Big Brother, Safe Cities?

     In 2004, Ross McNutt and some friends created a drone. Not just any drone, though; they effectively created an all-seeing eye. This podcast explains more and in great detail, but the question here is: is this really a good idea?
     In theory, an all-seeing eye of God watching over the city might not be such a bad thing. As McNutt explained, he's used this plane to solve crimes, capture murderers and kidnappers, and discover who planted roadside bombs in combat zones. So clearly, there is a positive side to all this. It's hard, ethically, to say no to something that could save lives. But it's also hard to say yes.
     When listening to this podcast, at first I thought it was an easy decision. Of course I would want to implement something that could save lives. Of course I would want to make the world safer. Especially after hearing about what McNutt's plane did in Mexico, where it was able to trace hitmen back to their leader's house. That's huge! You can arrest the little guys all you want, but unless you have the person employing them, it's really not going to change much. But with this invention, you can get the leader. And almost easily, too.
     However, there are definitely drawbacks. How do you ensure that employees working for McNutt's planes will stay objective and not use this footage for their own personal use? Is the software capable of being hacked, and if so, could someone theoretically hack the planes and spy on others? Will people become extremely paranoid knowing they're being watched all the time? Will this actually stop crime, or will criminals just become more creative and figure out how to work around the planes? If these do become regularly implemented, will the whole world turn into an episode of Big Brother? And if so, is that worth it?
     As of now, these risks are too much for me to endorse the plane. I feel like even though there is a great deal of good to be had from their use, like with most things, there is a great deal of evil potential as well. Ethically, I cannot say this plane is a good idea when there is still so much unknown. This invention would definitely save lives, no doubt about it, and I feel a little guilty saying I'm against it. But in the end, I simply have too many questions about the widespread use and the consequences it may cause to feel safe knowing there's a giant all-seeing plane in the sky above me.
     Maybe it's because I'm a little paranoid, or because I've read enough books, but there is so much that could go wrong with these planes. In the end, McNutt says safety, but all I see is this.

The Ethics of Veganism

     Some people consider it ethical to become vegan, because of animal rights. Others believe that while animals are important, their rights do not factor into food. The people conforming to the Rights Approach would say not being vegan is immoral. Other ethical approaches disagree. But which is correct? Is there even a correct answer?
     In the article from brown.edu entitled "A Framework for Making Ethical Decisions," the author states several different approaches to making ethical decisions. One of these approaches, under the Non-Consequentialist Theories category, is the Rights Approach. This approach borrows words from Kant, saying, to paraphrase, "act in a way that you treat all of humanity, whether it is yourself or someone else, as their own end and never as a means to another end" (Brown).
     What does this say about veganism? Well, the article brings up a very good point, saying "many now argue that animals . . . have rights" (Brown). And here veganism comes in. Many people could easily use the Rights Approach to validate veganism, arguing that eating meat or consuming animal byproducts violates animal rights. And really, they'd be right. It's not like the meat industry treats their animals well. This video shows what happens in one of Iowa's largest pig farms (viewer discretion advised). And while it's easy to say that this isn't what happens to all animals who eventually end up on our table, it is impossible to deny that this is the reality for many companies in the meat industry.
     If you abide by the Rights Approach to ethics, it seems pretty clear that abstaining from meat/animal products is the ethical way to go. As the article later states, the guiding light for ethics according to the Rights Approach is whatever action "respects the rights of all who have a stake in the decision"(Brown). But not everyone abides by this approach.
     I, for one, am guilty of not being vegan. No matter how many animal rights videos I watch, and how often I feel aghast watching videos like the one above, there is just some part of me that cannot give up my bacon and burgers. Call it unethical if you will; I'll call it "using the Egoistic Approach." This approach states "self-interest is a prerequisite to self-respect and respect for others" (Brown). Eating meat/animal byproducts is definitely done out of my own self-interest. But I can validate it through this approach by saying that in order to respect others and myself, I have to look out for Number 1: myself.
     Is this actually ethical, though? The Brown.edu article outlines a process for making ethical decisions: Recognize the ethical issue, Consider parties involved, Gather all relevant information, Formulate actions and consider alternatives, Make a decision and consider it, Act, Reflect on outcome. According to this process, becoming a vegan is probably the correct--or most ethical--response to the mistreatment of animals in the meat industry.
     Still, I can't seem to bring myself to become a vegan. Maybe this is just an impermissible decision I have to live with, or maybe it speaks to a larger reality: theorizing about ethics is one thing, but living by that theory is entirely different.