United Financially We Stand

The following musing is the result of rereading a very old speech while listening to current events on the radio:

George Washington’s Farewell Address is concerned with national unity: “The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.” Being an American should matter more than being a Virginian. Washington tries to persuade the people of this by making both classical and modern arguments. His first argument is all Americans share “the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles.” This cultural appeal is classical because he sees things in terms of the ancient notion of regime or society’s character and way of life.

Washington’s modern argument is an appeal to the people’s self-interest: national unity ensures productivity and security. It will facilitate trade between the different regions and the states are better off defensively when they back each other up-“Join or Die” as the Ben Franklin’s political cartoon said.

People today claim GW’s modern arguments are more substantive because they are grounded in something concrete. Cultural Unity, rooted in patriotism, piety, or just speaking the same language, is too soft a soil for a nation to be planted in. Lockean Productivity and Hobbesian security are considered the sure and stable foundation for a nation’s future due to their reliance on materialist motives.

Yet the current crisis in the European Union clearly shows the hollowness of this claim. The basis of the European Union is a common currency and trade zone, but that has not strengthened bonds between Europeans. As the financial crisis worsens national discriminations will exalt the just pride of patriotism more than the name European ever could.

JPII on US

The film Nine Days That Changed The World is about JPII’s pilgrimage to Poland in 1979 while it was still under the Soviet Union’s control. It documents the uproar his visit caused and how fragile the Communist hold over that country really was. His stay sparked the Solidarity Movement which became a thorn in the Soviets’ side.

The film is also clear that JPII did not see the Cold War in terms of Evil Empire A v. Evil Empire B; instead, he sided with the Americans over the Soviets. Far from reactionary, he was an advocate of modern notions such as human rights, democracy, and capitalism.

At the same time, his support for Western democracies was not absolute. The end of the film (very) briefly mentions his worry that Western democracies like America will endorse moral relativism as its public philosophy. A polity which recognizes no objective standard above the human will would allow might to make right. In his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, JPII discusses this problem in terms of the ‘culture of death.’ The growing acceptance of abortion and euthanasia in Western societies depicts the weak and vulnerable as being outside the human community.

While the film does not discuss this question, it is worth pondering whether the culture of death is the inevitable byproduct of democratic capitalism. If the political system of democracy and economic system of capitalism both emphasize freedom, isn’t a ‘Culture of Choice’ the necessary result? In that case, aren’t social conservatives’ hopes for a Pro-Life policy doomed in this country?

Porcher Patrick Deneen would answer in the affirmative to the previous two questions. He argues that democratic capitalism is solely the product of the Modern Enlightenment and thus necessarily leads to the culture of death. JPII would agree with a part of his assessment. In his book Memory and Identity, JPII says “In all its different forms, the Enlightenment was opposed to what Europehad become as a result of evangelization.” He would agree Enlightenment ideals are hostile to the culture of life.

But he would not agree that Western democracies like America are inevitably headed towards the culture of death. In Evangelium Vitae, he thinks the two cultures are future possibilities before Western democracies and so there is nothing determined about what is ahead. Like Tocqueville, he accepts the democratic revolution, but thinks what path it will take is still up in the air.

What comes first?

John B. Kienker, managing editor of Claremont Review of Books, has a positive review of Peter’s Modern and American Dignity in the June/July issue of First Things. He concludes the piece with this friendly criticism:

Ultimately, however, Lawler finds mere political goals–particularly “veneration” of the American founders–inadequate, implying that only “the perspective of genuine believers” can effectively secure human dignity. But these days it seems challenging enough to persuade 300 million of our fellow Americans to embrace the dignity of citizenship again without trying to convert them as well to Christianity. That we must leave to God’s grace.

Peter responds here. Kienker’s comments reveals aspects of the Claremont approach which might be of interest to those revolving around the First Things orbit: 1) His concern is modern in the sense that he wants to lower the bar (from say supernatural virtue to civic virtue) in order to actualize the goal. 2) Instead of JPII’s priority of culture, he reserves a pride of place for politics. 3) His last line hints at a strict reason/revelation divide which denies Christianity’s persuasive power in the public square.

In regards to the last point, the notion that Americans should embrace a Christian account of human dignity is based upon observations of our nature which we can see with our own eyes e.g. openness to the Truth, social and relational beings, etc. This is a flag our Claremont friends can rally around, even if it represents more than just Americans.

