Posts
N.B. Off the cuff at 3AM, when I'm mad because I can't fall back to sleep and made even madder by some lies that I just read.
One is often told that one cannot impose one's morality on others. One may disapprove of abortion, contraception, feminism, divorce, homosexuality &c. One may believe these things to be immoral, and one may even be correct about it. But one cannot use coercive force, such as the force of law, to impose such a moral code upon others against their will.
People who argue this way are essentially arguing that we live in a libertarian society. The basic principles of such a society are that my life and property belong to me, and I can do anything I wish with them as long as it does not do harm to the life and property of others. Generally, when someone argues this way with you, the best response is to laugh in their face.
I wish I lived in a libertarian society. It would be an improvement.
Why do I say this? Because the idea that these United States are a libertarian society is a big lie.
Suppose I am a property owner seeking to rent apartments in a building I own. Now suppose some homosexuals came seeking to rent one of my apartments. Further suppose that I tell them I will not rent them an apartment because the acts they engage in are an abomination against God and the natural order, so would they please remove themselves from my property posthaste and never darken my door again. Tell me what would happen.
I will tell you what would happen. I would be sued for discrimination and I would almost certainly lose.
Suppose I am a business owner seeking to hire a new employee. Now suppose a married woman with feminist leanings applies for the position. Further suppose that I inquire if her husband works and, if so, why it is necessary for her to work as well. Suppose, after hearing her response - whether it be an answer or a refusal to answer, telling me the reasons are none of my business - I tell her that I will not hire her because, as a wife, her primary job should be in the home unless circumstances demand otherwise, and she has not convinced me that her current circumstances make such a demand on her. Tell me what would happen.
I will tell you what would happen. I would be sued for discrimination and I would certainly lose.
And that is why we do not live in a libertarian society, a society that is neutral on anything that is not an immediate threat to life or property rights. In a libertarian society I would have every right to respond in the manner described above. No one has a right to the use of my property until I enter into contract with them and give them such a right in exchange for some wealth or services. No one has a right to my wealth until I enter into contract with them and give them such a right in exchange for some goods or services.
That is the lie at the heart of our society: the idea that it is neutral on the question of what is good and simply enforces the basic rights of life and property while allowing each one of us to decide for ourselves. If that were true, then homosexuals, feminists, pro-aborts &c. could not use the force of the law to force us to acknowledge their lies. Pharmacies could not be forced to sell contraceptives, adoption agencies could not be forced to place children with homosexuals, doctors could not be forced to perform - or to refer patients to those who will perform - abortions &c.
In a truly libertarian society the worst the cultural and moral destroyers could do is denounce us as bigots and try to convince people not to associate with us or patronize our businesses. That might be bad, but at least they could not use the coercive power of the state to force us to cave to their demands, to ruin us financially, or to fund their degeneracy. That is why I wish I lived in a libertarian society. It might fall short of a truly Catholic society in any number of ways, but in such a society I could at least live freely as a Catholic without being forced to cooperate formally or materially with any number of grave evils.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Friday, November 07, 2008
A bit on marriage basics
What is essential to marriage? It is essential to marriage that the couple, by being the kind of couple it is, is ordered towards having children. That is the basic essence of marriage.
A couple that consists of a man and a woman, by being the kind of couple that it is, is ordered towards having children. This is true even is this particular couple, consisting of this man and this woman, is not capable of having children due to age or infertility. It is even true if this man and this woman use contraception to prevent themselves from having children. The universal, i.e. being this type of couple, is essential. The particular, i.e. being this particular couple, is accidental.
A couple that consists of two men or two women is not ordered towards having children. This is true by virtue of being the kind of couples they are. Neither two men nor two women are capable of making a baby. This is not due to being this particular couple, but to being this type of couple. It is not accidental, it is essential. As such, neither two men nor two women are capable of marriage.
I hope that clears it up for everyone who tries to argue for same sex "marriage" by arguing that we do not make heterosexual couples prove they will not use contraception before the government considers them married. Such arguments are fallacious. They are examples of the fallacy of the accident.
A couple that consists of a man and a woman, by being the kind of couple that it is, is ordered towards having children. This is true even is this particular couple, consisting of this man and this woman, is not capable of having children due to age or infertility. It is even true if this man and this woman use contraception to prevent themselves from having children. The universal, i.e. being this type of couple, is essential. The particular, i.e. being this particular couple, is accidental.
A couple that consists of two men or two women is not ordered towards having children. This is true by virtue of being the kind of couples they are. Neither two men nor two women are capable of making a baby. This is not due to being this particular couple, but to being this type of couple. It is not accidental, it is essential. As such, neither two men nor two women are capable of marriage.
I hope that clears it up for everyone who tries to argue for same sex "marriage" by arguing that we do not make heterosexual couples prove they will not use contraception before the government considers them married. Such arguments are fallacious. They are examples of the fallacy of the accident.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Gonna start a counter-revolution from my bed...
So, this post over at Mark Shea's blog got me thinking, "What do we conservatives really mean when we say, 'We need to return to those things which made America great: individual liberty and limited government'?"
Well, I don't know what everybody else means by them--though some seem to mean, "I can do what I want, and neither man nor law has the right to stop me!"--but I know what I mean by it. And what I mean by it has been shaped by my understanding of what our forefathers meant by it. (I would note that by "forefathers" I don't just mean the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the framers of the Constitution. I mean the everyday, ordinary sort of people. You know, the ones who actually made the Constitution law by their approval of it, the ones whose interpretation of the Constitution make for its real original intent?)
So, first let us discuss "individual liberty" and what conservatives should mean by it. I take my understanding of individual liberty from our forefathers, who seemed to take it from Micah 4:1-5. To paraphrase it all into one sentence, it is when every man walks in the name of the Lord, and sits under his vine, and his own fig tree, and there is nothing to make any afraid, or at least as close to this as is possible this side of the Parousia. "Liberty," then, is the product of a proper order--defended not just by law, but by religious conviction and virtue--that allows men to tend to their own families and such without the need for interference to make them do good or keep them from doing evil. There is no need for interference because virtuous men freely choose to live their lives this way.
Then what should conservatives mean by "limited government," you ask? It should mean that first you take care of your family, and your neighbors, and your congregation, and your coworkers, and your employees, and the other guys in the 4-H, and the other members of your fraternal order, and the guys on your softball team, and any of your countless other immediate and personal connections. You do it because you have real relationships with these people, and such relationships mean that you have duties to each other. If that isn't enough, then you turn to your town, or city, or municipality, or whatnot to pitched in. And if that still isn't enough, then you turn to your state. If that fails, then and only then do you turn to the federal government. And when it is necessary to turn to these more remote levels of government, you remember that the limitations on their power were set in place so they couldn't butt in where they weren't needed and make a mess of things. And, as such, you respect these limitations and, if modifying them is necessary, you do so prudently and through the proper legal process.
Now, the problem is that, with a few exceptions, few people use these terms this way anymore. And when we conservatives use them we are often misunderstood. So I would suggest perhaps modifying the terms a little. For example, I try never to speak simply of "liberty," but rather to speak of "ordered liberty," as did men such as Edmund Burke, George Washington and Russell Kirk, to name just a few. This calls immediately to mind the fact that true liberty cannot exist without the proper ordering of the soul and of society. And I try never to speak about "limited government" without discussing the principle of subsidiarity and federalism, which is the framework for the implementation of subsidiarity in the American political tradition.
Now, the election of 2008 makes it likely that conservatives are going to have very little influence in the corridors of power. So be it. Remember that this loss happened, at least in part, because the so-called "conservative" major party was far more right- to center-liberal than truly conservative. Make sure you let them know that. Speak out for virtue, for the priority of the local, the preeminence of the family and for all those things that true conservatives hold dear. And, more importantly, live these things in your life. If the culture is poison, then be the antidote. The counter-revolution doesn't start in the voting booth, or at the party committee meeting, or on the soapbox. It starts in our communities, in our homes, and in our hearts.
Well, I don't know what everybody else means by them--though some seem to mean, "I can do what I want, and neither man nor law has the right to stop me!"--but I know what I mean by it. And what I mean by it has been shaped by my understanding of what our forefathers meant by it. (I would note that by "forefathers" I don't just mean the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the framers of the Constitution. I mean the everyday, ordinary sort of people. You know, the ones who actually made the Constitution law by their approval of it, the ones whose interpretation of the Constitution make for its real original intent?)
