Jeremy Clarkson

Johann Hari and now Brownie of HP have decided to take on the evil that is Jeremy Clarkson.

But both pieces are philosphically flawed. If, for example, it could be shown that Jeremy Clarkson's "snarling contempt" for speed-limits, cameras, pedestrians, people who drive diesel cars etc. made absolutely no impact at all on Britain's road death-toll, does this mean he should be allowed to live?

You see the problems you get into when you use utilitarian reasoning.

Surely in a civilised society aesthetic reasons alone should be enough to justify his execution?

Speaking of Johann Hari, in a piece about London he wrote this:

"In human history, a mixture of peoples this drastic and this cacophonous has never been tried before. London now is a teeming planetary test, where globalisation is made flesh and we really are the whole world in one city."

Surely in a civilised society aesthetic reasons alone should be enough...