Okay with Amnesty

In regards to the illegal immigration issue, a powerful argument against Amnesty is its a failure to enforce Justice or the Rule of Law. For those people who claim to be on the side of “law and order” such an objection poses serious difficulties. “Letting this one slide” appears to make a mockery of the law.

Fortunately, Carson Holloway recently wrote an article defending Amnesty by comparing it to the power of pardon. Strict Justice requires that we follow the Rule of Law, but there could be emergency cases in which one should not do so. The Constitution’s power of pardon is a recognition of this reality and Holloway argues the same logic applies to Amnesty. Whether the state should grant pardon or Amnesty in a particular case is a prudential call, but that does not mean it is a matter of justice. Someone may be imprudent, but that does not make him unjust.

Strict Justice, left to itself, can be cruel; it has to be sweetened by Mercy. Both Amnesty and Pardon has to be granted only in particular times and places so Justice can retain its force. If administered indiscriminately or absolutely, Mercy loses its flavor and degenerates into a false compassion. For that reason, it is a matter of prudence or a judgment call. Or to put the matter in terms of CST (Catholic Social Teaching), since it is not a matter of principle, the issue has to be resolved by weighing proportionate reasons.

And in the particular case we’re dealing with at the moment, the difficulty of deporting MILLIONS of Illegal Immigrants, the significant political costs involved, and the understandable reasons why immigrants break the law to come here, it seems the prudential thing to do would be to grant amnesty.

Tiger Mother or Paper Tiger

Amy Chua’s WSJ article “Why Chinese Mothers are Superior” and forthcoming book Battle Hymn of a Tiger Mother generated an uproar last month over her parenting style. She practices the ‘Chinese’ or immigrant model which she contrasts with the ‘Western’ model. The Chinese model denies children playdates and sleepovers in favor of hours of homework and practicing w/ musical instruments through. The Western Model encourages freedo/ self-expression and positive reinforcement in order to boost self-esteem (note all ‘self’ in there).

You would think Westerners would be in interested in the Chinese model since Asian kids are taking the top academic spots and Chinese and Indians are routinely outperforming Americans on international math and science tests. Instead, they criticized Chua and called her a terrible mother who is ruing her children’s lives.

Even more surprising is Chua’s reaction: she has backed down from her initial claim. She says the WSJ article was an excerpt and doesn’t adequately reflect her views. What she “really” thinks is there is no “better” or “worse” when it comes to parenting. This is just her personal journey.

This fallback to relativism seems convenient since it alleviates her of the responsibility of defending her arguments. Yet you can tell it is a fallback since she says her way is also the way of many of her students at Yale Law School. It is doubtful she thinks all parenting styles are equal when it comes to getting your kids into the Ivy Leagues.

Why back down? Maybe it is the way she was brought up. The Chinese model is based on a shame culture in which praise and blame are used to motivate children. This emphasis on human respect (“don’t embarrass your parents”) does not cultivate real character in a person. Chua’s retreat seems to be the result that she is afraid of the criticism she has incurred. But if she really believes that Western parenting is a problem, which I think she really does , she should defend that claim despite the public backlash it engenders.

Wage Slave by Day, Gentleman by Night

In the debate between Liberal and Practical Arts (Business, Science, Engineering), the Tocquevillian position would be to see truth and error on both sides.

In an Aristocracy, Liberal Arts was originally an education for a “Free” man. Free meant being free from work. Of course, that is because others did the work for him.

In a Democracy, the hereditary aristocracy is abolished so that commoners would be free. But all that really means is we all have to work now. Even the supposed natural aristocracy of the Americans (Gates, Buffet, etc.) have to work long, hard hours too. Americans of all stripes must labor to feed, shelter and clothe their bodies. Majoring in a trade then is necessary.

But we’re more than just bodies. And so thinking about how to acquire food, shelter, and clothing for our family, while necessary, is insufficient. We also have to think hard about politics, culture, and religion too. As that jobless Socrates once said, “The point is not to live, but live well.” Which means we have to study the Liberal Arts. Basics, the first two years of college, have been watered down in a variety of ways: AP Tests, Dual Credit, and substitute courses (Business Ethics can replace the Introduction to Philosophy class). Revitalizing those courses coupled with lifetime learning ought to do the trick. Indeed, the popularity of businesses like The Teaching Company reveal that man cannot live by bread alone.

