Ethicist Parker Crutchfield Intends to Poison Our Drinking Water With Morality

And in the dead of night, no less, because that’s when do-gooders like to do their good deeds. Move over, Red Pill! Make room for… morality pills! AKA the Birth Control Pill?

‘Morality pills’ may be the US’s best shot at ending the coronavirus pandemic, according to one ethicist

https://theconversation.com/morality-pills-may-be-the-uss-best-shot-at-ending-the-coronavirus-pandemic-according-to-one-ethicist-142601

By Parker Crutchfield, 10 August 2020

An associate professor at Western Michigan U who became qualified to teach ethics by acquiring student debt while living a sheltered academic life. Too bad that he never realized how unethical it is for colleges to intentionally train so many academics that there’s not nearly enough tenured faculty positions to go around. The resulting desperation makes “associate” college faculty prime recruiting grounds for domestic terrorist organizations whose members demand society take responsibility for their own poor decisions.

On that note…

COVID-19 is a collective risk. It threatens everyone, and we all must cooperate to lower the chance that the coronavirus harms any one individual.

Demanding that society be held responsible for individuals who acquire China-balls. Never before in human history have healthy people been blamed for sick people being sick.

Among other things, that means keeping safe social distances and wearing masks. But many people choose not to do these things, making spread of infection more likely.

When someone chooses not to follow public health guidelines around the coronavirus, they’re defecting from the public good. It’s the moral equivalent of the tragedy of the commons: If everyone shares the same pasture for their individual flocks, some people are going to graze their animals longer, or let them eat more than their fair share, ruining the commons in the process. Selfish and self-defeating behavior undermines the pursuit of something from which everyone can benefit.

Already we see that Crutchfield is a hardline Soviet, blaming bourgeois individuality for oppressing proletariat communes. Rise up, faceless minions! You have nothing to lose but your chains, your jobs, your freedoms, your possessions, your religion, your history, your friends and your daily bread! Progress, ho!

Democratically enacted enforceable rules – mandating things like mask wearing and social distancing – might work, if defectors could be coerced into adhering to them. But not all states have opted to pass them or to enforce the rules that are in place.

The boldfaced is indeed what a true democracy looks like. Two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner, y’know. Mob rule. That’s why the Founders meant America to be a REPUBLIC but one can’t expect a college professor to ever have been taught that.

My research in bioethics focuses on questions like how to induce those who are noncooperative to get on board with doing what’s best for the public good. To me, it seems the problem of coronavirus defectors could be solved by moral enhancement: like receiving a vaccine to beef up your immune system, people could take a substance to boost their cooperative, pro-social behavior. Could a psychoactive pill be the solution to the pandemic?

No. Morality does not come in a can. But perhaps Unity does?

It’s a far-out proposal that’s bound to be controversial but one I believe is worth at least considering, given the importance of social cooperation in the struggle to get COVID-19 under control.

Evidence from experimental economics shows that defections are common to situations in which people face collective risks. Economists use public goods games to measure how people behave in various scenarios to lower collective risks such as from climate change or a pandemic and to prevent the loss of public and private goods.

The evidence from these experiments is no cause for optimism. Usually everyone loses because people won’t cooperate. This research suggests it’s not surprising people aren’t wearing masks or social distancing – lots of people defect from groups when facing a collective risk.

What material benefit are people gaining by not wearing masks? Oxygen, of course, but oxygen is still free.

There’s no economics at work here. Mask-wearing is purely political. It’s individualism versus collectivism and people know it even if they can’t articulate it. That’s why we “dissidents against the collective good” don’t want to wear masks, because this is MY life to live and the road to Hell is paved with appeasement.

By the same token, I’d expect that, as a group, we will fail at addressing the collective risk of COVID-19, because groups usually fail. For more than 150,000 Americans so far, this has meant losing everything there is to lose.

But don’t abandon all hope. In some of these experiments, the groups win and successfully prevent the losses associated with the collective risk. What makes winning more likely? Things like keeping a running tally of what others are contributing, observing others’ behaviors, communication and coordination before and during play, and democratic implementation of an enforceable rule requiring contributions.

“Keeping a running tally of what others are contributing, observing others’ behaviors” = the real reasons for mask-wearing. Public demonstrations of loyalty to the State.

“Communication and coordination before and during play” = the real reason for contact tracing.

“Democratic implementation of an enforceable rule requiring contributions” = Black Lives Matter reparations.

Truly, there is nothing new under the sun.

For those of us in the United States, these conditions are out of reach when it comes to COVID-19.

YAY FREEDOM! Choke on some inalienable rights bestowed by our Creator, you Commie motherfucker Crutchfield!

You can’t know what others are contributing to the fight against the coronavirus, especially if you socially distance yourself. It’s impossible to keep a running tally of what the other 328 million people in the U.S. are doing. And communication and coordination are not feasible outside of your own small group.

