Justice v. Empathy

This is the traditional image of justice which you can see in front of most court buildings. The Greek Goddess Themis is blindfolded so her judgment will not be biased.

Judge Sotomayor, who has been nominated to the Supreme Court by President Obama, wants to replace this traditional notion of justice with 'empathy'. In this account, Lady Justice should take off her blinfold and render an openly biased judgment. And who should Lady Justice be biased in favor of? This is where it gets tricky becasue her empathy turns out to be selective. For example, in Ricci v. DeStefano a group of white firefighters were denied promotion despite having made the requisite score on their exams. The reason? Judge Sotomayor, along with the two other Federal Judges, said it was because a group of black firefights had not been able to make an equivalent score and be promoted also.

Who deserves our empathy in this case? It seems like emotional appeals could be made on both sides. Which is why Lady Justice may be better off keeping her blindfold on.

Hugs replace handshakes

"Democracy does not attach men strongly to one another, but it places their habitual intercourse on an easier footing."
-Tocqueville

This is yet another observation by the Frenchman which has borne out over time. Articles from the NY Times and Time reveal that hugs have replaced handshakes:

Tocqueville predicted that formalities will necessarily decline as Democracy evolves; however, this does not mean people will develop deeper friendships. Instead, friendships will become more shallow. People will be friendlier, but friendships will be superficial. One writer has called it FDS or Friendship Deficit Disorder.

A lefty on conservative pundits

In this post Damon Linker, who broke from First Things and coined the term 'theocons', examines each of the different camps within conservatism: Reaganites, Neocons, Crunchy Cons etc. He even looks at less well known thinkers like Patrick Deneen and the people behind Front Porch Republic. If you're interested in reading an outsider's point of view on all of these groups, then what he has to say will be helpful.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/linker/archive/2009/05/25/where-the-right-is.aspx

FTT: Feminists and Traditionalists Together

Douthat believes the above two groups can and should find common ground in regards to women’s issues. Both groups, he says, will be concerned about a new study which shows women are unhappier today than they were fifty years ago. This is in spite of the fact they have entered the job market and gained autonomy on sex-related issues since then.

Originally these two groups were at loggerheads-think of Betty Friedan’s attack on suburban housewives in The Feminine Mystique. But Douthat points out that these two groups came together in the 1980’s to combat pornography. Both sides saw this as exploitation of women: the formation of men’s imagination so they would view their spouse or girlfriend as a tool for their own gratification.

He also makes another suggestion, albeit one which will not go over well with Feminists. There should be a stigma, less harsh than a scarlet letter for sure, but a stigma nonetheless on single motherhood. It is brutally difficult on women, especially those living on the margins. Lifting the aura off our sexual libertinism would help in this regard, but he recognizes this is a tall order.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/opinion/26douthat.html?_r=1

JPII and Hugh Hefner?

Christopher West, who has been popularizing JPII's Theology of Body, linked the late Pope with Playboy's founder. If that wasn't provocative enough, he also said JPII was "completing the sexual revolution."
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Sex/Story?id=7527380&page=1

Of course, West knows this is not true as his subsequent interview attests:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15928

But why does he set up these analogies in the first place? It is because he wants to be 'dealt into the game.' He believes people who are mired in popular culture will not listen to what he says unless he adopts their vocabulary. This parallels the issue about the use of modern language like freedom which I brought up in an earlier post (Douthat on Freedom language).

This idea seems to be a reflection of Paul's argument to the Corinthians that they be "all things to all people." Augustine seconds this point in The City of God when he says the Christian will "preserve and adopt" the customs of others.

There are countless attempts to put the above principle into practice. In the link below, the author visits a 'seeker' church which has a MTV like worship service and a sermon presented in the manner of a late night TV show. The pastor of the church believes what matters is the message, not how it is presented. It is not so much the wrapping, but the gift inside that counts.

Yet the article's author calls this very assumption into question. How the message is presented will affect what the message is. Or at least it will affect how the message is understood by the listener e.g. West's "sensationalized" interview with ABC. Moreover, if the 'custom' being adopted is incompatible with the message (MTV, Hugh Hefner, or the Sexual Revolution) then it will undermine the very message itself. As the author puts it, "Designing a church service to resemble MTV and Letterman, therefore, is like holding an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting in a bar."
http://www.spencepublishing.com/news/index.cfm?action=articles&articleID=10

Douthat on Dan Brown

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/opinion/19douthat.html?_r=1

Douthat says a reader can choose Christ or Dan Brown, but not both. This would come as a surprise to many people I have spoken to about Brown's novels. Their contention is that it simply a good story.