Glenn Beck’s Rally, the 9/11 Mosque, and the ties that bind.

We can see the Enlightenment assumptions underlying the American Right and Left in two events from last month: Glen Beck’s Restoring Honor Rally and debate over the 9/11 Mosque.

Here is Harvey Mansfield on the ‘Restore Honor’ Rally:

“Glenn Beck is a kind of libertarian, and he has made a fair amount of money. But he rejects the private life that libertarians seem to recommend. He goes public with his distrust of everything public and thus requires libertarians to march behind patriotism, religion, and honor—all things not in your immediate self-interest.”

Usually, Libertarians want to reject loyalties to country or God and replace it with enlightened self-interest. Their belief is these traditional loyalties are merely irrational prejudices and so they can’t provide the basis for public policy. Yet appealing to your self-interest isn’t going to inspire the public in a rally. And its not going to unite the citizenry together either. In the end, calculation and contract are not enough to form a community.

Lets see how similar thinking underlies the Left’s view of the 9/11 Mosque. Liberals criticize Conservatives for manifesting “what the ancient political philosophers called “the love of one’s own.”

Liberals believe this preference creates a distinction between insiders and outsiders. For example, the current controversy is making Muslims feel like outsiders. And since no one should be made to feel like an outsider, Liberals reject the “love of one’s own” as unjust.

Carson Holloway explains how this view began in the Enlightenment:

“Liberals act in these ways in part because contemporary liberalism is abstract and rationalistic in its philosophic roots. Liberals are still in important respects children of the Enlightenment and still hold dear its universalistic assumptions and aspirations. The Enlightenment hoped to usher in an empire of the “rights of man,” to establish society on the basis of what is owed to human beings as human beings, and accordingly rejected older, more partial loyalties—to clan, country, or faith—as merely arbitrary.”

The commonality between the Libertarians and Liberals then is they strip human beings of all ties which make life meaningful (faith, family, and friends). Both reject patriotism; Libertarians replace it with collective selfishness while Liberals emphasize cosmopolitanism e.g. they’re citizens of world (which is to say they’re citizens of no place in particular).

Is the “love of one’s own” aka inherently unjust? Holloway thinks not:

“From another perspective, however, one might contend that such loyalty is perfectly rational—in the sense that, while every man would admit that his father has no particular claims on the human race, every man would equally claim that a father does have a very powerful claim on the help and affection of his own son.”

Instead of rallying around the flag, these Enlightenment extremes would either say every man for himself or we shouldn't play favorites when it comes to attending rallies.

Education isn't just for employees

David Brooks notices, "When the job market worsens, many students figure they can’t indulge in an English or a history major. They have to study something that will lead directly to a job."
This has led to a "nearly 50 percent drop in the portion of liberal arts majors over the past generation, and that trend is bound to accelerate."

He is troubled by this trend and makes a case for why employers should hire Humanities Majors: "Studying the humanities improves your ability to read and write. No matter what you do in life, you will have a huge advantage if you can read a paragraph and discern its meaning (a rarer talent than you might suppose). You will have enormous power if you are the person in the office who can write a clear and concise memo."

While I applaud Brooks' effort to defend the Humanities, I don't think his argument is effective here. Science and Engineering Jobs require technical skills which a Humanities Major will not prepare students for. And as Globalization continues, more and more jobs will become technocratic in nature.

Having said that, a student should still study the Humanities in college. He should study the Humanities not because it will make him a better employee (it might not), but because he will be MORE THAN an employee after he graduates. He will be a citizen, a parishioner, a father etc. In order to perform these roles well, he needs to be able to reason about the goods at stake. Otherwise, he will merely be spouting prejudices or untutored opinion on important issues: How large a role should Government play in Society? What is Sin? What is the Good Life and how can I impart it to my children?

The current situation is a college educated person speaks thoughtfully when it comes to his profession because he has been systematically trained in that, but he is unable to piece together a coherent thought when it comes to politics, culture, or religion. And the health of a Society depends upon more than just its GDP.

