ustxtxb_obs_1960_10_28_50_00008-00000_000.pdf

Philosophers, Ministers, Democrats in Letters to Stump Caution! Sirs: I wish to caution your readers against taking seriously the letter written by that wag Professor Daniel Kading of the University of Texas Department of Philosophy. At first reading one might think that the good doctor is serious but mistaken. Mistaken he is, for he upbraids W. Morris for satirizing the Catholic issue, when it must be apparent to everyone that W. Morris was actually satirizing, by analogy, the common approaches to the Catholic issue. Mistaken he is, for he upbraids R. Dugger for acting as though there is no Catholic issue, properly speakingan accusation that is difficult to support after R. Dugger subsequently devoted all of a super-size Observer to the Catholic issue, and Professor Kading would be the first to admit the difficulty of giving space to something that does not exist. Yes, mistaken he is. But serious he is not. Being among those privileged students who have sat at his feet and learned from him, and about him, I know he was not serious, and the clue to this is his use of the words “right” and “wrong” as they are commonly used in a moral sense. Use of “right” and “wrong” means that one believes in an ethical system, and this is one thing Professor Kading does not believe in, unless he has altered his beliefs radically in the past five years, and I doubt that he has. Five years ago I studied ethics under Dr. Kading. It was a delightful course. He is a good teacher. He kept to one side, as the best teachers do, and let us flog our way forward through the various ethical theories evolved since the days of the ancient Greeks. When we strayed too far afield, he would push us gently back onto the path. But for the most part he only puffed at his pipe and tolerated the dust we threw up under the guise of “class reports.” The bait that kept us going was the promise that he would expound “the Kading theory” at our last meeting. Came the last meeting, and so he did. Here it is: Ethics is the Science of Should. But there is a duality, for it is divided between the Individual Should and the Social Should. When we make decisions in moral matters whose implications involve only ourselves, we employ the criterion of the Individual Should. When we make decisions that will involve others, the criterion shifts. to the Social Should. So long as the Social Should and the Individual Should coincide, or at least do not conflict, there is no problem. But when they .must be reconciled, then if ever Ethics with a capital E must prove itself by supplying the solution to the dilemma. But there has never been a system of ethics in the past, and there is none on the horizon, that does the critical job of reconciliation of the two Shoulds, SO ACTUALLY THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ETHICS. There you have it, and I think I’ve set it down correctly, because it made quite an impression on mean extraordinarily agreeable impression, because this was the first and only time I had ever witnessed a professor effectively throwing his course out the window at the last class session. We need more professors with Dr. Kading’s honesty and his delicate humor. Bob Sherrill, 1020 W. 31st, Austin. Kading’s Response \(The Observer showed a proof of Sherrill’s letter to Professor Bob Sherrill, who as a contributor to the Austin Statesman has done much to lift that publication from its less-than-mediocrity, suggests that I subscribe to the “There is no such thing as ethics” theory of ethics. Now whatever my views of four or five years ago was Bob kidding?I am delighted to inform him that at present there is no more staunch believer than I in the “Of course there is such a thing as ethics” theory of ethics. Daniel Kading. Baptists Spokesmen? Sirs: I attended the Greater Houston Ministers’ Assn. meeting Sept. 12 at which presidential candidate John Kennedy participated in a question and answer session. . . . One question was asked Mr. Kennedy as to his feeling about the Democratic Party platform on right-to-work laws. All the other questions pertained to the separation of church and state and were asked predominantly by Baptist ministers. All of these men were within their rights and should have asked their questions. My wonder after the meeting is that no one of the men present asked about Mr. Kennedy’s concern for the unemployable and aged, about the new rise of hostility in the youth of America, about the growing fear of our neighbors, or about the rise of aiant cartels and the new birth e, of corporations without resident bosses. Why were we so unconcerned about the welfare of the people of the world who suffer needlessly for lack, of nutrition? Why were no questions asked as to what we could do to solve our surplus problems? Why were we not concerned enough about the growing fear and distrust of each other in our country, evidenced by the widespread distribution of “hate material,” to ask a potential president of the United States how we as citizens can with his leadership built trust and confidence in our neighbors? . . . Why didn’t I have questions to ask? My problem ,lies in what I once heard as “monofocality.” I have lived so long within the confines of the walls of my personal concerns that I cannot see beyond the narrow limits of what immediately effects and influences me. I am so bound by my role in the Methodist Church that I am not even aware of the problems of the masses of people of the world. What do I know about the problems of Africa? I don’t even take time to read thoroughly the newspaper reports, and besides, what can I do about it? Lumumba is black and I’m a white. Today I am a sick man. Are we as a Protestant church going to put all our eggs into the Southern Baptist church basket? Are we going to let them be our spokesman? Do we have any questions to ask? Shall we let them be the ones to decide our basis for selecting a president? If the Protestant churches of Houston are depending upon their ministers for leadership in determining the issues in an election campaign, then we will, by default, be following the Southern Baptists, for they led us in this meeting. Charles R. Kelly, pastor, the Rose Garden Methodist Church, Houston, Texas. Kudos Sirs: I was told of a female ex-UT student who remarked, “If all communications between Texas and the outside world were cut off, it would take six months to realize it even happened.” Your paper ameliorates this situation, and may it continue the work. Donald L. Stone, P.O. Box 60, Jacksonville, Tex. A Baptist Demurs Sirs: I am a Christian; Jesus saw to that! I am a Baptist; my parents saw to that! I am a Democrat; the Republicans saw to that! The Baptist churches, through the Standard and pulpit, are encouraging