But Douthat points out that Brown himself does not see it that way. Like Ayn Rand, Brown is using fiction as vehicle to "inform" readers. Here is a direct quote from Brown: "My goal is always to make the character's and plot be so engaging that readers don't realize how much they are learning along the way." http://www.danbrown.com/novels/angels_demons/interview.html

Homiletic Approaches

Fr. Richard John Neheaus spoke about three different understandings of Catholic teaching.
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=467&var_recherche=Catholic+Center
I'd like to look at how these three views looked at homiletics.

1) The Traditionalist approach was to focus on the negative: You are a sinner.

The belief is that by highlighting your mistakes you will be horrified or disgusted and will repent.

2) The VII approach was to focus on the positive: You are called to be a saint.

Like the earlier approach, the goal is to encourage you to be better. Unlike the earlier approach, it does not rely on a guilt trip. It isn't satisfied with spiritual mediocrity either.

3) Finally, we have the current practice, which was a missaplication of the second approach: You are ALREADY a saint.

In the effort to be positive, the Pastor avoids saying anything which might upset you. Unlike the second approach, you are not encouraged to change because there is nothing wrong with you in the first place.

What is interesting is only the first and third approaches have been practiced at a widespread level. It'd be interesting to see how the second one would fare if it was actually implemented. That, one would hope, is the goal of the JPII generation.

Torture as Last Resort?

A friend has made the following rejoinder to my argument: Torture should only be used in rare, extreme cases and as a last resort.

My response is it doesn't address the heart of the matter. What is at stake is not the frequency of the action, but it's nature. If an act is intrinsically evil, then it can NEVER be justified-not even once. While this may be an unpopular position, it is not without precedent. Thinkers from such diverse traditions as Christian (St. Paul), Ancient (Plato), and Modern(Kant) have taken it.

Since I have only rejected arguments up to this point, let me put a few on the table. First: Let the bomb explode. Socrates said it was better to suffer injustice than to do it. This is an argument we should seriously consider, rather than dismissing it out of hand.

Second: Torture should never be done, but X is not torture. This would require a definition of torture and then a case by case study of particular acts like waterboarding, walling, etc. Luckily, the work is being done.

Having stated some positive arguments, let me return to the negative. I would oppose any argument (ends justify the means, last resort, double effect, or lesser evil) formulated to justify an intrinsically evil act. Such arguments only create more problems than they solve.

Peter Kreeft on Torture

Peter Kreeft spoke in Dallas last night and commented on the question, "Is torture ever justified?" Suprisingly, his answer was yes.

His answer was given within the context of the ticking time bomb situation: If you knew a bomb was in a city and about to go off, would you torture a person who knew the whereabouts of the bomb? Kreeft's reply is you can torture a GUILTY person in such a situation in order to get the information. A guilty person has forfeited his rights in this scenario. This qualification does not imply that you could torture innocents, e.g. the person's loved ones.

This answer resolves the concern I had, namely, an interrogator would harm the a detainee's child or spouse in order to acquire the high value information. Practically speaking it is unlikely to happen, but I didn't want to hold a position that could justify it.

This isn't to say Kreeft's answer is problem free. I detect two:
1) If human dignity is intrinsic or absolute, then how can a person forfeit it? Forfeiture suggests it is conditional or relative.

2) This problem resembles the thought experiment about whether you should lie to the Nazis if they knock on the door and you're hiding Jews in the basement. Kreeft's answer is you should lie because the Nazis have forfeited their right to the truth. My concern with such answers is that they suggest the rightness or wrongess of an act depends upon its recipient. One would think it would depend upon the intrisnic nature of the act itself, not upon external circumstances. Lying and torture should be right or wrong per se, not because of the situation. Kreeft's way of thinking seems to say, "Whether lying or torturing is wrong depends upon whom you are doing it to." I sound awfully Kantian here...

Douthat on Freedom language

Ross Douthat had an interesting thing to say on the use of the word freedom in contemporary debates over social/cultural issues: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/opinion/12douthat.html?_r=1

He says whichever side is able to phrase their argument in terms of expanding freedom will win the debate. This means proponents of gay marriage are likely to win in the long run since their view fits in well with such a framework.