This does not mean every college student should major in the Humanities; far from it. The only ones who should actually major in the subject are the ones who will play a role in shaping public opinion: teachers, professors, journalists, statesmen, and artists. The rest can major in any trade so long as they take the required basics: 2 semesters of English, Government, History etc. The current problem is students can opt out of the basics through a myriad of ways. They can take AP Tests, Summer Community College Courses, or some technical variation of the required course e.g. Business or Medical Ethics in lieu of Introduction to Philosophy. And if they do happen to take the actual course, then it is taught by some graduate student in an auditorium filled with other students.

My argument is the harder sell because parents and students want to hear how a particular major will land a job. But the important thing to keep in mind is your 9-5 job will not be the only job you'll have.

Just say "No!"

Patrick Deneen's recent post on the two recent crises, the Gulf of Mexico spill and Greece's debt problem, suggests an argument which is not being mentioned in the Public Square. He says both cases reveal an "inability to live with one's means." Deneen criticizes Sarah Palin and the political right for their mantra of "drill, baby, drill" because it only encourages excess, which is what got us into this mess in the first place.

In this sense, Deneen seems to align with the political left. On the other hand, his reasons for opposing offshore drilling differ markedly from someone like the NYT's Thomas Friedman. While Deneen agrees with Friedman that the spill harms the environment, the more pressing problem is our insistence on living a super-size me lifestyle no matter the cost. We want to continue to drive our gas guzzling SUV's whenever and wherever we like and we do not like how recent oil prices interfere with that. This "inability to live within one's means" AKA vice is not something that concerns Friedman. Indeed, like his opponents on the political right, he thinks these impediments can be improved, albeit his solution to the problem is alternative energy. Either way, both sides are telling the public they can have it all. Right and Left share the Modern assumption that scarcity can be conquered and man can live a life free from material want.

Deneen would probably say this type of thinking was also behind the financial crisis of the last two years. Again, while he would agree with the political left about the vices of Wall Street fat cats, he would still come down hard on the borrower who wanted to own a home he couldn't afford. It is just another example of people being unable to deny their appetites.

In an earlier post, I talked about how it is popular nowadays to criticize poor eating habits (Super-Size Me, Fast Food Nation). The argument behind such works is it harms health. This is certainly true, but it is also a problem because it is a symptom of gluttony. In all these cases then, what is absent in the discussion is whether self-denial and delayed gratification are still important to human happiness.

Eat your spinach!

David Brooks handed out his Sydney Awards for great essays last week and Mary Eberstadt’s essay “Is Food the New Sex?” made the list:

In her Policy Review essay, ''Is Food the New Sex?,'' Mary Eberstadt notes that people in modern societies are freer to consume more food and sex than their ancestors. But this has produced a paradox. For most of human history, food was a matter of taste while sex was governed by universal moral laws. Now the situation is nearly reversed. Food has become enmeshed in moralism while the privacy of the bedroom is sacred. Eberstadt asks why, and provides a philosophical answer.

I have not read the essay yet, but I thought that both food and sex were traditionally considered under the domain of morality. The classical view towards food was it should be regulated in light of the cardinal virtue of Temperance. Gluttony was condemned not so much because it harmed your figure, but because it enslaved your reason to your appetites, thus inhibiting the ability to choose. This is a significantly different take from the way the ‘Whole Foods’ Crowd thinks about food today. They are still moralistic, if not downright preachy, about overeating or eating poorly; however, it is for health reasons. Harming one’s body is a serious no-no. Health and Safety (one is tempted to add the environment) are the only sources for moral absolutes in this picture.

Having eliminated the distinction between soul and body, the choices left are either to deify the body (pantheism) or reject the divine altogether (atheism). If latter approach is taken, then the Cultural Libertarian view emerges in which food and sex are viewed as merely personal preferences or lifestyle choices. Either way, both approaches are fruits of the same ideological tree.

Leisure: working hard or hardly working

Having just finished Sertillanges’ book The Intellectual Life, I was struck by the similarities and differences between it and Josef Pieper’s Leisure: The Basis of Culture.

Both authors share the same concern: they are living in a world in which the life of the mind is being marginalized. Pieper discusses how the world of work is consuming all other aspects of life, especially the activities which encourage reflection. Sertillanges sees industrialists playing dice when they could be reading Pascal instead.