So, first let us discuss "individual liberty" and what conservatives should mean by it. I take my understanding of individual liberty from our forefathers, who seemed to take it from Micah 4:1-5. To paraphrase it all into one sentence, it is when every man walks in the name of the Lord, and sits under his vine, and his own fig tree, and there is nothing to make any afraid, or at least as close to this as is possible this side of the Parousia. "Liberty," then, is the product of a proper order--defended not just by law, but by religious conviction and virtue--that allows men to tend to their own families and such without the need for interference to make them do good or keep them from doing evil. There is no need for interference because virtuous men freely choose to live their lives this way.
Then what should conservatives mean by "limited government," you ask? It should mean that first you take care of your family, and your neighbors, and your congregation, and your coworkers, and your employees, and the other guys in the 4-H, and the other members of your fraternal order, and the guys on your softball team, and any of your countless other immediate and personal connections. You do it because you have real relationships with these people, and such relationships mean that you have duties to each other. If that isn't enough, then you turn to your town, or city, or municipality, or whatnot to pitched in. And if that still isn't enough, then you turn to your state. If that fails, then and only then do you turn to the federal government. And when it is necessary to turn to these more remote levels of government, you remember that the limitations on their power were set in place so they couldn't butt in where they weren't needed and make a mess of things. And, as such, you respect these limitations and, if modifying them is necessary, you do so prudently and through the proper legal process.
Now, the problem is that, with a few exceptions, few people use these terms this way anymore. And when we conservatives use them we are often misunderstood. So I would suggest perhaps modifying the terms a little. For example, I try never to speak simply of "liberty," but rather to speak of "ordered liberty," as did men such as Edmund Burke, George Washington and Russell Kirk, to name just a few. This calls immediately to mind the fact that true liberty cannot exist without the proper ordering of the soul and of society. And I try never to speak about "limited government" without discussing the principle of subsidiarity and federalism, which is the framework for the implementation of subsidiarity in the American political tradition.
Now, the election of 2008 makes it likely that conservatives are going to have very little influence in the corridors of power. So be it. Remember that this loss happened, at least in part, because the so-called "conservative" major party was far more right- to center-liberal than truly conservative. Make sure you let them know that. Speak out for virtue, for the priority of the local, the preeminence of the family and for all those things that true conservatives hold dear. And, more importantly, live these things in your life. If the culture is poison, then be the antidote. The counter-revolution doesn't start in the voting booth, or at the party committee meeting, or on the soapbox. It starts in our communities, in our homes, and in our hearts.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Abortion and government
There are those who feel that it is acceptable to vote for a pro-abortion politician if their other positions appear to benefit the common good and help reduce the number of abortions. The problem with this position is that reducing the number of abortions, as important as this is, is not enough. If abortion could be completely eliminated in fact but was still legal, then the task is not finished. This is because the legality of abortion is itself an attack on the very foundations of the rule of law and the common good.
As Blessed Pope John XXIII taught in Mater et Magistra, "individual human beings are the foundation, the cause and the end of every social institution" (219). The legality of abortion is a direct assault on the foundation and purpose of the political community itself. The rule of law and the common good are meaningless concepts if innocent human beings are allowed to be legally murdered.
This teaching is reaffirmed and made even more explicit in Servant of God Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae: "Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good" (72). One cannot truly work towards the common good by ignoring the legality of abortion. The legality of abortion necessarily undermines the common good.
A candidate who runs on a pro-abortion platform essentially states that he will not work towards the purpose of government, i.e. the common good. He renders his administration incapable of benefiting the common good in any way except accidentally. This is because the very nature his administration's position attacks the common good by enabling the legal attack on the lives of the unborn.
Any attempt to put forward a pro-abortion politician as an acceptable candidate fails. A candidate who promises to attack the very foundation and purpose of government, the good of life on which all the rest of the common good depends, can never be acceptable.
As Blessed Pope John XXIII taught in Mater et Magistra, "individual human beings are the foundation, the cause and the end of every social institution" (219). The legality of abortion is a direct assault on the foundation and purpose of the political community itself. The rule of law and the common good are meaningless concepts if innocent human beings are allowed to be legally murdered.
This teaching is reaffirmed and made even more explicit in Servant of God Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae: "Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good" (72). One cannot truly work towards the common good by ignoring the legality of abortion. The legality of abortion necessarily undermines the common good.
A candidate who runs on a pro-abortion platform essentially states that he will not work towards the purpose of government, i.e. the common good. He renders his administration incapable of benefiting the common good in any way except accidentally. This is because the very nature his administration's position attacks the common good by enabling the legal attack on the lives of the unborn.
Any attempt to put forward a pro-abortion politician as an acceptable candidate fails. A candidate who promises to attack the very foundation and purpose of government, the good of life on which all the rest of the common good depends, can never be acceptable.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
What intentions can and cannot do, part I
Suppose that law makers passed a law that demanded all $100 bills be printed in blue ink. But further suppose that those law makers, in passing this law, really intended that all $100 bills be printed in red ink. Would it be a false interpretation of the law to rule that printing $100 bills in blue ink was in keeping with the law, while printing $100 bills in red ink was a violation of the law? Do the intentions of the law makes force "blue" to mean red?
Monday, October 20, 2008
A letter to Senator Biden
I just came across this interview with Delaware Senator and Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden. (Hat tip: Mark Shea)
The interview ended thus: "To sum it up, as a Catholic, I'm a John XXIII guy, I'm not a Pope John Paul guy."
What follows is my letter to Senator Biden.
Dear Senator Biden,
I just read your interview with reporter Nicole Gaudiano, an interview apparently conducted on April 27, 2007, on delawareonline.com. The interview was posted on October 19, 2008, and the information given with it said that the second half of the interview, the half concerning the question of abortion, was being printed for the first time.
I noticed that you ended the interview by saying that you were "a John XXIII guy," so I thought I'd share the following two paragraphs from Blessed Pope John XXIII's encyclical letter "Mater et Magistra," which was concerned with Christianity and social progress:
"193. We must solemnly proclaim that human life is transmitted by means of the family, and the family is based upon a marriage which is one and indissoluble and, with respect to Christians, raised to the dignity of a sacrament. The transmission of human life is the result of a personal and conscious act, and, as such, is subject to the all-holy, inviolable and immutable laws of God, which no man may ignore or disobey. He is not therefore permitted to use certain ways and means which are allowable in the propagation of plant and animal life.
"194. Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact. From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God. Those who violate His laws not only offend the divine majesty and degrade themselves and humanity, they also sap the vitality of the political community of which they are members."
I hope your deep respect for Blessed Pope John XXIII leads you to listen to his words and draw the obvious conclusions, conclusions reinforced by Servant of God Pope John Paul II in his encyclical letter "Evangelium Vitae."
In Christ,
Brendon
Edited to add: In the hopes of getting Senator Biden to actually read my letter, I have expanded upon it and mailed a copy to each of his three offices. After telling the Senator a bit about my own experience growing up as a Roman Catholic in Pennsylvania, I continued with the following:
I am telling you all this [about my background] so as to give you a better idea of the perspective behind this letter. I also hope to demonstrate that, however great the differences in our backgrounds, we also share at least a few commonalities.
I am writing to you because I just read your interview with reporter Nicole Gaudiano on delawareonline.com. This interview was apparently conducted on April 27, 2007. The interview was posted on October 19, 2008, and the information given with it said that the second half of the interview, the half concerning the question of abortion, was being printed for the first time.
I noticed that you ended the interview by saying that you were "a John XXIII guy." There is, of course, nothing necessarily wrong with this. People have different temperaments and different styles, and so it makes sense that we will all have different appreciations of certain Popes based upon how they present themselves. This is no more wrong than having a preference to devotion to St. Dominic over St. Francis of Assisi or vice versa.
The interview, however, did not leave me thinking that this was all you meant by your final comment. I fear that I received the impression that you were trying to play Blessed Pope John XXIII and Servant of God Pope John Paul II against each other so as to excuse your voting record on the question of abortion. This strikes me as an erroneous use of the thought of Blessed Pope John XXIII. To demonstrate why I believe this to be so, I thought that I would share the following two paragraphs from Blessed Pope John XXIII's encyclical letter Mater et Magistra, which was concerned with Christianity and social progress:
There is a good chance that you will soon be the Vice President-elect of the United States of America. This would make you the second most influential political leader in our country. Such a position of authority is a heavy responsibility. Please remember the words of our Lord: "And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more."
I will also be sending a copy of this letter to your offices in Wilmington and Milford in the hopes that this will increase the chances of you reading it personally. Thank you for your time. Know that I will endeavor to keep you in my prayers.
In Christ,
Brendon
The interview ended thus: "To sum it up, as a Catholic, I'm a John XXIII guy, I'm not a Pope John Paul guy."