Even if these factors were achievable, they still require the very cooperative behavior that’s in short supply. The scale of the pandemic is simply too great for any of this to be possible.

t seems that the U.S. is not currently equipped to cooperatively lower the risk confronting us. Many are instead pinning their hopes on the rapid development and distribution of an enhancement to the immune system – a vaccine.

But I believe society may be better off, both in the short term as well as the long, by boosting not the body’s ability to fight off disease but the brain’s ability to cooperate with others. What if researchers developed and delivered a moral enhancer rather than an immunity enhancer?

Moral enhancement is the use of substances to make you more moral. The psychoactive substances act on your ability to reason about what the right thing to do is, or your ability to be empathetic or altruistic or cooperative.

NO! THIS IS NO! What kind of monster can say this AND call himself an ethicist at the same time?

For example, oxytocin, the chemical that, among other things, can induce labor or increase the bond between mother and child, may cause a person to be more empathetic and altruistic, more giving and generous. The same goes for psilocybin, the active component of “magic mushrooms.” These substances have been shown to lower aggressive behavior in those with antisocial personality disorder and to improve the ability of sociopaths to recognize emotion in others.

These substances interact directly with the psychological underpinnings of moral behavior; others that make you more rational could also help. Then, perhaps, the people who choose to go maskless or flout social distancing guidelines would better understand that everyone, including them, is better off when they contribute, and rationalize that the best thing to do is cooperate.

Unbelievable.

One is that the science isn’t developed enough. For example, while oxytocin may cause some people to be more pro-social, it also appears to encourage ethnocentrism, and so is probably a bad candidate for a widely distributed moral enhancement. But this doesn’t mean that a morality pill is impossible. The solution to the underdeveloped science isn’t to quit on it, but to direct resources to related research in neuroscience, psychology or one of the behavioral sciences.

Another challenge is that the defectors who need moral enhancement are also the least likely to sign up for it. As some have argued, a solution would be to make moral enhancement compulsory or administer it secretly, perhaps via the water supply.

Crutchfield is not just a Communist. He’s a poisoner waiting to happen. Nobody who advocates sneaking mind-controlling drugs into society’s water supply deserves his white privilege. This is a monstrous evil and before I’m done, I’ll prove this article isn’t just a one-off.

These actions require weighing other values. Does the good of covertly dosing the public with a drug that would change people’s behavior outweigh individuals’ autonomy to choose whether to participate? Does the good associated with wearing a mask outweigh an individual’s autonomy to not wear one?

You better get the right answer to that question, Parker.

The scenario in which the government forces an immunity booster upon everyone is plausible. And the military has been forcing enhancements like vaccines or “uppers” upon soldiers for a long time. The scenario in which the government forces a morality booster upon everyone is far-fetched. But a strategy like this one could be a way out of this pandemic, a future outbreak or the suffering associated with climate change. That’s why we should be thinking of it now.

Okay, let’s think about whether face diaper “defectors” should be force-fed female hormones and hallucinogens until they become team players, on the pretext of martial law overriding their civil rights… I think Parker got the wrong answer.

The first time the idea of using female hormones to cure COVID came up in April, I thought it was just a little virtue-signaling to the LGBT community.

Segue

Estrogen, a possible hedge against COVID-19

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/3/29/1932348/-Estrogen-a-possible-hedge-against-COVID-19

By kellibusey, 29 March 2020, confirmed by her linked Twitter to be a transsexual activist.

Transgender men might have a natural hedge against COVID-19.

When the Novel Cormovirus was first reported in Wuhan it quickly became apparent that more men than women were being infected. The media quickly attributed that disparity noting that while nearly half of Chinese smoke, less than 2 percent of women smoke. Unhealthy lifestyle choices, most made by men, such as diet, drinking and lack of exercise were also attributed.

Clearly, hormones played the critical role here..?

But soon it became apparent that there had to be other factors. So while we anxiously await the outcome of clinical trials for Remdesivir and become proactive by breaking our own bad habits we need to be educated about this deadly virus.

Specifically, educated about how artificial estrogen can be the solution!

Studies in 2013 and 2017 have shown that female mice have a naturally occurring resilience to SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) Cormovirusi resulting in a much lower mortality rate than male mice. The results of these studies, regarding infection and mortality rates, have shown to parallel that of humans during this viral pandemic happening now.

Why?

This disparity has been attributed to higher estrogen levels in the female mice.

Do mice actually use estrogen? *checks* Okay, “estrogen” is a family of related chemicals. Regardless, this was not a useful conclusion from the study. What were the male mice supposed to do, begin hormonally transitioning into females? …Uh-oh.

How does this relate to the transgender community? The studies show that:

  • Female mice with artificially induced estrogen suppression, oophorectomy, or hysterectomy, when infected with Cormovirus, have increased mortality rates equal to that of male mice.

