Danielle Levy

–A Kentucky lawman’s statement prompts us to be careful about how our beliefs affect our ability to think–A NYT story this morning about Kentucky lawmaker Tom Riner quoted him in relation to his concern about the growing immorality of the society and the many whom he sees as drifting away from the role god played in the nation’s forefathers’ thinking: “If we don’t affirm the right to recognize divine providence, then that right will disappear.” While I can understand Mr. Riner’s sense of mission about strengthening ties between church and state, on its own it is a troubling statement, troubling because it appears to be lacking in a certain logic. If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, the tree nevertheless falls. If rights are not affirmed (particularly in Western society), they are nevertheless rights, not affirmed true, but there for the claiming. According to the NYT’s story Mr. Riner, for the last 26 years a state representative who has endeavored to bring church and state closer together, is someone to be respected. A Baptist preacher, he still has a ministry in a humble building heated by a space heater, conducts daily prayer meetings a 7:15am and helps and shelters the homeless. He is obviously someone who practices what he preaches, who believes in what he says and who tries to live by his values. And yet his statement highlights my concerns about people who are so steeped in their own orthodoxy, their ability to think is reined in by their belief system. The world’s main religions, and Christianity would top the list, seek to open the heart, to enlarge one’s understanding of the divine, of humanity, of love. The statement seem to evoke the opposite. Could divine providence really disappear whether or not we believed in it? By definition wouldn’t it have to be larger than we and our human constructs? Even making allowances that the quote was not properly explained it is still a cautionary tale for those of us whose thoughts are influenced by our spiritual beliefs.

An old experiment revealing humans’ ability to hurt each other has been replicated. Its warning is however being heeded by a West Point instructor–Back in 1963 a scientific experiment found that people were wiling to administer an electric shock and cause pain to another because someone in a white coat had told them to. Then it was used to help us understand the behavior of Nazi concentration camp guards and other war criminals who claimed they were following orders. For the first time in the intervening 45 years the experiment has been repeated, by Jerry Burger of Santa Clara University, and whether we like it or not the same results were obtained. More than 80 percent of the participants were willing to continue after administering the first electric shock and 65 percents went all the way up.
Part of the answer professor Burger believes is to make the results of the experiment known so that hopefully in being aware of these tendencies in ourselves and others we can guard against them. Indeed, in today’s context, Abu Ghraib comes to mind and it would be easy to argue that awareness of this finding could play a role in preventing the abuses it speaks of.
All this would make for a rather ordinary ending if not for an instructor at West Point who contacted professor Burger to tell him she was teaching her students about the experiment.
Learning from our mistakes, compensating for our weakness and preventing undue harm are not only wise, they lead to progress. And that seems to be what this instructor is involved in–leaving one with a good feeling about West Point, the military, the future, the role of science and that of anyone disseminating information–perhaps not a bad way to end the year.

The California Justices recently ruled that someone who helped another during an accident is liable for any harm. We should honor helpers, not make them liable–The California Supreme Court ruled a few days ago that if someone renders help to someone else and the person who has been helped is hurt, then the helper is liable. Alexandra Van Horn was in the front seat of a car that slammed into a pole. Lisa Torti, her friend who was a passenger in a car that was following, pulled her out after the accident. Van Horn is now a paraplegic and claims that it is the result of Torti having “pulled her like a rag doll.” Van Horn is now suing Torti and the California Supreme Court unanimously said Van Horn has a case and Torti is liable and can be sued. A trial will now have to determine if Van Horn is ultimately liable, if her actions did cause the paraplegia.
It’s difficult for someone who upholds the values I do, values where other-orientedness is paramount, to see how Alexandra Van Horn would sue not only her helper but her friend. But the issue here is beyond the personal relationship of these two people. Laws are meant to make the society more just, supposed to smooth out the rough edges that usually stem from people’s imperfections, flaws, even evil. And yet by validating Van Horn’s claim that Torti is liable the California Justices are creating an environment where helpers will have to think twice about rendering help. Laws ought to honor our better angels, and this ruling does the opposite. In the end it may be that Torti will be found innocent of the harm she is accused of having inflicted, but that’s not the point, the point is that acting in good faith to help another human being, she ought to be hailed, not punished.