What follows is my letter to Senator Biden.
Dear Senator Biden,
I just read your interview with reporter Nicole Gaudiano, an interview apparently conducted on April 27, 2007, on delawareonline.com. The interview was posted on October 19, 2008, and the information given with it said that the second half of the interview, the half concerning the question of abortion, was being printed for the first time.
I noticed that you ended the interview by saying that you were "a John XXIII guy," so I thought I'd share the following two paragraphs from Blessed Pope John XXIII's encyclical letter "Mater et Magistra," which was concerned with Christianity and social progress:
"193. We must solemnly proclaim that human life is transmitted by means of the family, and the family is based upon a marriage which is one and indissoluble and, with respect to Christians, raised to the dignity of a sacrament. The transmission of human life is the result of a personal and conscious act, and, as such, is subject to the all-holy, inviolable and immutable laws of God, which no man may ignore or disobey. He is not therefore permitted to use certain ways and means which are allowable in the propagation of plant and animal life.
"194. Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact. From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God. Those who violate His laws not only offend the divine majesty and degrade themselves and humanity, they also sap the vitality of the political community of which they are members."
I hope your deep respect for Blessed Pope John XXIII leads you to listen to his words and draw the obvious conclusions, conclusions reinforced by Servant of God Pope John Paul II in his encyclical letter "Evangelium Vitae."
In Christ,
Brendon
Edited to add: In the hopes of getting Senator Biden to actually read my letter, I have expanded upon it and mailed a copy to each of his three offices. After telling the Senator a bit about my own experience growing up as a Roman Catholic in Pennsylvania, I continued with the following:
I am telling you all this [about my background] so as to give you a better idea of the perspective behind this letter. I also hope to demonstrate that, however great the differences in our backgrounds, we also share at least a few commonalities.
I am writing to you because I just read your interview with reporter Nicole Gaudiano on delawareonline.com. This interview was apparently conducted on April 27, 2007. The interview was posted on October 19, 2008, and the information given with it said that the second half of the interview, the half concerning the question of abortion, was being printed for the first time.
I noticed that you ended the interview by saying that you were "a John XXIII guy." There is, of course, nothing necessarily wrong with this. People have different temperaments and different styles, and so it makes sense that we will all have different appreciations of certain Popes based upon how they present themselves. This is no more wrong than having a preference to devotion to St. Dominic over St. Francis of Assisi or vice versa.
The interview, however, did not leave me thinking that this was all you meant by your final comment. I fear that I received the impression that you were trying to play Blessed Pope John XXIII and Servant of God Pope John Paul II against each other so as to excuse your voting record on the question of abortion. This strikes me as an erroneous use of the thought of Blessed Pope John XXIII. To demonstrate why I believe this to be so, I thought that I would share the following two paragraphs from Blessed Pope John XXIII's encyclical letter Mater et Magistra, which was concerned with Christianity and social progress:
193. We must solemnly proclaim that human life is transmitted by means of the family, and the family is based upon a marriage which is one and indissoluble and, with respect to Christians, raised to the dignity of a sacrament. The transmission of human life is the result of a personal and conscious act, and, as such, is subject to the all-holy, inviolable and immutable laws of God, which no man may ignore or disobey. He is not therefore permitted to use certain ways and means which are allowable in the propagation of plant and animal life.
194. Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact. From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God. Those who violate His laws not only offend the divine majesty and degrade themselves and humanity, they also sap the vitality of the political community of which they are members.I hope your deep respect for Blessed Pope John XXIII leads you to listen to his words and draw the obvious conclusions, the same conclusions reinforced by Servant of God Pope John Paul II in his encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae.
There is a good chance that you will soon be the Vice President-elect of the United States of America. This would make you the second most influential political leader in our country. Such a position of authority is a heavy responsibility. Please remember the words of our Lord: "And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more."
I will also be sending a copy of this letter to your offices in Wilmington and Milford in the hopes that this will increase the chances of you reading it personally. Thank you for your time. Know that I will endeavor to keep you in my prayers.
In Christ,
Brendon
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Faith is not and cannot be private
Who has not heard a Catholic politician say something along these lines: "I am a Catholic, but I cannot let my faith unduly influence my actions as a public official because my faith is a private matter."
This is a pernicious falsehood. It is the duty of all Catholics to publicly live their faith and it is especially the duty of the laity to live their faith in the public sphere.
This is first and foremost made clear in Sacred Scripture. Our Lord makes this explicit to His followers: "You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house. So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 5: 14-6; Cf. Mark 4: 21; Luke 11: 33-6). Similarly, St. James tell us in his epistle that "faith without works is dead" (James 2: 20, 26).
One can find this clear teaching reiterated by the Church. I do not know what the so-called "spirit" of Vatican II says about it, but the texts of Vatican II explicitly state that it is the vocation of the laity to carry their faith into the world through their actions:
This is a pernicious falsehood. It is the duty of all Catholics to publicly live their faith and it is especially the duty of the laity to live their faith in the public sphere.
This is first and foremost made clear in Sacred Scripture. Our Lord makes this explicit to His followers: "You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house. So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 5: 14-6; Cf. Mark 4: 21; Luke 11: 33-6). Similarly, St. James tell us in his epistle that "faith without works is dead" (James 2: 20, 26).
One can find this clear teaching reiterated by the Church. I do not know what the so-called "spirit" of Vatican II says about it, but the texts of Vatican II explicitly state that it is the vocation of the laity to carry their faith into the world through their actions:
Each individual layman must stand before the world as a witness to the resurrection and life of the Lord Jesus and a symbol of the living God. All the laity as a community and each one according to his ability must nourish the world with spiritual fruits. They must diffuse in the world that spirit which animates the poor, the meek, the peace makers-whom the Lord in the Gospel proclaimed as blessed. In a word, "Christians must be to the world what the soul is to the body" (Lumen gentium, 38).Thus it seems clear that no Catholic can be faithful to the teachings of the Church while holding that his faith is merely a private matter. The Church explicitly teaches otherwise. Faith cannot be something we simply hold privately. Rather, it should be the source of our actions, giving birth to hope and charity, and motivating us to conform all the things and actions in our lives, whether they be public or private, to Christ.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Just in case
Just in case its removed for being "offensive," I thought I would share my comment (EDIT: posted on the Washington Post's site) on this opinion piece :
"All Beliefs Welcome, Unless They are Forced on Others"
I hope the good Professor Doninger will join my continuing campaign to overturn any laws that make it illegal for me to kill those who annoy me. After all, what right does anyone have to force a belief about the immorality of "murder" on me? And besides, "Though shalt not kill," is one of those "Ten Commandments." Thus, not allowing me to kill those who annoy me is equivalent to imposing religion upon me.
Such laws also violate my constitutional rights. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States of America states, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that I have, "the right to define [my] own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." I do not believe that those who annoy me are human. Nor do they, it follows, possess human life. To keep me from killing them is to impose upon me a view of "the mystery of human life" that is contrary to my own, which is a grievous violation of my constitutional liberties.
I hope all who read this article are convinced by the sound argument presented and join me in my campaign for my moral and Constitutional right to kill all those who annoy me.
Have I "reducio"-ed enough to make the "absurdum" obvious?
"All Beliefs Welcome, Unless They are Forced on Others"
I hope the good Professor Doninger will join my continuing campaign to overturn any laws that make it illegal for me to kill those who annoy me. After all, what right does anyone have to force a belief about the immorality of "murder" on me? And besides, "Though shalt not kill," is one of those "Ten Commandments." Thus, not allowing me to kill those who annoy me is equivalent to imposing religion upon me.
Such laws also violate my constitutional rights. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States of America states, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that I have, "the right to define [my] own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." I do not believe that those who annoy me are human. Nor do they, it follows, possess human life. To keep me from killing them is to impose upon me a view of "the mystery of human life" that is contrary to my own, which is a grievous violation of my constitutional liberties.
I hope all who read this article are convinced by the sound argument presented and join me in my campaign for my moral and Constitutional right to kill all those who annoy me.
Have I "reducio"-ed enough to make the "absurdum" obvious?
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Velocity matters
In a discussion following one of his posts over at the Chronicles website, Scott Richert notes that politicians, like particles in physics, do not simply have positions. They also have directional velocity. We ignore the latter at our peril.
Continually voting for the politicians who will move us leftward more slowly does not have the consequence of stopping our move leftward. But it does have the consequence of causing us to become more inclined to accept leftward movements as long as they don't happen at too great a velocity. This may leave us with better short-term consequences, but its long-term result is the voluntary corruption of our own moral sense.
