, feminism, gay marriage, global warming, gun rights, hate crimes, illegal immigration, Islam, Israel, racism, sexual assault, and transgender identity has been rendered difficult, if not impossible. And we are awash in new euphemisms for censorship: trigger warnings, safe spaces, free speech zones, fill-in-the-blank-phobic slurs, micro-aggressions, and verbal “violence.”

A substantial portion of this vocabulary derives from feminism, which has succeeded in making its anti-intellectual agenda academic dogma. Criticism of feminist concepts is recast as patriarchal, hurtful, or “violent,” obliterating the distinction between psychological discomfort and physical injury. And that erasure has inspired a thousand other complaints, delivering us to this new land where any speech that offends someone’s progressive sensibility is now deemed too “hurtful” to be uttered. Those who cross this line, deliberately or even accidentally, face vitriol, emotional bullying, and sometimes physical attack.

(Peter W. Wood, "Forgetting Freedom," Claremont Review of Books 15 [summer 2015]: 73-6, at 75)

I had a good month on the bike. I rode 13 times in 30 days for a total of 440.2 miles. That gives me 3,554.5 miles for the year, which is now three-fourths over. I'm on track for my second-best mileage year ever (of 35). Today I had to use the brakes to avoid hitting a large bobcat on the trail. The bobcats in River Legacy Parks are slow moving and oblivious to humans. I saw a coyote the other day. No snakes lately.

Keep It Up (1983). This was one of my favorite songs 30 years ago. I wrote about it in my journal.

Here.

Here.

A fifth criticism of utilitarianism is that it is unable to account for certain facts of common moral experience. I do not appeal to generally accepted value judgments; that would beg the question . What I mean is that common moral experience includes distinctions between the good and the better and between the good and the heroic. A utilitarian theory suggests that an act is justified by good consequences, by the net benefit it will yield compared with alternative possible acts. However, in many cases there are many alternatives that would be accepted as right, and all of us admit that it is possible for men to do better than they are obliged to do.

Almost any act causes some benefits and some harms. The utilitarian is committed to justifying the harms simply by the weight of the benefits . The procedure, if it were possible, would perhaps seem reasonable as long as one maintained that only the maximum net good can rightly be sought. But if he wishes to maintain this position, the utilitarian will be forced to deny the facts just mentioned . On the other hand, if he admits that something less than the maximum good may rightly be sought, we are entitled to ask him by what principle he justifies this departure from the standard of good consequences. His only answer must be that the generality of mankind do not do better; therefore, he cannot demand more. The result is that utilitarianism approaches very near to that morality which simply determines right and wrong by taking a vote, and judging the issue by the opinion of the majority.

(Germain G. Grisez, "Methods of Ethical Inquiry," Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 41 [1967]: 160-8, at 164)

Note from KBJ: The problem Grisez is discussing is known as the problem of supererogation. Most people believe that it is possible to go above and beyond the call of duty. Utilitarians cannot accept this, for they demand that individuals do the best that they can (in terms of maximizing utility) at all times.

To the Editor:

Re “Boehner to Quit, Undone by Strife With Right Wing” (front page, Sept. 26):

There will be no shortage of critics and self-appointed pundits sounding off on Speaker John A. Boehner’s tenure. They can say what they like about him, but while I rarely agreed with him on policy issues, I believe that he served the office honorably and did the best job he could to control his caucus—one third of which is bent on dismantling the very institution they were elected to serve.

BRUCE ELLERSTEIN

New York

To the Editor:

John A. Boehner’s announcement of his retirement offers him an opportunity to pursue the capstone of his career—to allow the Senate bill on immigration to come up for a vote in the House. This has long been delayed, and perhaps is what Pope Francis whispered to Mr. Boehner in Congress. It would, no doubt, bring tears to Pope Francis himself.

JIM EWENS

North Lake, Wis.

Another view of the Bavarian Belle Riverboat. Click to enlarge.

Here.