Douthat is right about this. Traditionalists have two possibilities then. They can either redefine their ways of thinking in terms of ideal of freedom or they can call into question the ideal itself. Obviously, most modern conservatives take the first route and would think it is reactionary or backward to suggest the second. They believe that if we do not speak in terms of freedom, rights, and individualism, then we will not be "dealt into the game" so to speak.

But there are people who take the second route. For example, Leo Strauss, Eric Voegelin, and Alisdair MacIntyre have called into question the modern project and its Enlightenment presuppositions.

My own thought on this is that we have to change the terms of the debate because the first route has problems of its own. The main one is the Traditionalist understanding of freedom is not the one shared by the wider public. Unfortunately, what the public understands as freedom is Justice Kennedy's version: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

The Traditionalist and Secular Humanist are using the same words, but mean very different things by it. Having been dealt into the game, the Traditionalist soon realizes he is playing Solitaire.

Personalist v. Liberal Democracy

I just finished reading a collection of essays titled Building the Free Society:
Democracy, Capitalism, and Catholic Social Teaching

Each essay is by an different author and comments on a particular social encyclical. This isn't to say the essays are merely summaries; each one critically examines the strengths and weaknesses of the encyclical it addresses.

I found the essay on the Declaration on Religious Freedom especially helpful. The author distinguishes three stages in the Catholic understanding of Church-State relations:

Stage 1: The Throne and Altar arrangement. This is the time of religious establishment as the Monarch and Church both endorse each other. The French called it the Ancien Regime, the Old Order. The problem with this arrangement, from my perspective, are twofold. First, the monarch ends up wanting to control the Church e.g. investiture controversy. Second, the Church's fortunes are tied up with the existing regime. If the monarch makes a mistake, then in the eyes of the people the Church is guilty by association. This is what happened in the French Revolution.

Stage 2: Continental Liberalism. This is the worldview of the thinkers behind the French Revolution: Democracy, autonomous individualism, and human rights. In the name of these ideas, the Revolutionaries unleashed the Reign of Terror and De-Christianization. It was these atrocities which were in the minds of churchmen when they opposed liberalism until Vatican II.

Stage 3: American Liberalism. A Jesuit, John Courtney Murray, argued that there was another form of liberalism which respected religion and would not lead to atrocities associated with Continental Liberalism. The Catholic Church had done well in America, even though it was a primarily Protestant Country. This occurred because the state did not establish any particular religion in the United States. Murray urged the Church to embrace this form of liberalism and in Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae, she did.

The battle between the American (Personalist) and Continental (Liberal Individualist) meaning of democracy continues. It is occurring within America and the rest of the world generally. The first meaning views human beings as persons: social beings with rights AS WELL AS corresponding duties. Moreover, Personalist Democracy presupposes a transcendent reference point which is the source of our moral obligations. In contrast, the Liberal Individualist model sees humans as autonomous, self-interested beings. The source of moral obligations is either consent or utility.

The collection of essays is filled with interesting discussions like the one above. It was a difficult, but helpful, book to read.

Benjamin Button: a postmodern Gump

Forrest Gump won six Oscars and grossed over 300 million dollars in the U.S. Any Hollywood producer worth his salt would want to find the film’s magic in the hope of recreating its critical and commercial success. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button appears to have done just that. There are many parallels with Forrest Gump: they both take place in the South, have eccentric heroes, doting mothers, and storylines which cover several decades.

Yet all the similarities, on closer inspection, are superficial. On a deeper, more thematic level, the films diverge significantly. Take, for instance, the moral dispositions of the characters. Up front, Button and Gump are similar because their eccentricities make it difficult for them to fit in with the surrounding community. They are both mistreated despite their gentle demeanors. But their gentility takes different forms when it comes to sexual mores. Benjamin visits a brothel, carries on an illicit affair, and has numerous liaisons. Forrest, on the other hand, refuses to have a one-night stand because the woman's kiss "tasted like cigarettes." Forrest, who has a quixotic view of love, has his heart still set on Jenny. But Benjamin has his own Jenny (Daisy) and their relationship provides the second point of comparison between the two films. Jenny and Daisy’s entrances into the films are as children and the audience watches them grow up and reject their suitors in order to pursue a more ‘glamorous’ life-a life which cannot be found in the South. Forrest and Benjamin must wait for years before their women come to their senses.