That's the whole point of the Hegelian mambo. So forgive me if I sit this dance out.
Continually voting for the politicians who will move us leftward more slowly does not have the consequence of stopping our move leftward. But it does have the consequence of causing us to become more inclined to accept leftward movements as long as they don't happen at too great a velocity. This may leave us with better short-term consequences, but its long-term result is the voluntary corruption of our own moral sense.
That's the whole point of the Hegelian mambo. So forgive me if I sit this dance out.
The Hegelian mambo
(Thanks to Zippy of Zippy Catholic and What’s Wrong with the World for first directing me to this idea.)
Some preliminaries:
1. "Liberal" is hereby being used to mean those who accept as true liberal autonomy theory. "Liberal autonomy theory" is, in turn, generally defined as follows: a political, ethical and anthropological position that holds the individual will to be the foundational attribute of the human person, freedom of choice to be the greatest good, and views the individual as completely autonomous, all interpersonal relations being a matter of personal choice. By this definition, most American "conservatives" are simply right-liberals.
2. An unprincipled exception is a non-liberal value or assertion that is not identified as, or realized to be, non-liberal.
The definition of the Hegelian mambo can be found in, or at least figured out from, the comments here. I am, for the most part, going to first use the steps to the dance laid out by Matt in the second to last comment, then I am going to define what I understand the steps to mean.
The steps to the Hegelian mambo, our nations hottest new political dance:
1. Thesis step to the left, Thesis step to the left,
2. Grab Antithesis on your right and step to the left,
3. Twirl around
4. Synthesize
5. cha cha cha
6. And step to the Left...
The Hegelian mambo, broken down and explained:
1. Move further in a leftward and liberal direction.
2. Make the few unprincipled exceptions you are going to make, even while still moving in a more leftward and liberal direction on other issues.
3. Display your unprincipled exceptions for all to see, fooling conservatives to accept you as a conservative yourself, especially those conservative whose positions are a matter of tradition, piety and religious faith, but who themselves do not have a strong intellectual defense against liberalism.
4. Eventually your positions are accepted as the new "conservatism" by most people.
5. Hold to these positions for a time, either because you are not yet bothered by some of your illiberal positions or because you need to shore up support.
6. Start the dance all over again.
Some preliminaries:
1. "Liberal" is hereby being used to mean those who accept as true liberal autonomy theory. "Liberal autonomy theory" is, in turn, generally defined as follows: a political, ethical and anthropological position that holds the individual will to be the foundational attribute of the human person, freedom of choice to be the greatest good, and views the individual as completely autonomous, all interpersonal relations being a matter of personal choice. By this definition, most American "conservatives" are simply right-liberals.
2. An unprincipled exception is a non-liberal value or assertion that is not identified as, or realized to be, non-liberal.
The definition of the Hegelian mambo can be found in, or at least figured out from, the comments here. I am, for the most part, going to first use the steps to the dance laid out by Matt in the second to last comment, then I am going to define what I understand the steps to mean.
The steps to the Hegelian mambo, our nations hottest new political dance:
1. Thesis step to the left, Thesis step to the left,
2. Grab Antithesis on your right and step to the left,
3. Twirl around
4. Synthesize
5. cha cha cha
6. And step to the Left...
The Hegelian mambo, broken down and explained:
1. Move further in a leftward and liberal direction.
2. Make the few unprincipled exceptions you are going to make, even while still moving in a more leftward and liberal direction on other issues.
3. Display your unprincipled exceptions for all to see, fooling conservatives to accept you as a conservative yourself, especially those conservative whose positions are a matter of tradition, piety and religious faith, but who themselves do not have a strong intellectual defense against liberalism.
4. Eventually your positions are accepted as the new "conservatism" by most people.
5. Hold to these positions for a time, either because you are not yet bothered by some of your illiberal positions or because you need to shore up support.
6. Start the dance all over again.
On rights
Take a man. Remove him from all historic and social context. Take him as a lone, autonomous individual. What rights does he have?
A liberal--either a left-liberal or one of those right-liberals we erroneously call "conservatives"--would probably be able to produce a short, or even a long, list. Certainly the left-liberal list and the right-liberal list would differ somewhat in content and emphasis, but either kind of liberal would be able to produce a list. Both lists would be wrong.
The correct answer is "none." A man possesses no rights when he is removed from all historic and social context. If such a thing as a lone, autonomous individual existed, he would exist without any rights whatsoever.
It is a good thing, then, that there is no such thing as a lone, autonomous individual. Man, as a bodily and incarnate being, always exists within a historic and social context. And it is only within this historic and social context that the concept of "rights" has any meaning at all.
A "right" is not a quality. Rights exist as complements to duties. Both only exist as relations within the context of relationships. A relation is a reference to another. To say one has a right means that one is owed something by another. One cannot speak of this right without referencing, at least implicitly, said other. To say one has a duty means that one owes something to another. One cannot speak of this duty without referencing, at least implicitly, said other.
This, then, is why it is absurd to speak of rights as existing when removed from historic and social context. A man exists within a particular time and place. This particular time and place governs the context of a man's relationships. And it is only within said relationships that the idea of rights has any actual content.
A liberal--either a left-liberal or one of those right-liberals we erroneously call "conservatives"--would probably be able to produce a short, or even a long, list. Certainly the left-liberal list and the right-liberal list would differ somewhat in content and emphasis, but either kind of liberal would be able to produce a list. Both lists would be wrong.
The correct answer is "none." A man possesses no rights when he is removed from all historic and social context. If such a thing as a lone, autonomous individual existed, he would exist without any rights whatsoever.
It is a good thing, then, that there is no such thing as a lone, autonomous individual. Man, as a bodily and incarnate being, always exists within a historic and social context. And it is only within this historic and social context that the concept of "rights" has any meaning at all.
A "right" is not a quality. Rights exist as complements to duties. Both only exist as relations within the context of relationships. A relation is a reference to another. To say one has a right means that one is owed something by another. One cannot speak of this right without referencing, at least implicitly, said other. To say one has a duty means that one owes something to another. One cannot speak of this duty without referencing, at least implicitly, said other.
This, then, is why it is absurd to speak of rights as existing when removed from historic and social context. A man exists within a particular time and place. This particular time and place governs the context of a man's relationships. And it is only within said relationships that the idea of rights has any actual content.
Monday, September 08, 2008
An aside
I think I am going to print up a bumper sticker that reads, "Don't blame me, I support a benevolent Hapsburg monarchy."
Other ideas:
"Don't blame me, I voted for Jefferson Davis."
"Don't blame me, I supported the Anti-Federalists."
"Don't blame me, I supported the Cavaliers."
"Don't blame me, I supported the Vendée."
"Don't blame me, I can comprehend Amendment X."
Other ideas:
"Don't blame me, I voted for Jefferson Davis."
"Don't blame me, I supported the Anti-Federalists."
"Don't blame me, I supported the Cavaliers."
"Don't blame me, I supported the Vendée."
"Don't blame me, I can comprehend Amendment X."
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Q&A I
Q: Why do you oppose abortion?
A: I can think of neither a legal nor a moral reason to allow the direct and intentional taking of an innocent human life.
Q: Do you oppose abortion even in cases of rape?
A: Yes. I oppose the direct and intentional taking of an innocent human life.
Q: Do you oppose abortion even in cases of incest?
A: Yes. I oppose the direct and intentional taking of an innocent human life.
Q: Do you oppose abortion even in cases where the life of the mother is or may be in danger?
A: Yes. I oppose the direct and intentional taking of an innocent human life.
Q: What would you say to those who argue that a fetus is not innocent?
A: Guilt and culpability require freedom of choice. No child has any choice whether or not to be conceived. Thus it is fallacious to impute any kind of moral culpability to an unborn child.
Q: What would you say to those who argue that the life of a fetus is not a human life?
A: What else would one call a unique and individual living being that possesses a complete human genetic code? Can anyone give me a name that is more accurate rather than an attempt at obfuscation?
Q: What would you say to those who argue that a fetus is not a unique and individual living being that possesses a complete human genetic code, and thus that a fetus is not a human life?
A: Perhaps they should purchase a simple introduction to embryology. (See here and here for some pertinent quotes from assorted text books.)
A: I can think of neither a legal nor a moral reason to allow the direct and intentional taking of an innocent human life.
Q: Do you oppose abortion even in cases of rape?
A: Yes. I oppose the direct and intentional taking of an innocent human life.
Q: Do you oppose abortion even in cases of incest?
A: Yes. I oppose the direct and intentional taking of an innocent human life.
