Is there such a thing as too much profit?

In my last post, I used the price increase of Whitney Houston’s music on iTunes to ask whether it was wrong to profit from someone’s death. One particular response caught my attention. A reader commented that making money off the dead was not inherently immoral, but that raising the price of her music was because “they would've made a lot of money on her death already, but they just wanted more.”

Is it wrong to profit from someone’s death?

Shortly after Whitney Houston died, Sony significantly raised the price of some of her MP3s on iTunes. There was a strong demand for her work – lots of mourners wanted to buy her Greatest Hits album – and Sony figured they would make some extra money from the surge of interest. There has been widespread outrage (see here and here), with lots of people claiming that it was a lousy thing to do. Is this reaction justified?

The basic rules of the market say “no.” Price is regulated by supply and demand. If demand goes up, then price goes up, and as long as demand continues, the price won’t go down again. This is exactly what happened, so it seem hard to argue that Sony did anything wrong.

An article about WHY?'s third anniversary and great syndication news!

 

Tomorrow’s episode marks WHY’s third anniversary on the air, a tenure longer than most sitcoms! The Grand Forks Herald has a nice article about the show, IPPL’s vision of it, and how it fits into the culture of North Dakota. We thought supporters might be interested in reading it: http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/229147/group/Entertainment/

We are also pleased to announce that WHY? is now being broadcast twice a month on Public Reality Radio – a public radio station in Grand Rapids, Michigan! Check them out on the air or on the web, at http://www.publicrealityradio.org/ and if you do, please let them know you’re a WHY? listener.  (Public Reality only broadcasts pre-recorded episodes; they are not simulcasting us live. To listen live and comment during the show, you still need to listen via Prairie Public or www.whyradioshow.org)

Next Episode of WHY? - Feb 12 - "Should the Government Care About You?" with guest Virginia Held.

For a free high-definition poster of this episode, go to: http://www.philosophyinpubliclife.org/Why/Posters/Held.pd

Maybe it’s time to think about our relationship with government
and not just its size.

------------------------------------
RSVP for this on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/events/183158311784445/
-------------------------------------

What is art?

A new version of Star Wars was just released, one made through the cooperation of thousands of strangers. Star Wars Uncut is a crowd-sourced film, meaning that people all over the world recorded their own versions of individual scenes, and a team of collaborators edited them into a full-length copy of the movie. This new creation has Lego actors, little kids, cartoons, ferrets, Darth Vader as one of Charlie’s Angels, and lots and lots of people in C3PO masks. It is good-humored, irreverent, a labor of love, and mesmerizing.  It’s also, I think, a work of art.

Are people responsible for their thoughts?

Several weeks ago, a group of Orthodox Jews in Israel spat at and harassed an eight-year old girl on her way to school; they thought she wasn’t dressed modestly enough. The event recalls the more extreme 2002 case, in Saudi Arabia, when Muslim “religious police” prevented girls from escaping a school fire because the girls weren’t wearing headscarves. A recent opinion piece in the New York Times emphasizes that the demand for modest dress is not really about how young women are dressed, but about the thoughts of the men who see them. Provocative dress causes men to think sexual thoughts, the argument goes, and, as such, it should be banned.

Let’s ignore the fact that in most countries, none of the outfits in question would ever be considered provocative. Let’s also ignore the fact that the girl is Israel is eight years old and that there is something very alarming about grown men who respond sexually to someone her age. And, perhaps even more difficult, let’s pass on discussing the inherent sexism of the circumstance. Instead, I’m curious about the core claim that people can ever control their thoughts. I don’t think people can.

[Ethical Dilemma] Who should pay the dead man’s water bill?

A man in Ontario died suddenly, right after turning on the bathroom faucet. The water ran for three weeks, resulting in a $500 bill. His daughter is asking that the utility forgive the bill but the City Council is unsure whether it will do so.

On the one hand, someone died and the city council should be compassionate; one would think that the city utility would have some kind of fund or insurance to pay for things like this. More philosophically, it seems odd to suggest that a dead person can even be said to incur charges. He or she is no longer an "agent" in the economic sense. (Living relatives are charged for funerals, not the deceased.)

Can social networks be true communities?

My friend Neil died suddenly last week; I hadn’t seen him in a very long time. We knew each other well in college and then lived near one another in Boston for a few years after we graduated. We didn’t reconnect until Facebook and didn’t talk much, but we read each other’s status updates, made snarky comments on posts, and maintained a digital presence in one another’s lives. I learned that he died from another friend’s status.

Next Episode of WHY? "A House Divided: Philosophy's Deepest Fault Line" with guest Gary Gutting

For a free high-resolution poster advertising this episode, click here

WHY? Radio presents:

"A House Divided: Philosophy's Deepest Fault Line"
with guest Gary Gutting

January 8, 5 p.m. central

 

Listen live from anywhere in the world at www.whyradioshow.org and in North Dakota at 89.3 (Grand Forks), 91.9 (Fargo), 90.5 (Bismarck), and on Prairie Public radio stations across the state.

 

Should philosophy make things simpler or more complex? Should it describe the muddle of human emotions or simply give us the language to analyze them? The answers to these questions not only tell us what we can know, but also aligns us with of two very controversial philosophy camps. Join WHY? as we discuss one of philosophy's deepest and most divisive controversies: the battle between the "continentals" and the "analytics."

Should White people be permitted to use the N-word?

First of all, let me begin by stating how much I hate the phrase “the N-Word.” It makes me feel like I’m infantilizing everyone I talk to. We are adults; we can use adult language when appropriate. But I also know that lots of people will not be very happy if their blog feeds suddenly flash the word “nigger” on their screen. Kids, bosses, and many others may be looking over readers’ shoulders. The word is poison and people should be prepared for the controversy they are about to encounter.

But look at what I did. I used the actual word in the first paragraph. Am I allowed to do that? My short answer is “sometimes,” although as we shall see, the brilliant and very funny blogger at Yo, Is this Racist? is going to disagree with me.