At this point the stories diverge. After Daisy gives birth to their child, Benjamin leaves them on the grounds that he doesn't want to be taken care of as he grows older. (The film’s twist is Benjamin is getting younger, but the point is the same either way-as a person ages he becomes more and more dependent on others.) Daisy, who is conflicted about this, later says he made the right decision.

Benjamin’s desire for autonomy contrasts sharply with Forrest’s self-giving nature. Jenny has contracted a terminal illness, likely AIDS from her years as a libertine, and will require constant care. She and Forrest also have a son who she had not told him about. When he hears both of pieces of news, Forrest’s answer is immediate: “You and little Forrest could come live with me, Jenny.” Up to this point, Forrest has lived the self-sufficient life of a bachelor. Jenny and his son’s entry into his life will complicate things, but Forrest is undeterred. Jenny dies a shortly thereafter; Forrest mourns her but moves on for the sake of their son. The film’s final scene shows Forrest walking his son to the bus stop, like his mother had done for him. Forrest’s dignity, unlike Benjamin’s, is found not in the renouncing his responsibilities to others, but in embracing them.

The final point of comparison is how the characters deal with death. Forrest's belief in an afterlife, "I'm going to heaven, Lt. Dan", contrasts with Benjamin's repeated aphorism "Nothing lasts." These beliefs lead to differences in practice. Forrest's mother, who shares his worldview, has a good death. She dies in her own house with Forrest at her bedside. They talk about providence and she offers him solace in terms he can understand, "Life is like a box of chocolates..." Like Forrest’s mother, Jenny appears to have a peaceful death since the last image we're given of her is talking serenely to Forrest. Benjamin and Daisy, on the other hand, both grow in despair as they near death. He becomes angry and recalcitrant as his memory starts to fade away. Daisy dies in a hospital bed, saddened by the whole affair and unsure of how the whole thing played out. Hurricane Katrina is about to overrun the city-a reflection of the lack of peace within her own soul.

In the three instances mentioned above, we can see a clear difference in how the films address the most important issues, love and death. If the Hollywood producers behind Button were trying to find out what made Forrest Gump work, then they failed. For its success had less do with an eccentric hero and his slow drawl than it did with his underlying orientation to the world.

UT Austin's Western Civ Program is no more

Having attended UT Austin as an undergraduate, I was surprised to learn that Dr. Koons was fired from his position as Director of Western Civilization and American Institutions, a Center which he helped create. In order to be politically correct, the Center has been renamed “The Center for Core Texts.”

In case that is still too exclusive, maybe each student can choose whatever texts she pleases. We wouldn’t any books left out.

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/bill-would-create-ut-school-set-reading-list-1.1650680

http://noleftturns.ashbrook.org/comment.asp?blogID=14067

Godmother of Neoconservatism

I just finished listening to a C-Span book interview with Gertrude Himmelfarb. She is the wife of Irving Kristol, the 'godfather of neoconservatism', and mother of William Kristol, the founder of The Weekly Standard. She is an intellectual in her own right, having published over ten books. A very impressive family, indeed.

The interview is especially interesting b/c she discusses her family quite openly-their political views, the internal dynamic at home, their individual interests. In contrast to her son, she is much more interested in discussing the consequeces of the cultural revolution in America for the last half century. She discusses very candidly the disastrous effects of instant gratification, no-fault divorce, and birth control.

http://www.booktv.org/watch.aspx?ProgramId=FV-5380

Should Marriage be privatized? Cont'd

A friend responded to the previous post so I thought I'd paste my reply here:

But my argument is the State will set an example EITHER way. If the state is neutral towards all sexual relationships, the example it will set is that there is nothing better or worse about any of them. This will make it easier for people to get into the wrong types of relationships. Since the state will set an example EITHER way, then it might as well set the example or standard at traditional marriage.

If the message from the state is different from the Church's, then it will only make it more, not less, difficult for the Church to instruct her flock.

You're right that we've been designed for trad marriage and not gay marriage, but that doesn't mean our design is an incentive. Our knowledge of our design is implicit and is suppressed by sin. It is up to the institutions of our society (family, church, and state) to make explicit what is implicit. To bring to light what is in the dark. And it is important that all the institutions are on the the same page. Differing messages or examples will only call into question the validity of the authentic one. I say the authentic one b/c the false one will be easier to believe b/c it is, well, easier.

Should marriage be privatized?