Q: Do you oppose abortion even in cases where the life of the mother is or may be in danger?
A: Yes. I oppose the direct and intentional taking of an innocent human life.
Q: What would you say to those who argue that a fetus is not innocent?
A: Guilt and culpability require freedom of choice. No child has any choice whether or not to be conceived. Thus it is fallacious to impute any kind of moral culpability to an unborn child.
Q: What would you say to those who argue that the life of a fetus is not a human life?
A: What else would one call a unique and individual living being that possesses a complete human genetic code? Can anyone give me a name that is more accurate rather than an attempt at obfuscation?
Q: What would you say to those who argue that a fetus is not a unique and individual living being that possesses a complete human genetic code, and thus that a fetus is not a human life?
A: Perhaps they should purchase a simple introduction to embryology. (See here and here for some pertinent quotes from assorted text books.)
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
You could say that, but you'd be wrong
As I've said elsewhere, justice involves treating similar things similarly and different things differently. I believe that I've also mentioned the fact that certain particulars--especially certain relations--are not simply circumstantial to acts, but play a part in defining the object of an action. And I am quite certain that I have spelled what I believe to be the connection between justice, relationships, rights and duties. The point being, of course, that the particulars of a situation can play a large part in whether or not an action is just or not, and even whether an act is objectively evil or not.
It is illegitimate to abstract actions away from important particular details so as to attempt to judge an action moral or immoral. One cannot abstract the sexual intercourse between a man and a woman out to nothing more than the physical action in an attempt to argue that fornication is moral since it is no different than the conjugal love between a husband and wife. It is illegitimate to abstract out the act of shooting a gun at another man to simply pointing and pulling the trigger to argue that there is no difference between murder and legitimate self-defense. In both these situation the particular relationship between the agent and the subject is fundamental to the object of the action and the attempt to ignore these particulars by illegitimate abstraction is pure sophistry.
In the same way, it is illegitimate to argue that it is hypocritical to be opposed to the secession of Kosovo from Serbia but to be neutral-leaning-towards-favorable for South Ossatia to secede from Georgia and join the Russian federation. The particular historic and existential details are enormously different in the two cases, and this effects what is the just decision in each. To whit:
Kosovo is an historic part of Serbia. There is no historic basis whatsoever for an independent state of Kosovo. An independent Kosovo does nothing but create a state run by Islamic mafioso in the middle of the one of Christendom's first bulwarks against assault by Jihad.
South Ossetia is not an historic part of Georgia. Indeed, its history supports its separation from Georgia and its close allegiance with Russia. The reason that South Ossetia is a part of Georgia boils down to "because Stalin said so."
These completely different historical relationships make a difference in judging the justice of the two situations. You could say it's hypocrisy to have different views on the independence of Kosovo and South Ossetia, but you'd be wrong.
It is illegitimate to abstract actions away from important particular details so as to attempt to judge an action moral or immoral. One cannot abstract the sexual intercourse between a man and a woman out to nothing more than the physical action in an attempt to argue that fornication is moral since it is no different than the conjugal love between a husband and wife. It is illegitimate to abstract out the act of shooting a gun at another man to simply pointing and pulling the trigger to argue that there is no difference between murder and legitimate self-defense. In both these situation the particular relationship between the agent and the subject is fundamental to the object of the action and the attempt to ignore these particulars by illegitimate abstraction is pure sophistry.
In the same way, it is illegitimate to argue that it is hypocritical to be opposed to the secession of Kosovo from Serbia but to be neutral-leaning-towards-favorable for South Ossatia to secede from Georgia and join the Russian federation. The particular historic and existential details are enormously different in the two cases, and this effects what is the just decision in each. To whit:
Kosovo is an historic part of Serbia. There is no historic basis whatsoever for an independent state of Kosovo. An independent Kosovo does nothing but create a state run by Islamic mafioso in the middle of the one of Christendom's first bulwarks against assault by Jihad.
South Ossetia is not an historic part of Georgia. Indeed, its history supports its separation from Georgia and its close allegiance with Russia. The reason that South Ossetia is a part of Georgia boils down to "because Stalin said so."
These completely different historical relationships make a difference in judging the justice of the two situations. You could say it's hypocrisy to have different views on the independence of Kosovo and South Ossetia, but you'd be wrong.
Monday, July 21, 2008
"You can't legislate morality!"
What, then, if anything, can one legislate, pray tell?
Look, lets be clear here. The law both prescribes and proscribes human action. All human action is governed by morality. Thus, any legislature, by definition, is the legislation of morality in some way or another. The real question is whether or not it is the legislation of correct morality.
So let us hear no more of this "You can't legislate morality!" twaddle.
Look, lets be clear here. The law both prescribes and proscribes human action. All human action is governed by morality. Thus, any legislature, by definition, is the legislation of morality in some way or another. The real question is whether or not it is the legislation of correct morality.
So let us hear no more of this "You can't legislate morality!" twaddle.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Probably the best description of my views on political philosophy as applied to the United States to date
(N.B This was originally a comment to a post over at Mark Shea's. I've done some minor editing.)
Patriotism has little to do with form of government and much to do with land, people, culture and tradition. But insofar as the historic culture and tradition of a people includes and is tied up in certain realities of government, these realities are owed our allegiance more so than others.
The Constitution is no more the cause of the American people than the monarchy was the cause of the French people. But the Constitution is a product of the American people just as the monarchy was the product of the French people. That's why the Vendée were better Frenchmen than any Jacobin.
I think it is more true to say that Patriotism has nothing to do with abstract principles separated from the historic and traditional life of a people. That is why I think that the preamble of the Declaration of Independence is at best a rhetorical tactic to gain support in Lockean Europe and at worst pseudo-philosophical bunk that demonstrates Jefferson's fascination with Enlightenment thought getting the better of his far nobler classical and agrarian republicanism.
The most important part of the Declaration is the section detailing the king's violation of the traditional and historical rights held by the colonists. These rights stem both from the American political tradition of deliberate consent of the governed, which had existed since the Mayflower Compact, and the traditional common law rights of Englishmen, held by the colonists as English citizens and subjects of the crown.
In my view it is erroneous to say that the United States is some grand experiment meant to be the laboratory of political philosophers. But it is just as much an error to say that the patriotism of American citizens can be completely divorced from our form of government. Both views ignore the organic tradition, as historically lived by Americans, which inform the Constitution of the United States.
P.S. One commenter says that he has the same problem celebrating Independence Day as he would have celebrating Bastille Day if he lived in France. This strikes me as an erroneous conflation of the American War for Independence and the French Revolution. Such a conflation is common, but that does not make it correct.
The French Revolution was the violent overthrow of historic and traditional French institutions in the name of abstract principles. The American War of Independence was the severing of political ties between England and the thirteen colonies due to the violation of traditional and historic rights that organically developed over time. One fought against tradition, history and organic society, the other in favor of it.
Patriotism has little to do with form of government and much to do with land, people, culture and tradition. But insofar as the historic culture and tradition of a people includes and is tied up in certain realities of government, these realities are owed our allegiance more so than others.
The Constitution is no more the cause of the American people than the monarchy was the cause of the French people. But the Constitution is a product of the American people just as the monarchy was the product of the French people. That's why the Vendée were better Frenchmen than any Jacobin.
I think it is more true to say that Patriotism has nothing to do with abstract principles separated from the historic and traditional life of a people. That is why I think that the preamble of the Declaration of Independence is at best a rhetorical tactic to gain support in Lockean Europe and at worst pseudo-philosophical bunk that demonstrates Jefferson's fascination with Enlightenment thought getting the better of his far nobler classical and agrarian republicanism.
The most important part of the Declaration is the section detailing the king's violation of the traditional and historical rights held by the colonists. These rights stem both from the American political tradition of deliberate consent of the governed, which had existed since the Mayflower Compact, and the traditional common law rights of Englishmen, held by the colonists as English citizens and subjects of the crown.
In my view it is erroneous to say that the United States is some grand experiment meant to be the laboratory of political philosophers. But it is just as much an error to say that the patriotism of American citizens can be completely divorced from our form of government. Both views ignore the organic tradition, as historically lived by Americans, which inform the Constitution of the United States.
P.S. One commenter says that he has the same problem celebrating Independence Day as he would have celebrating Bastille Day if he lived in France. This strikes me as an erroneous conflation of the American War for Independence and the French Revolution. Such a conflation is common, but that does not make it correct.
