Nuclear Power is a Moral Issue

It is often said, when discussing certain social issues, that we cannot legislate morals. Do you know the right response to that question?

In a word, poppycock. There is a better word, to be sure, but decorum will not allow its use here.

We can and we must legislate morals. Further, every decision ever made by every legislature, parliament, congress, diet, knesset, or whatever else you want to call it, was an action predicated on a moral decision. Making us drive on the right side of the street is based on the moral axiom that we require order. Forcing parents to send their kids to school, let alone feed and clothe them, is a moral choice that parents are obliged to do that for their progeny. Trying to force health care down our throats is a moral decision by the government that we need it, however erroneously felt. Whether or not to use nuclear energy, especially in light of the current tragedy playing out in Japan, is a moral question.

We can and we must legislate morals. We do it all the time. The only real questions are which ones, and under what circumstances.

The Japanese Tragedy

Japan currently faces a crisis worse than any it has seen since World War II, at least by the analysis of several news interpreters. The chance of a nuclear holocaust has been painted with a wide brush by many reporting agencies in the West.

But is there any realistic chance of that happening? Will we really see any complete meltdown? The Japanese government seems to think it has it all under control: "At the risk of raising further public concern, we cannot rule out the possibility of an explosion," Cabinet Minister Yukio Edano has said (addressing concerns about cooling at one of the facilities in question). "If there is an explosion, however, there would be no significant impact on human health."

It seems, then, that they are responding in proper reaction to the earthquake/tsunami crisis: preparing for the worst, but confident of the best. So why is the western press acting so much like victim of hysteria? A simple internet search this morning shows that CNN, Time, and several other news sources are overrun with concern about nuclear disaster. Why not just report the news as it happens, rather than sensationalize?

Because that doesn't drive viewership to them. That point alone tells us more about the state of the world than the horrific troubles in Japan, The Japanese address real threats; CNN stokes the coals of fear.

Who truly is concerned with the welfare of the average Joe?