ICE agents enforcing the law aren't the threat to American values. The threat is the accumulated mass of people who broke the law to enter, refuse to assimilate, exploit systems meant for citizens, and vote for politicians who promise more of the same.

"In much of twentieth-century moral philosophy, ethics was rebuilt ... [Once p]hilosophers ... abandoned the idea that things have natures or essences that determine what counts as their flourishing. ... morality [instead] had to be reconstructed in other ways: by appealing either to outcomes (consequentialism), or to rules (deontology), or to agreements (contractualism), or to sentiments (expressivism). The result was an ethics often detached from the way we ordinarily evaluate living things in the world.

"Neo-Aristotelian ethics [by contrast] is a deliberate return to an older starting point. ... [that] revives Aristotle’s central insight: that moral evaluation is a species of natural evaluation. To call a human being good is, in a deep sense, analogous to calling a wolf healthy, an oak tree flourishing, or a heart sound. Morality is not imposed from outside human life by rules or calculations; it arises from the kind of beings we are.

"This approach does not represent a nostalgic return to antiquity. It is a highly contemporary, analytically precise attempt to restore a metaphysical foundation that many modern ethical theories quietly lack. ...

"* Rights, dignity, and human nature

"Modern moral discourse frequently appeals to human rights and dignity, but often without explaining why humans possess them. Neo-Aristotelian ethics provides a grounding: humans have rights because of the kind of beings they are. Their rationality, sociability, and capacity for flourishing make certain forms of treatment incompatible with their nature.

"Thus rights are not abstract moral inventions, but discoveries about what respect for human life requires.

"* A return to realism

"Perhaps the most striking feature of neo-Aristotelian ethics is its realism. Moral judgements are not expressions of emotion or social convention. They are claims about how a certain kind of being ought to live in order to flourish.

"To say that cruelty is wrong is, on this view, as objective as saying that a plant deprived of sunlight is unhealthy. Both are evaluations grounded in the nature of the organism.

"This realism reconnects ethics with biology, psychology, and anthropology. It restores continuity between our understanding of life and our understanding of morality.

"* Conclusion: ethics restored to its natural home

"Neo-Aristotelian ethics offers a powerful alternative to modern moral theories that struggle to explain why morality has the authority it does. By returning to the idea that humans have a nature and that flourishing is measured against it, it makes moral evaluation intelligible in the same way that natural evaluation is.

"Ethics becomes neither rule-worship nor outcome-calculation, but a reflection on what it means to live well as the kind of creature we are.

"In doing so, neo-Aristotelian ethics does not merely revive Aristotle. It restores to moral philosophy a metaphysical foundation that allows morality to be seen, once again, as part of the natural order of things."

~ Tim Harding from his post on 'Neo-Aristotelian Ethics'

Hollywood, Inc. rallied behind Jimmy Kimmel when an affiliates’ revolt led to his temporary suspension last year.

Some outraged liberals canceled their ABC-related subscriptions after Kimmel intentionally misled his viewers over Charlie Kirk’s death. A-listers like Oscar Isaac threatened to boycott Disney films over the matter.

Kimmel all but declared himself a free speech martyr. Then, a week later, he was back on the air.

The episode showed how artists can rise up to smite free speech attacks, real or imagined. So where are those voices now as Jewish artist after Jewish artist faces cancellation?

To paraphrase Simon & Garfunkel, cue the sounds of silence.

These artists said nothing when Matisyahu endured cancellations and attacks for being pro-Israel. They did the same when Jewish comedian Michael Rapaport suffered similar cancellations.

This critic saw Rapaport perform in Denver late last year, an event where guards used metal detectors to screen patrons entering the club. Jewish author Brett Gelman of “Stranger Things” fame also has faced cancellations for his identity. The team behind “October 7” have had to up security measures to make sure the show goes on.

Add comedian Guy Hochman to that ignominious list.

A California theater invited Hochman to perform at the venue but insisted he agree to far-Left talking points regarding the Middle East. Namely, the Beverly Hills Fine Arts Theatre demanded Hochman call out Israel’s so-called genocide against Palestinians.

Hochman refused. The theater canceled the gig.

It wasn’t the first cancellation for Hochman, but this one got slightly more media attention. Said attention forced a key player behind the cancellation to backpedal and apologize.

Hochman, who has served in the Israeli army, dubbed the apology insincere and vowed to perform elsewhere.

The Hollywood Reporter, to its credit, interviewed Hochman about the matter and gave his case some much-needed attention. This exchange is telling:

Your critics say you dehumanize Palestinians and glorify violence.

I glorify my army. I glorify victory. That’s true. But the hypocrisy is unbelievable. In Iran, thousands are killed and nobody cares. But an Israeli comedian becomes the target. That tells you everything.

Hollywood has more pressing matters than free speech, apparently.

We’ve seen major stars savage ICE agents for trying to arrest illegal immigrants in Minneapolis and elsewhere. Have any of those artists spoken out against attempts to cancel Hochman … or Rapaport … or Gelman … or Matisyahu?

No.

To her credit, Amy Schumer rose up to defend Hochman against the latest injustice. She stands virtually alone among A-list performers on the matter.

‘The demand by a Beverly Hills theater that an Israeli comedian publicly condemn his own country was a complete mistake. They canceled his show, admitted they had no evidence, and only reversed course after public backlash. No artist should have to sign a coerced apology just to perform. Last time I checked, we are not run by a dictatorship, nor do we force performers to criticize their own country to be allowed on stage.’

So, where is Isaac and other high-profile artists who backed Kimmel’s so-called free speech battle? Have they spoken out against those threatening violence to silence Hochman’s voice, or that of other Jewish artists?

See, Garfunkel, Simon. Even more important?

Why won’t “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” or another late-night show dedicated to “free speech” invite Hochman on-air to show it stands with creative freedom? Their writers may not read every news platform, but there’s a good chance more than a few peruse The Hollywood Reporter for show prep.

And, if Kimmel, or some of his elite backers, actually stood up for free speech here, it might make their overall arguments more credible.

As is? Not so much.

The post Kimmel’s Free Speech Army Silent As Jewish Cancellations Spike appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.