The French Revolution was the violent overthrow of historic and traditional French institutions in the name of abstract principles. The American War of Independence was the severing of political ties between England and the thirteen colonies due to the violation of traditional and historic rights that organically developed over time. One fought against tradition, history and organic society, the other in favor of it.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Rights, duties, relationships and justice
I hate talk of "rights" because it is so often void of content. Rights do not exist except as the result of duties, both of which exits only within the context of relationships, which are in turn governed by justice. If you do not speak about "rights" in connection with these other three things, then you are not speaking about anything at all.
A right is, by definition, something which a person is due from some other person, people or entity. If you are due something from someone, then they--again, by definition--have a duty to render to you that which you are due. So rights do not exist except where duties exist and vice versa. One cannot exist without the other.
And neither can exist except within a relationship, since their very existence demands that a relationship exists. A relationship is, at its simplest, a reference to another. If I have a duty, it references the one I have the duty to by definition. The same is true with a right. The nature of the relationship that exists depends upon how the relationship came into existence and who the relationship is between. The relationship's nature governs what rights and duties are present within it.
Justice is the virtue of rendering to each what they are due. Someone is due something because he has a right to it and another has a duty to provide it for him. These rights and duties exist within the relationship and depend upon its nature. Thus justice rules what rights and duties exist within what relationships.
As such, rights are not the starting point in a discussion of ethics and politics. The starting point is what type of relationship exists and what justice says about it. For it is only from these that rights and duties can be derived.
A right is, by definition, something which a person is due from some other person, people or entity. If you are due something from someone, then they--again, by definition--have a duty to render to you that which you are due. So rights do not exist except where duties exist and vice versa. One cannot exist without the other.
And neither can exist except within a relationship, since their very existence demands that a relationship exists. A relationship is, at its simplest, a reference to another. If I have a duty, it references the one I have the duty to by definition. The same is true with a right. The nature of the relationship that exists depends upon how the relationship came into existence and who the relationship is between. The relationship's nature governs what rights and duties are present within it.
Justice is the virtue of rendering to each what they are due. Someone is due something because he has a right to it and another has a duty to provide it for him. These rights and duties exist within the relationship and depend upon its nature. Thus justice rules what rights and duties exist within what relationships.
As such, rights are not the starting point in a discussion of ethics and politics. The starting point is what type of relationship exists and what justice says about it. For it is only from these that rights and duties can be derived.
Monday, June 23, 2008
On conservatism (and liberalism too)
This essay is going to be on the topic of, "What is conservatism?" Or, more accurately, this essay is going to be on the topic of, "What is conservatism as I understand it?" I make no claims to originality. In fact, this essay will be extremely derivative. It will be derived from the thoughts of many men, men who in turn derived their thoughts from many other men &c. But that is necessary and as it should be, as I hope will be clear in the end.
First and foremost, I tend to see the distinction between liberals and conservatives as a distinction between two views on man's summum bonum and the foundation of a just society. Liberals view freedom as man's greatest good and the foundation of a just society. Since freedom is primarily an attribute of the will, it follows that liberal views assert the will as man's highest power and assert the primacy of the will in the life of man.
Conservatism, on the other hand, views order as the greatest good and the foundation of a just society. And since it is reason that orders things, it follows that conservatives view reason or the intellect as man's highest power and assert the primacy of reason in the life of man.
Now, if we accept these preliminary definitions as true, it follows that most of the so-called conservatives in the United States are not conservatives at all, but rather liberals. Far too many of them drone on about freedom and the ability to have endless choices as if these were goods in themselves. They are not conservatives at all, but rather right-liberals.
Key to the liberal exaltation of the will and freedom is the idea of autonomy. The autonomous individual is a law unto himself. As long as he is not causing physical harm to others, there can be no legitimate rule or norm imposed from without to bind or limit his will. This does not simply include the freedom of being left alone so favored by pure laissez-faire capitalism, which holds that, as long as one party is not harming another party by violence, theft, breaking faith on a freely entered into contract &c., there is no reason for there to be any laws governing the trading of goods and services. It also includes the freedom, so favored by feminists, homosexuals, abortion supporters &c., which actively seeks to destroys any law, custom or norm that that seeks to limit the number of choices open to individuals through legal punishment, social scorn, cultural ostracism &c.
Conservatives, as previously stated, do not see freedom, but rather order as the foundation of a just society. This order is not, however, an arbitrary arrangement. The order conservatives favor is an order rooted in the natural law and in human nature, permanent truths and principles of what it means to be human.
This does not, however, mean that conservatism is founded upon pure abstractions. This is far from the truth. The truths of the natural law and human nature are arrived at not by beginning with the universal and trying to reason them out. Rather, they are found in the human experience as lived by particular individuals and observed across the centuries. It is through history, the memory not simply of an individual, but of a people, a race, a species, that we may find the experience necessary to discover how man should live, how he should not and the consequences of each.
Some may think that even though history and the particular deeds of particular men and particular societies are the source of our grasping the principles of the natural law, it follows from the fact of the universality of these principles that they have universal application. Such a view may be true or false, depending on the meaning of the "universal application." If it meas that the principles of the natural law are valid and binding on all men at all times, then this is true. But if it means that the application of the principles of the natural law must be the same for all men at all times, then it is false.
The application of universal principles to particular situations requires particularity. It requires the use of prudence, or practical reason, to discern what the universals principles of the natural law require in these particular circumstances. The primacy of reason in the foundation of a just society is the primacy of prudence, for it is prudence that allows for the universal norms of the natural law--as discovered through human nature lived out historically--to be applied to the particular and concrete circumstances each society faces.
Prudence forces us to realize that in many things, especially the form of government that a society adopts, there is not necessarily a single, universally applicable solution. What is best for one society may heavily depend upon their specific circumstances. Trying to force other societies, especially ones with completely different historical and cultural circumstances, to fit the mold of our own is the height of folly. A conservative in a democratic society would feel no need to try to eliminate another societies monarchy, for he would realize that either form of government is capable of establishing and sustaining a rightly ordered society.
The primacy of prudence also favors the more particular over the less particular, the more local over the less local. Or, to put it another way, solutions should not be further removed from problems than they must be. This is because particulars differ in their circumstances, and thus sometimes differ in how one should properly apply the universal norms of the natural law. This is not to say that we can never treat things as members of a species or type rather than particulars, or that laws can never be passed on a level higher than the most local. It only means that one should not do this if it is not necessary. If something is a problem for a town rather than for the country, then there is no reason to pass laws at the national level rather than the local. If an action is not objectively evil in its species, then it must be dealt with according to the particulars of intent and circumstances.
The favoring of the local and particular does not simply mean that, all thing considered, laws should be passed by local communities rather than at a higher level. It means that non-governmental, non-legal organizations should be respected and can be forces that stabilize society and enforce moral norms without the need to pass laws and prosecute people. Societal pressure, backed by the support of local religious communities, civic organizations, commonly accepted morality &c., can be influential and effective in supporting the common good.
The primacy of prudence is also demands respect and deference to tradition and custom. For tradition and custom are nothing less than the prudence of our ancestors. They are decisions made to apply the universal principles of the natural law to the particular circumstances of our society that have been found to stand the test of time. This does not mean that traditions and customs can never change. If circumstances change, then it may be necessary that they change also. But in changing traditions and customs it is important for the change to happen gradually and organically. For if we are mistaken about the need for change or about what kind of change is necessary we may find that radical change--change that cuts off tradition and custom at their roots--causes more evils than it cures. Gradual and organic change allows us to observe the effects the change is having as it is being made, as well as allowing us to alter or abandon the changes we have decided upon if it appears they are not for the best.
It should be obvious, then, that conservatism is not revolutionary, at least not insofar as "revolutionary" means "in favor of overthrowing the current order in order to institute a new, better and more just order." Such an idea is antithetical to conservatism. Overthrowing the current order cuts a people of from its history and traditions, i.e. from its memory and its attempts to prudently apply the natural law to its concrete circumstances. Such a loss makes the further application of prudence towards the implementation of the principles of the natural law incredibly difficult, if not impossible. More importantly, the total overthrow of traditional political and social norms is foolish in the extreme, for it destroys the good as well as the bad, making it more likely that a greater evil will arise than the evils that the revolution attempts to abolish.
In another sense, however, conservatism is revolutionary. For insofar as "revolution" means "a returning, a turning back," conservatism is inherently revolutionary. For conservatism has a constant impetuous to return to the principles of the natural law, to return to history as the place where these principles are discovered and clarified through the concrete actions of particular men, to tradition as the prudent application of these principles to the particular circumstances of a people &c.
