You know, I’m not a conspiracy theorist at heart. But then I read a news article like this. Initially, I had thought, “Fake News,” as had my friend Dustin Germain, the Managing Editor over at PNP News. I do some freelance editing for him occasionally. But then I realized, the news source was LifeSite News, and given their solid track record, I have to wonder how true this really is, because it is clear that as time goes on, the forces of the enemy are losing their moral and ethical boundaries that keep them in check.
The very language that the medical journal articles is troublesome – they call people that won’t follow the overblown protocols for COVID-19 “defectors” that are “defecting from the public good” and need to be brought under control and compliance. At least one Doctor has suggested covert drugging of such individuals to enforce “moral compliance.” That Doctor’s name is Parker Crutchfield, whose doctorate is in ETHICS at Western Michigan University where he is a professor of Ethics. Just to restate this clearly in case you misunderstood the plain English with which I wrote that, this man is advocating the covert dosing of non-conformists that do not agree with so-called “health” edicts with psychoactive pharmaceuticals to ensure compliance with something that in the view of some may or may not be true.
That’s ethically problematic, is it not? It raises certain standards of ethics that really need to be examined. The very first one that occurs to me is, “by whose standard?” By the standard of “health providers” that have been either coerced or co-opted into a communist scheme to take away freedoms in the west? Look, beloved, I’ve looked at a lot of numbers from the very beginning of this in Canada, and I am on record here that I thought and still think that COVID-19 is a bit of a paper tiger, and the numbers coming from the US CDC are showing it, as opposed to the numbers from WHO and the Communist Party of China, who are (still) pushing an alarmist agenda. Do THEY get to set the standard? Or perhaps the CDC, another human organization that can be coerced or co-opted to a cause? Do THEY get to set the standard perhaps?
The second and obvious question it brings to my mind, is this. When has speaking out against something with which you find factually lacking, or “calling shenanigans,” been “defecting from the public good?” I’ll tell you when – when a politically controlling organization is running an agenda, that’s when. Some of the last few times this has occurred is under Nazi rule in Germany in the late 1930s, under Leninnist leadership in Russia beginning in 1917, under Chairman Mao in the 1950s in China, and the list actually continues on for quite a while. Dissident opinion should never be called “defection.” When that occurs, you can be sure of one thing only – you don’t really have free speech anymore. Beloved, whether you want to admit it or not, this is happening in so-called “big tech” today. Facebook and Google are actively blocking right-leaning political views that very often do not fit their political narrative. Ditto Twitter. Were you aware the Google is deliberately throttling Breitbart, a rock-solid news source alternative, because it has the courage to report on things that don’t fit the narrative that more “progressive” (say “leftist”) elements want to be true? Is that really a “just and free society” that a fellow that I personally disagree with for the most part was talking about? No, it is not, and I’m sure that and the antics of his son Justin are causing Pierre Trudeau to turn in his grave.
Here is some of the evidence:
The abstract for that paper reads:
Some theorists argue that moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory. I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement. My argument for this is that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration is a matter of public health, and for this reason should be governed by public health ethics. I argue that the covert administration of a compulsory moral bioenhancement program better conforms to public health ethics than does an overt compulsory program. In particular, a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality, and autonomy better than an overt program does. Thus, a covert compulsory moral bioenhancement program is morally preferable to an overt moral bioenhancement program.
One is titled “It is better to be ignorant of our moral enhancement: A reply to Zambrano.” The abstract for that paper reads:
In a recent issue of Bioethics, I argued that compulsory moral bioenhancement should be administered covertly. Alexander Zambrano has criticized this argument on two fronts. First, contrary to my claim, Zambrano claims that the prevention of ultimate harm by covert moral bioenhancement fails to meet conditions for permissible liberty-restricting public health interventions. Second, contrary to my claim, Zambrano claims that covert moral bioenhancement undermines autonomy to a greater degree than does overt moral bioenhancement. In this paper, I rebut both of these arguments, then finish by noting important avenues of research that Zambrano’s arguments motivate.