So they WERE preparing arguments to promote artificial sex hormones as a “healthy alternative lifestyle”!

  • Testosterone suppresses menstrual cycles and decreases the production of estrogen from ovaries as evidenced in these studies, as these mice had a higher mortality rate. By extension, and not verified by these studies, trans men currently taking HRT might result in increased susceptibility to COVID-19.

Here, emphasis hers.

There haven’t been any studies that I can locate which would specifically indicate that estrogen improves transgender women’s resilience to Cormovirus infection or mortality. All of the studies were binary sex-based comparisons.

We need medical professionals to undertake studies regarding the novel Cormovirus, HRT and the transgender community.

The transgender community proceeded to study the issue and, in a rare moment of sanity, realized the predictable consequence of forcing cis-men with guns to grow boobs: the loss of victimhood status. Oh, snap!

Now as promised, Crutchfield’s article wasn’t a one-off. He’s published actual research documenting the “morality” of secretly poisoning water supplies with mind-altering drugs and hormones.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/bioe.12496

By Parker Crutchfield, 28 August 2018, so he’s been talking about doing this for at least a couple years. The actual paper is paywalled but here’s the abstract. Emphases mine:

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.

Maybe we Christians will check out of modern society BEFORE the Mark of the Beast forces us to.

Postscript, here’s a letter to the editor Crutchfield wrote in defense of mosquito-spraying a year ago. His arguments sound very much like what his ilk use today to justify C-Virus mandates. So many landowners of Kalamazoo County, MI opted out of aerial spraying for mosquitoes that the program was canceled (before it was canceled anyway because of weather). Among the reasons for opting out was concern over the harm insecticides would have done to native honeybee populations.

Opponents of mosquito spraying are the new anti-vaxxers (opinion)

htt ps://www.mlive.com/opinion/2019/09/opponents-of-mosquito-spraying-are-the-new-anti-vaxxers-opinion.html

Updated Oct 03, 2019; Posted Sep 30, 2019

He took this political right from the title. When I try to convince other people that I’m right and they’re wrong, I generally try to be nonconfrontational and demonstrate how my way is in my opponent’s best interest. Crutchfield couldn’t wait to disabuse everybody of the notion that he had come to do anything but point fingers.

The following is a guest opinion from Parker Crutchfield, Ph.D.

As an ethicist who is often responsible for teaching public health ethics, the state’s recent decision to withhold aerial insecticide from Kalamazoo and Portage due to so many opt-outs is disappointing. Opting out of aerial insecticide that is intended to prevent further infection of Eastern equine encephalitis (EEE) is the moral equivalent of opting out of vaccines. Those who have opted out put others at unnecessary risk, in particular those who are already most vulnerable.

Yes, actually. It’s exactly like opting our of vaccines. If an individual decided that a vaccine is not in his best interest then he has every right to refuse it. My body, my choice, remember? If he gets sick later on as a result, that’s on him. Similarly, if a landowner doesn’t believe that the threat of mosquito-borne illness justifies aerial pesticide, that’s a decision he should be allowed to make. That goes double if he believes that the spraying would do him direct harm.

The guiding principle here is that government is a servant of the people, not a master. State policies in USA are not (should not be) set by bureaucrats cloistered far away from the consequences of their decisions. This doesn’t seem hard. Merely unpopular among cloistered bureaucrats.

This does mean that some potentially beneficial ideas and policies cannot be implemented in a free society. The Fifth Amendment was not written to make our police forces MORE capable.

By living in a governed society, we all must accept some intrusion into the way we want to use our property and live our lives.

This is America, bitch. You need the CONSENT of the governed in order to be a legitimate authority.

I object to my neighbors mowing their lawn at 8 p.m. on a weeknight. It prevents me from using my property the way I want to use it and it keeps my children awake.

Sheesh, First World Problems!

But I accept this intrusion because prohibiting my neighbors from mowing at 8 p.m. on weeknights would be an even greater intrusion of their liberties. I would love to opt out of all the ways in which my tax money is misappropriated. But as a taxpayer I can’t opt out of the things I don’t like — I have to take the whole package.

That’s not what we’re talking about. Can you walk onto your neighbor’s property, against his will and in the company of armed guards, spray his plants and animals with a pesticide of your choosing and then walk away to leave him with the consequences of your actions? THAT is what we’re talking about.

I’m actually sympathetic to aerial spraying. Fifteen years ago, Salinas Valley, CA had an invasive moth get established and wreak havoc. Plans were made to spray them with synthetic moth-sex hormones which were known to be safe for local agriculture but unknown to be safe for humans. (You wouldn’t expect any crossover but such things can happen.) The decision was between protecting billions of dollars’ worth of agriculture in addition to local ecology–oak trees were already CARPETED in squirming mats of caterpillars, there were CLOUDS of moths fluttering around–or allowing a few NIMBYs to cancel the project in fear of unspecified health risks.