A friend recently presented me with the following argument: "For the sake of protecting traditional marriage, why not have the state get out of the marriage business altogether? This way the debate over the gay marriage will disappear b/c the state has no role in such questions."

Here is Jennifer Morse's response to the 'proposal.'

My argument is the law will have an educative effect one way or another. Either it will teach that traditional marriage accrues benefits for our citizens and the society at large OR it will teach that all sexual relationships are equal, that traditional marriage has no intrinsic merit over cohabitation, gay marriage, or polygamy. The latter will be the message sent to our citizens if the state gets out of the marriage business. In such a cultural mileu, it will be more, not less, difficult to encourage people to enter a traditional marriage. The educative effect of the law's 'nuetrality' will be to incentivize behavior my friend wants to discourage.

Dr. Zhivago

I saw Dr. Zhivago and had some musings which I thought I'd post:

The argument against Communism is compelling and original. The usual line is it is bad b/c it is against private property. This is true, but in the end not ‘personal’ enough-to use an oft-mentioned word in the film. Pasternak’s objection is aesthetic: Communism’s abolition of the private sphere would remove love and poetry from the world. Dr. Zhivago is a poet who writes “personal, bourgeois, and self-indulgent” verse. The work has to be censored for awhile since it conflicts with the ideology of the new regime. The New Man does not have time for such things. As Strenlikov says, “the private life is over.” Another character adds, “I once had a wife and four kids.” What happened to them? It doesn’t matter anymore.

On the other hand, in the name of love Dr. Zhivago has a wife and mistress which only leads to heartbreak for all three. Love is personal and can be bourgeois, but self-indulgent it is not. Pasternak doesn't recognize the self-sacrificial aspect of love and that makes it difficult to enjoy the story in the end.

Doubt

I watched Doubt assuming I knew the storyline: a repressive, reactionary Church caused the sex abuse scandal. Surprisingly, that is not what it turned out to be. I think this post from First Thoughts has it right for the most part.

Here are my few quibbles. He read the set of scenes contrasting the Nuns and Priests as Pious v. Impious. I read it as Women v. Men i.e. making a feminist point. Also, he read the last scene and the Nun’s doubt to be about the hierarchy while I understood it to be about her decision to lie in order to serve God. She repeats a line she had said earlier, "Sometimes, one has to take a step away from God in order to serve him."

On another note, the film seems to be misnamed. The screenwriter said he had come up with the title first and the story later. This makes sense since the theme of doubt v. certainty is a secondary matter. What appears to be primary is the theme of simplicity v. complexity. Amy Adams’ character “wants simplicity back.” The characters you expect to be good are bad and vice versa.

Conservative/Libertarian split?

Peter Lawler, who was on the President's Bioethics Council during the Bush Administration, has an interesting argument about the future of the Conservative/Libertarian alliance we currently have in the Republican Party. Here is his prediction:

The two groups are currently aligned b/c they both believe in limited gov't. This is because they share the same view of human nature, "Out of the crooked timber of humanity, nothing straight was ever made." The Gov't undertaking large social engineering projects are doomed to failure b/c of the imperfect human beings who will be in charge of it.

But Biotechnology changes all that. It promises to redesign human nature (cloning, mood management, etc.) so that perfect beings can now run things. They say we can fix what God botched.

The Libertarians will buy that argument while Conservatives will not. The former will say yes b/c "people should be free to do whatever they like so long as they don't hurt anyone else..." The latter will be reminded of Brave New World and Gattaca and how badly such projects turn out.

Obamacons on Abortion

I found this debate to be really insightful. Both of them are Pro-Life Catholics: Arkes is a political philosophy professor at Amherst who helped draft the Born Alive Act while Doug Kmiec worked in the Reagan and Bush I administrations.

Kmiec is an 'Obamacon' who believes the President's argument that improving the economic conditions will decrease the # of abortions since the indigent have a greater likelihood to make such choices. This is a clever argument because it has a pro-life ring behind it. Like the Pro-Lifer, the Obamacon wants to see the number of abortions go DOWN. Like the Pro-Lifer, the Obamacon sees the choice of abortion as 'tragic.'

The argument would be compelling if the President had not reversed the Mexico City Policy a week into office. By doing that, federal tax dollars are going to pay for abortion overseas. How are we going to get the number of abortions down by paying for them? Moreover, if abortion is a private choice then why are public funds being used for it anyway? But I digress.