Rush and Philosophy

I'm certainly glad that I keep up with the Rush is a Band blog, because as it turns out, there is now a Rush and Philosophy book in the works for the Pop Culture and Philosophy book series! If you remember, I was pretty dang excited about this series just a few entries back. When I came across the Beatles and Pink Floyd editions, I couldn't help doing a Google search for a Rush one as well. Of course, I wasn't surprised to find that such a book didn't exist, but that doesn't mean I wasn't certain that it would make a great edition. Apparently, others at "the top" agree with me.

Ol' Rush may not be The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame's cup of tea, but they are certainly getting a lot of attention lately. And what with a few of their songs getting into the Rock Band video games and all, perhaps the coming generations of video game junkies will get into it and download some Rush albums. Of course, I also fully acknowledge the supreme power of the "Colbert Bump." Old news, of course, but the fact that Rush hadn't been on tv for 30 years, and then suddenly made an appearance on The Colbert Report of all things, last year, REALLY excited me. I even want to see I Love You Man, even though it looks pretty stupid, because I know that there is a Rush concert in the movie.

Well, not much else to this entry other than the fact that I was excited about that book coming out. I guess before I leave you, I'll let you in on an interesting facet of Geddy Lee's personality. Now, I don't know whether or not Geddy has an obsession with a sense of equality, or symmetry, but he always seems to want something on his side of the stage to counterbalance Alex's amps. In this instance, industrial dryers:

While we welcome eccentricities in the World of Rock, our curiousity certainly heightens when we notice that for the subsequent tour Alex has gotten a larger set of amps, and Geddy has gotten an equally larger-sized set of...chicken rotisseries?!:

Okay, so Geddy is officially a little nuts. But I love him for it!

The Price of Damned Lies

So, I was back in Business Ethics today. Guilt trip. First of all, Mr. Bearded Democratic Philosopher with a First Name That Sounds Like a Last Name (Harrison), not to be confused with "Mr. Harrison," is pretty nice (he said goodbye to me today), and good-looking as well I might add (he smiled too). Second of all, the slides that I stole, as it turns out, aren't accessible to even his students. Third, Immanuel Kant, who I supposedly like so much, would be of the opinion that stealing bread even if you are starving is still (and not any less) wrong. Setting aside my own petty theft for one moment, let's focus on the real issue. I can't like Kant AND Les Miserables?! Yes, that fact alone is truly the full extent of my guilt.

Now, on to the damned lies. You see, I'm reading this book called More Damned Lies and Statistics for my stats class. And it just so happens that my assignment due Friday ties into my little gripe against business, and my little horrah-horray for philosophy. I chose this situation that I heard about just a couple days ago as an example of what the author refers to as "missing numbers" in statistical estimations. And it involves this car:

The Ford Pinto. Now forgive me if you've heard about it before. Anyway, the story here is that back in the 70s the Ford company wanted to compete with other car manufacturers from Japan and the like, and so they made a goal that the Pinto must not be "an ounce over 2,000 lb., and not a penny over $2,000." They reached this goal, but unfortunately there was a major safety flaw in the design. The fuel tank was located behind the rear axel, which upon just over a 30 mph hit to the back of the car would cause some serious gas leakage, prone to burst the car into flames at the first spark. With rear blows of even greater forces, the doors would crush shut, and it would almost certainly lead to burn fatalities for crash victims.

Two things could have corrected the problem. One, the tank could have been put above the rear axel. Although they knew this was much safer, the reason they didn't do it was because it would drastically decrease trunk space. Apparently, trunk space was an important marketable feature. The second thing that could have been done (even after production) would have been to add a fire-prevention device in the gas tank that would cost an extra $11/vehicle. What to do?

Well, using the cost-benefit analysis they determined that the benefit of installing the device amounted to 49.5 million dollars. The cost of installing the device for each car would be 137 million dollars. So, from there the choice was obvious. But then again, how did they calculate the benefit. Did they seriously have the audacity to put a price on a human life? Well, so it would seem. And that price per individual was in the ball park of only $200,000. That's not to say that's really what they thought a life was worth, per say. The amount was calculated in reference to how much money they expected to be sued for, as well as the amount of money that the deceased victims would have earned throughout the rest of their lifetime.

At first our repulsion may be over the fact that the estimate per individual is only $200,000. But if you consider that only real dollars and cents values were considered here, we might let that go. But then an even grimmer repulsion settles in with the fact that the value of a human life didn't come into the picture AT ALL. So much for business ethics and cost-benefit analyses.

On the flip side, the parting thought of Business Ethics today was how fanatical Kant really was in defending his ethics. So much that perhaps even lying to spare a person's life is unacceptable. I find that ridiculous. Just a heavy price for another sort of damned lie.

Business Ethics?

So, I'm actually really pleased with the classes I'm facilitating so far for work this semester. Today I was excited that for the first time ever I had a philosophy class. And I also had a psychology class, a subject which I usually find very interesting. I was also thrilled that I wasn't facilitating any business classes, which I have always hated.

In fact, one time in driving by Thermal Fisher I happened to shout, very seriously, "Oh, I hate Thermal Fisher!" My sister was in the car and started laughing at the random and irrational protest. I then explained that a business professor I worked with happened to work at Thermal Fisher as well, and was always mentioning it. Every week. Several times a lecture. I guess it irritated me quite a bit.

Anyway, when I found out that the philosophy class was actually Business Ethics, I kinda groaned inside myself, "No, I thought I had gotten away." However, the professor stressed that although the students were primarily business students, that it was indeed a philosophy class, and so it would delve deeper into moral theories than they may feel is relevant. Horrah! Next week happens to be a lecture on Immanuel Kant, who I have read a bit of and learned SO much from. Even with the very little I read. So, I'm thrilled that I will be paid to go to this class!

Actually, as the professor was leaving I was about to be so lame as to ask him what exactly they were reading from Kant for the discussion next week so that I could possibly join in too, but he left without saying anything to me (which I generally consider a little rude...but since I like the class, no harm). In fact, he left without closing his slides on the computer, so I actually emailed them to myself. Yes, I am very nerdy, aren't I? Then I noticed that all of the files for all of his classes were available in an open window...so I, now don't judge me, STOLE a bunch of them. Yep, while at work I stole documents on moral theories. How ironic. It seems I just might need a business ethics course myself. How convenient! :)