It follows, then, that where a revolution in the first sense has been successful and destroyed the organic traditions of a people it becomes the conservative's job to bring about a revolution in the second sense, a counter-revolution. The conservative has the duty to follow the reactionary imperative that the situation demands. He must do all that he can restore that which has been senselessly destroyed and to stay true to those truths that have been betrayed.
It must be remembered, however, that the power of conservatism does not come through force of arms. A conservative does not shy away from war when it is prudent or necessary. He does, however, realize that war is primarily the means of the revolutionary, for war is inherently destructive. War may be prudent, necessary and just when no other means will be successful in defending the traditions and order of society, and when the evils of not fighting will be greater than the evils brought about by war. But war is always to be a last resort.
No, the primary power of conservatism is the cultural and spiritual capital inherent in the traditions of a people. It must be remembered that the revolutionary has no true understanding of human nature, and thus the way of life the revolution tries to enforce upon people is non-human. The conservative brings about the counter-revolution by cultivating the truly human way of life found in the cultural and spiritual traditions of his people. He cultivates these in his own life, the life of his family, the life of his community &c. In-so-doing he concretely expresses and demonstrates the superiority of these traditions.
What, then, should be the prospects for conservatives today? I can speak with no authority other than what little I have as a man who seeks to know the truth about reality and to live in accord with this truth through prudent action. But I would suggest the following: Believe in God, go to Church, live your faith. Pass it on to your children. Stay true to the traditions of your family, your town, your state and your country (in that order). Teach your children to do the same. If you can or must, home-school your children. Keep your garden. Do what you can to support your town, especially local businesses. Work to keep it self-sufficient rather than tied to uncaring corporate giants on the other side of the country, or even the other side of the world. Seek the true and ordered liberty that comes when every man walks in the name of the Lord, and sits under his vine, and his own fig tree, and there is nothing to make any afraid (Micheas IV.i-v).
Now, there are some who will say that this is nothing but a retreat. They will argue that it is required that we engage the culture. But "to engage" can mean "to enter into battle with." And the culture is poison. What enters into battle with poison? Nothing but its antidote. Living such a life is nothing less than becoming an antidote to the poison of modern culture. And as long as poison and its antidote are together, either in the same blood stream or the same society, they are engaged by definition.
As I said in the beginning of this essay, there is most likely nothing original in it. And this is as it should be, since I am a member of a tradition of better and wiser men than myself, who have gone before me and shown me the way. If I can show others the path they have shown to me, then that is enough. And, if by some chance I have said something that is both original and true, if I have gone further down the path they uncovered, it is only because they showed me the path and taught me how to walk it.
This is one of the ironies of conservatism. Trying to shake off the past in an attempt to be original destroys piety while simply repeating old errors. Staying true to the past out of reverence and piety, on the other hand, is the only true source of originality. May I never seek to be original and may I always seek to be pious.
First and foremost, I tend to see the distinction between liberals and conservatives as a distinction between two views on man's summum bonum and the foundation of a just society. Liberals view freedom as man's greatest good and the foundation of a just society. Since freedom is primarily an attribute of the will, it follows that liberal views assert the will as man's highest power and assert the primacy of the will in the life of man.
Conservatism, on the other hand, views order as the greatest good and the foundation of a just society. And since it is reason that orders things, it follows that conservatives view reason or the intellect as man's highest power and assert the primacy of reason in the life of man.
Now, if we accept these preliminary definitions as true, it follows that most of the so-called conservatives in the United States are not conservatives at all, but rather liberals. Far too many of them drone on about freedom and the ability to have endless choices as if these were goods in themselves. They are not conservatives at all, but rather right-liberals.
Key to the liberal exaltation of the will and freedom is the idea of autonomy. The autonomous individual is a law unto himself. As long as he is not causing physical harm to others, there can be no legitimate rule or norm imposed from without to bind or limit his will. This does not simply include the freedom of being left alone so favored by pure laissez-faire capitalism, which holds that, as long as one party is not harming another party by violence, theft, breaking faith on a freely entered into contract &c., there is no reason for there to be any laws governing the trading of goods and services. It also includes the freedom, so favored by feminists, homosexuals, abortion supporters &c., which actively seeks to destroys any law, custom or norm that that seeks to limit the number of choices open to individuals through legal punishment, social scorn, cultural ostracism &c.
Conservatives, as previously stated, do not see freedom, but rather order as the foundation of a just society. This order is not, however, an arbitrary arrangement. The order conservatives favor is an order rooted in the natural law and in human nature, permanent truths and principles of what it means to be human.
This does not, however, mean that conservatism is founded upon pure abstractions. This is far from the truth. The truths of the natural law and human nature are arrived at not by beginning with the universal and trying to reason them out. Rather, they are found in the human experience as lived by particular individuals and observed across the centuries. It is through history, the memory not simply of an individual, but of a people, a race, a species, that we may find the experience necessary to discover how man should live, how he should not and the consequences of each.
Some may think that even though history and the particular deeds of particular men and particular societies are the source of our grasping the principles of the natural law, it follows from the fact of the universality of these principles that they have universal application. Such a view may be true or false, depending on the meaning of the "universal application." If it meas that the principles of the natural law are valid and binding on all men at all times, then this is true. But if it means that the application of the principles of the natural law must be the same for all men at all times, then it is false.
The application of universal principles to particular situations requires particularity. It requires the use of prudence, or practical reason, to discern what the universals principles of the natural law require in these particular circumstances. The primacy of reason in the foundation of a just society is the primacy of prudence, for it is prudence that allows for the universal norms of the natural law--as discovered through human nature lived out historically--to be applied to the particular and concrete circumstances each society faces.
Prudence forces us to realize that in many things, especially the form of government that a society adopts, there is not necessarily a single, universally applicable solution. What is best for one society may heavily depend upon their specific circumstances. Trying to force other societies, especially ones with completely different historical and cultural circumstances, to fit the mold of our own is the height of folly. A conservative in a democratic society would feel no need to try to eliminate another societies monarchy, for he would realize that either form of government is capable of establishing and sustaining a rightly ordered society.
The primacy of prudence also favors the more particular over the less particular, the more local over the less local. Or, to put it another way, solutions should not be further removed from problems than they must be. This is because particulars differ in their circumstances, and thus sometimes differ in how one should properly apply the universal norms of the natural law. This is not to say that we can never treat things as members of a species or type rather than particulars, or that laws can never be passed on a level higher than the most local. It only means that one should not do this if it is not necessary. If something is a problem for a town rather than for the country, then there is no reason to pass laws at the national level rather than the local. If an action is not objectively evil in its species, then it must be dealt with according to the particulars of intent and circumstances.
The favoring of the local and particular does not simply mean that, all thing considered, laws should be passed by local communities rather than at a higher level. It means that non-governmental, non-legal organizations should be respected and can be forces that stabilize society and enforce moral norms without the need to pass laws and prosecute people. Societal pressure, backed by the support of local religious communities, civic organizations, commonly accepted morality &c., can be influential and effective in supporting the common good.
The primacy of prudence is also demands respect and deference to tradition and custom. For tradition and custom are nothing less than the prudence of our ancestors. They are decisions made to apply the universal principles of the natural law to the particular circumstances of our society that have been found to stand the test of time. This does not mean that traditions and customs can never change. If circumstances change, then it may be necessary that they change also. But in changing traditions and customs it is important for the change to happen gradually and organically. For if we are mistaken about the need for change or about what kind of change is necessary we may find that radical change--change that cuts off tradition and custom at their roots--causes more evils than it cures. Gradual and organic change allows us to observe the effects the change is having as it is being made, as well as allowing us to alter or abandon the changes we have decided upon if it appears they are not for the best.
It should be obvious, then, that conservatism is not revolutionary, at least not insofar as "revolutionary" means "in favor of overthrowing the current order in order to institute a new, better and more just order." Such an idea is antithetical to conservatism. Overthrowing the current order cuts a people of from its history and traditions, i.e. from its memory and its attempts to prudently apply the natural law to its concrete circumstances. Such a loss makes the further application of prudence towards the implementation of the principles of the natural law incredibly difficult, if not impossible. More importantly, the total overthrow of traditional political and social norms is foolish in the extreme, for it destroys the good as well as the bad, making it more likely that a greater evil will arise than the evils that the revolution attempts to abolish.
In another sense, however, conservatism is revolutionary. For insofar as "revolution" means "a returning, a turning back," conservatism is inherently revolutionary. For conservatism has a constant impetuous to return to the principles of the natural law, to return to history as the place where these principles are discovered and clarified through the concrete actions of particular men, to tradition as the prudent application of these principles to the particular circumstances of a people &c.