a Baptist bloc to destroy again the prospect of a Catholic running for president, a voting bloc that, in itself, manifests the very same principles that we have been taught to fear in the Catholic Church. How can we, as a church, believe so strongly in separation of church and state and then be put in such a hypocritical position? I can only Baptist leaders have little confidence in our check-and-balance are being used by Republicans and conservative Den1ocrats \(the same it is being proven more every day, many of the preachers are Republicans or Dixiecrats. The most violent anti-Catholic attacks come from their pulpits. They certainly have a right to their own opinion, but do they have the right to use their spiritual office to perpetuate Republicanism? Why do we fear this from Catholics but not from Baptists? Fortunately, the Constitution of the United States protects us from the threat of Catholicism \(Article believe the lies and fake oaths; why not our own Constitution? I am deeply concerned about our blundering Republican foreign policy, a recession that can be seen and felt in our community, and a Republican candidate whose ambitions and unscrupulous tactics can be compared only to those of the late Joseph McCarthy. I am deeply concerned about the Baptist position in this election, and though I am proud to be a Baptist, I am saddened by the ammunition that we are wittingly or unwittingly giving to others to be used against us. .. . Still believing that I can vote for the party of my choice, I will be proud to cast my vote for John F. Kennedy! Mrs. Gwenda Kidd, 515 Biggs Terrace, Arlington. The Pollsters Sirs: The pollsters are taking over the world. At least, they are regulating our view of it. If you don’t believe me, phone Austin radio station KNOW. Someone wlil answer “Wonderful KNOW,” and if you ask what happened to the Edward P. Morgan program, until recently heard at 7 p.m. each night, you will be told that the ABC radio network has dropped KNOW from its list of stations carrying it. Why? Because a poll was taken, and it showed that not enough persons in this area were listening to him. Now it’s one thing to be told that Dizzy Dean is a baseball announcer, or that Red Grange is a football announcer, or that Jimmy Power is a fight announcer, or that the’ Austin AmericanStatesman is a newspaper, or that Austin merits only one TV station. It’s a horse of another color to be told that I don’t want to listen to Edward P. Morgan. Is it possible that the same city that clamors to hear Paul Harvey twice a day, and rock and roll all day, does not contain enough listeners to warrant a radio station carrying one of the nation’s outstanding political analysts for 15 minutes once a day? The same city that houses J. Frank Dobie, C. E. Ayers, Martinez Lopez, Dean Leon Green and Charles Umlaut? The state capital, the county seat, the University of Texas and five other colleges and universities, the University of Texas Law School, The Texas Observer? This recreation and vacation center? This cultural center? This shopping center? I don’t believe it. Why didn’t they ask me? What a naive question. Every fool knows Big Business giveth and Big Business taketh away. Richard F. Kaufman, Suite 204, May Bldg., Austin. Depletion Allowance Sirs: After hearing Carr Collins’ passionate plea for the defeat of Kennedy because of his alleged desire to repeal the oil industry depletion allowance, I almost felt sorry for the “poor oil companies.” Then I got to thinking about this depletion allowance. The only defense for it has been that it compensates the oil men for the risks they take in exploring for new oil deposits. Is this a valid argument in favor of the allowance? From what I know about the state of the oil industry it seems that new reserves are just about the last thing the industry need right now. For quite a while now the oil industry has been split over the issue of foreign oil imports. The “majors” are developing reserves in foreign countries \(in the Midwhich are the chief source of competition for the producers of oil in this country. This importation of “foreign oil” is not inspired by foreign interests, but is almost entirely produced by some of the big American.. oil companies. What is the result? To conserve Texas oil reserves the Railroad Commission orders eight producing days per month from \\Texas oil fields, to prevent waste of natural resources due to the lack of a “market demand” for more production. What they are really doing is to shut off Texas production so as to prevent a price collapse due to an excess of supply over demand in the Texas market for crude. So in effect the Railroad Commission is favoring “foreign oil” through its pretense of conserving a natural resource. The consumer, the forgotten man, is still paying top prices for gasoline \(except where an occasional So what is the reason for encouraging the producing oil companies to discover more oil reserves? The market at home will not support production from the reserves already established. The oil companies, it seems, are spending the fruits of the depletion allowance overseas, to discover reserves in foreign countries where cheap labor enables them to produce and transport a barrel of oil to Port Arthur for less than the market price of Texas oil. There are many individuals receiving royalties who receive the depletion allowance, who never have and never will spend a nickel to discover new oil reserves. So it appears that maybe this depletion allowance is not actually a “sacred cow” after all, essential to the propriety of the Texas economy. It has been facetiously said that the main effect depletion allowance would be to force the Texas oil tycoons to do with only two Cadillacs instead of three. Lewis B. Walker, 131 Patrick St., Gonzales. Protest Vote Sirs: Sen. Kennedy has now told us very plainly that the Democratic party stands up for integration, big centralized federal government, big spending for welfare programs, and more controls and higher parity for farmers. He should knowhe is the Leader of the Party. Since I do not subscribe to any of his programs, I must conclude that I am not a Democrat any longer. Jack Kennedy and Chester Bowles’ platform has read me out of the party. I shall vote for Mr. Nixon as a protest against Kennedy’s arrogant disdain and contempt for the South and the Constitution. This is the only way we have of bringing the ultra-liberal Democrats to their senses and recovering our party, which they have stolen. A landslide for Nixon in the South will send the Socialist-Democrats to the South in a hurry to beg for our support in 1964. Grace L. Stafford, \(a temporaton, Long Beach, Cal. A True Picture Sirs: Enclosed you will find a check for $240 which is for the renewal of our subscription to