I solidly backed the spraying because 1. it protected local farmers and local industry, specifically the food supply of which I am very fond, 2. the State had done everything imaginable to minimize risk to people & property and 3. the NIMBYs themselves couldn’t offer a coherent reason for their opposition.

How does my reasoning stack up in this situation?

The threat of EEE is a collective risk with potentially devastating consequences. The most tenable solution, aerial spray of insecticide, requires that everyone sacrifice some minuscule liberty. Everyone must accept the liberty intrusion for the intervention to work.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Aerial spraying is “the most tenable solution” therefore “Everyone must accept the liberty intrusion”? Just because bureaucrats think it’s the easiest way to solve the problem does not justify its coercive implementation.

That’s strongly parallel to “most studies show that face masks can help block aerosol particles that can carry viruses, therefore every human being in North America must be forced to wear a mask for their every waking moment under penalty of fines and solitary confinement in perpetuity until they can be forcibly vaccinated.”

The same can be said of vaccinations. For risk of contracting measles to be eradicated, everyone (or almost everyone) must accept the liberty intrusion of a vaccine. For the risk of contracting EEE to be eradicated, everyone (or almost everyone) must accept the liberty intrusion of aerially administered insecticide.

One, note he’s trying to “eradicate measles” not “protect people from measles”. Two, there are legit reasons to refuse a measles vaccine. Some people do react badly to them. There’s risks of heavy-metal poisoning and other concerns.

When a person opts out of vaccines, they put themselves at risk. We should allow people to make judgments about what level of individual risk is acceptable. But by opting out of vaccines, they’re putting others at risk.

Not if others chose to get vaccinated, right?

For them, individual liberty trumps concern for others.

Correct. This is a central principle of both Christianity (you can only save yourself) and American government (self-rule). Or if one prefers philosophy, it’s the difference between Western guilt-based morality and Eastern shame-based morality.

There are no reported deaths from measles in 2019. Even so, those who opt out of measles vaccines bear a significant portion of the blame for the suffering that resulted from this year’s outbreak. Had those who opted out instead acknowledged that to allow others to live the way they want to live we must accept some intrusion of our liberty and accepted the vaccine, the suffering from measles could have been prevented.

Crutchfield’s PhD is obviously not in debate, with arguments like that.

The same is true of any EEE cases that may arise. So far, three people in the area have died. The many people in Kalamazoo and Portage who opted out of the spray bear significant responsibility for any suffering, and likely death, that results from their opting out. The suffering from EEE can be prevented by acknowledging that protecting others sometimes requires accepting intrusions of one’s liberty. If helping to prevent collective risk is too much to ask of these people, then perhaps they should not be granted collective benefits of living in such a society.

Assuming that people should not be allowed to run any risk of poor health…

Assuming that individual liberty is always subject to government approvals…

Assuming that the only reason one person gets sick from a disease is because another person did not obey the proper authorities…

Assuming that private property is “private” only in the sense that somebody signed up to pay taxes on it…

And assuming that somebody gives a tootsie roll from a rat’s ass damn about Crutchfield complaining about his neighbor mowing the lawn at the ungodly hour of 8pm…

He’s totally right.

Crutchfield reportedly got death threats for this op-ed. I would never go that far. I think Crutchfield should be forcibly relocated, permanently, to Venezuela as a health measure… far away from America’s water supplies.

He will be much happier living with the consequences of his collectivist beliefs.

 

7 thoughts on “Ethicist Parker Crutchfield Intends to Poison Our Drinking Water With Morality

  1. Pingback: Ethicist Parker Crutchfield Intends to Poison Our Drinking Water With Morality — Gunner Q – New Human New Earth Communities

  2. For more than 150,000 Americans so far, this has meant losing everything there is to lose.

    No surprise than an “Ethics” professor, being a part of a pseudoscience “discipline,” is maffs-challenged. I know it’s pointless, but here it is again, just in case it finally sinks in:

    – 150,000 “COVID-19” deaths, presumably the total since March, 2020

    – Total U.S. population: +/- 330,000,000

    – 150,000 ÷ 330,000,000 = 0.0004545454

    Or, expressed in PFE, “four and a half thousandths of one percent.”

    The innumeracy epidemic borders on irreversible.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. … and obviously the worldview of someone who describes death as “losing everything there is to lose” couldn’t possibly have anything in common with the Christian worldview.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Pingback: 18 August 2020 - Dark Brightness

  5. Good point Dynamic.

    GQ, I want to know what Christians make death threats. I am very skeptical of the claim that I should take such threats seriously by folks who help Jezebel/the world. My thought is like yours, make him walk his talk.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s