It follows, then, that where a revolution in the first sense has been successful and destroyed the organic traditions of a people it becomes the conservative's job to bring about a revolution in the second sense, a counter-revolution. The conservative has the duty to follow the reactionary imperative that the situation demands. He must do all that he can restore that which has been senselessly destroyed and to stay true to those truths that have been betrayed.
It must be remembered, however, that the power of conservatism does not come through force of arms. A conservative does not shy away from war when it is prudent or necessary. He does, however, realize that war is primarily the means of the revolutionary, for war is inherently destructive. War may be prudent, necessary and just when no other means will be successful in defending the traditions and order of society, and when the evils of not fighting will be greater than the evils brought about by war. But war is always to be a last resort.
No, the primary power of conservatism is the cultural and spiritual capital inherent in the traditions of a people. It must be remembered that the revolutionary has no true understanding of human nature, and thus the way of life the revolution tries to enforce upon people is non-human. The conservative brings about the counter-revolution by cultivating the truly human way of life found in the cultural and spiritual traditions of his people. He cultivates these in his own life, the life of his family, the life of his community &c. In-so-doing he concretely expresses and demonstrates the superiority of these traditions.
What, then, should be the prospects for conservatives today? I can speak with no authority other than what little I have as a man who seeks to know the truth about reality and to live in accord with this truth through prudent action. But I would suggest the following: Believe in God, go to Church, live your faith. Pass it on to your children. Stay true to the traditions of your family, your town, your state and your country (in that order). Teach your children to do the same. If you can or must, home-school your children. Keep your garden. Do what you can to support your town, especially local businesses. Work to keep it self-sufficient rather than tied to uncaring corporate giants on the other side of the country, or even the other side of the world. Seek the true and ordered liberty that comes when every man walks in the name of the Lord, and sits under his vine, and his own fig tree, and there is nothing to make any afraid (Micheas IV.i-v).
Now, there are some who will say that this is nothing but a retreat. They will argue that it is required that we engage the culture. But "to engage" can mean "to enter into battle with." And the culture is poison. What enters into battle with poison? Nothing but its antidote. Living such a life is nothing less than becoming an antidote to the poison of modern culture. And as long as poison and its antidote are together, either in the same blood stream or the same society, they are engaged by definition.
As I said in the beginning of this essay, there is most likely nothing original in it. And this is as it should be, since I am a member of a tradition of better and wiser men than myself, who have gone before me and shown me the way. If I can show others the path they have shown to me, then that is enough. And, if by some chance I have said something that is both original and true, if I have gone further down the path they uncovered, it is only because they showed me the path and taught me how to walk it.
This is one of the ironies of conservatism. Trying to shake off the past in an attempt to be original destroys piety while simply repeating old errors. Staying true to the past out of reverence and piety, on the other hand, is the only true source of originality. May I never seek to be original and may I always seek to be pious.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
And now they call it "marriage"
California's top court overturns gay marriage ban, Lisa Leff, Associated Press Writer.
A quote from the majority decision written by Chief Justice Ron George:
To begin with, one's ability "to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person" is indeed dependent upon "sexual orientation," if by "a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person" one means a relationship with a sexual aspect. This is because to love someone is to will their good for their own sake. If you are willing to enter into some type of sexual congress with a member of the same sex, then you also will that they enter into sexual congress with you. But such an act is contrary to the nature of the sexual act, since the sexual act is by nature ordered towards procreation and sexual acts between two persons of the same sex are, in their essence, not ordered towards procreation. Thus these sexual acts are evil. And following from that, if you will another to enter into such an act with you, then you are willing them evil. Thus, insofar as you are willing to enter into some warped form of sexual congress with another member of the same sex, you are not loving them. This is necessarily true.
Second, one's ability "to care for and raise children" is also dependent on "sexual orientation," at least insofar as we are talking about the people caring for and raising children being in a sexual relationship with one another. This is because the caring for and raising of children includes not only their material needs, but also their moral and spiritual needs. The very existence of a same-sex sexual relationship between those in charge of the caring for and raising of children presents a moral and spiritual danger to said children. This is because such a relationship teaches children that acts and inclinations that are objectively disordered are instead rightly ordered. The very existence of a same-sex sexual relationship between those charged with the raising of children is a moral and spiritual poison that will lead the children to believe that a lie is the truth and that an evil is a good. Which, I suppose, is par for the course in the modern world.
A quote from the majority decision written by Chief Justice Ron George:
Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation...What this means, in effect, is that the state of California now recognizes error as truth and the law of the land.
To begin with, one's ability "to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person" is indeed dependent upon "sexual orientation," if by "a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person" one means a relationship with a sexual aspect. This is because to love someone is to will their good for their own sake. If you are willing to enter into some type of sexual congress with a member of the same sex, then you also will that they enter into sexual congress with you. But such an act is contrary to the nature of the sexual act, since the sexual act is by nature ordered towards procreation and sexual acts between two persons of the same sex are, in their essence, not ordered towards procreation. Thus these sexual acts are evil. And following from that, if you will another to enter into such an act with you, then you are willing them evil. Thus, insofar as you are willing to enter into some warped form of sexual congress with another member of the same sex, you are not loving them. This is necessarily true.
Second, one's ability "to care for and raise children" is also dependent on "sexual orientation," at least insofar as we are talking about the people caring for and raising children being in a sexual relationship with one another. This is because the caring for and raising of children includes not only their material needs, but also their moral and spiritual needs. The very existence of a same-sex sexual relationship between those in charge of the caring for and raising of children presents a moral and spiritual danger to said children. This is because such a relationship teaches children that acts and inclinations that are objectively disordered are instead rightly ordered. The very existence of a same-sex sexual relationship between those charged with the raising of children is a moral and spiritual poison that will lead the children to believe that a lie is the truth and that an evil is a good. Which, I suppose, is par for the course in the modern world.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
On objectively evil acts
"Objectively evil" does not mean "really extra super bad." "Objectively evil" is a category distinction. The object of an action is what gives it its species, since the object defines an act as the form of a thing defines its species. Objectively evil acts are acts that can never be good because their species renders them incapable of it.
Acts that are not objectively evil can be rendered evil by the ends intended by the agent and the circumstances surrounding the action. A prudential judgment is involved in deciding whether or not particular circumstances render a particular action--one that is neither objectively evil nor done with the intention of achieving evil means--good or evil.
The point being that a person who is not in favor of some objectively evil act is not immediately morally better than a person who is in favor of some objectively evil act if they are in favor of some particular evil act or acts. It would depend upon how grave the objectively evil act was in comparison to the particular evil act or acts, as well as how prevalent the particular occurrences of the objectively evil act are.
This is not to say that one can vote for, say, a pro-abortion candidate because they are against an unjust war. But it is to say that arguing against this position is more complicated than saying, "abortion is objectively evil; war isn't." It depends on the gravity of abortion versus the gravity of the unjust war or wars. And this is without factoring in other important issues, like calling sodomy a basis for "marriage", torture &c.
The point is that "prudential judgment" is not a "get out of evil free" card. There is a prudential judgment involved in deciding whether or not executing certain criminals is necessary for the defense of the common good. This does not mean a regime can indiscriminately execute people and hide behind the idea of "prudential judgment" as a shield. The fact that a certain action is not evil in species does not render it acceptable to commit a number of particularly evil actions of this type.
Acts that are not objectively evil can be rendered evil by the ends intended by the agent and the circumstances surrounding the action. A prudential judgment is involved in deciding whether or not particular circumstances render a particular action--one that is neither objectively evil nor done with the intention of achieving evil means--good or evil.
The point being that a person who is not in favor of some objectively evil act is not immediately morally better than a person who is in favor of some objectively evil act if they are in favor of some particular evil act or acts. It would depend upon how grave the objectively evil act was in comparison to the particular evil act or acts, as well as how prevalent the particular occurrences of the objectively evil act are.
This is not to say that one can vote for, say, a pro-abortion candidate because they are against an unjust war. But it is to say that arguing against this position is more complicated than saying, "abortion is objectively evil; war isn't." It depends on the gravity of abortion versus the gravity of the unjust war or wars. And this is without factoring in other important issues, like calling sodomy a basis for "marriage", torture &c.
The point is that "prudential judgment" is not a "get out of evil free" card. There is a prudential judgment involved in deciding whether or not executing certain criminals is necessary for the defense of the common good. This does not mean a regime can indiscriminately execute people and hide behind the idea of "prudential judgment" as a shield. The fact that a certain action is not evil in species does not render it acceptable to commit a number of particularly evil actions of this type.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)