The authors diverge on the question of what constitutes the intellectual life. Pieper maintains a firm distinction between philosophy and work. As a professor once told me, “Philosophy is NOT useful...it is completely useless! That is why it is so important.” Philosophy, in this picture, is an end in itself. It enables a person to escape the confines of the cave and to see reality as it is.

This permits Pieper to present Philosophy in joyful terms. It is akin to festivity. Like other forms of festivity, we do not see them in utilitarian terms. Instead, they are the moments in which we escape, at least momentarily, our work-a-day world.

Sertillanges, I think, would reject such a distinction. He sees philosophy as a type of work. A nobler type of work, but work nonetheless. The intellectual has obligations to his fellow man which require him to sacrifice his private wants for the sake of a greater good. He must return to the cave and share what he has learned with others. Or better yet, encourage them to leave the cave also. This presentation of philosophy subordinates it while at the same time revealing how much is at stake when one engages in it.

This debate, whether the contemplative or active life is superior, goes all the way back to Aristotle. Thus, I’m not embarrassed to say that I can’t solve it. Pieper and Sertillanges are both Thomists, so you have to look at other sources for the divergence. Plato was an important influence on Pieper and you can see it in his understanding of philosophy as type of “divine madness.” Sertillanges, on the other hand, argues that the Intellectual, to be a true Intellectual, must accept Divine Revelation. That doesn’t seem right since it would disqualify Aristotle; however, one can see that revelation’s aid transforms the philosopher’s attitude toward others. The Platonic view cultivates an indifference towards those mucking around in the cave, while the religious view suggests charity towards one’s neighbor. Christian revelation, which is believed by many to subordinate politics, might actually take it more seriously than Platonic Philosophy in this picture.

Internet's porn problem

That it is a problem is not a self-evident proposition to readers of The Atlantic Monthly. Fortunately, Ross Douthat is brave enough to engage them on this issue. He makes a series of arguments obliterating the fantasy-reality distinction which Libertarians hide behind. Unfortunately, his attack stops there as he concludes the piece taking a realist “put-up with it” position.

I wonder, however, if his realism is really just a form of resignation. He concedes too many arguments in the second half of the article. For example, he thinks that there is no correlation between porn use and violence. But Paul Hunker, an U.S. government attorney, has reported that thousands have been arrested because of this very thing. Douthat also seems to think that the Internet cannot regulated. Like David Rowan, he thinks censoring the Internet is “like trying to catch the wind.” Yet Michael Cook has discusses how many countries are working on the problem. Australia’s “internet traffic has to pass through a handful of “pipelines” which could be filtered.” Malaysia recently signed a contract with Internet Traffic to filter their websites. And Harvard Law School reports that Iran “has one of the most sophisticated government filtering systems in the world.” (Usually, I do not cite Iran for examples of good governance, but just because it is bad in some things, that doesn’t mean its bad in all things. Thinking only in black and white categories, like U.S. is the Great Satan, is exactly what we fault Muslim Fundamentalists for.)

Anyway, this is where the debate needs to go. Constant technological innovations suggest an effective filtering device could be created. There just has to be a market for it. The only reason there isn’t one is because of the fatalist tendency of good guys like Douthat on this question. Where there is market, there is way.

Is John Rocker mad or bad?

This MercatorNet article talks about how the APA (American Psychiatric Association) plans to expand the category of mental disorder to include lust, greed, and gluttony. These habits were traditionally considered to be vices to be reformed and not disorders to be treated.

Another example which illustrates the author’s thesis is when the racist baseball player John Rocker was asked by the MLB Commissioner to see a psychiatrist i.e. racism is a psychological, not a moral, problem. Whether his comments were mentally disturbed or immoral will affect how we perceive, and thus evaluate, his words: Should Rocker lie on a couch, pop pills, or be held accountable for his actions?

Millennials on Marriage: "Not Yet"

James Poulos has pointed out an interesting debate between Ben Domenech and Conor Friedersdorf over why Millenials are waiting to get married later than earlier generations.

Here is Ben:

But I say the simplest answer is true: American men today delay the act of

reproduction and union because they devalue it. Because technology and culture
(today, technology is culture) unite to encourage them to devalue it — to favor
distraction over maturity, personal growth over familial growth, and self over
society.

Conor offers a different set of motives: 1) Today’s women are focused on their careers. 2) Parents want to offer their children every material advantage, just like their own parents did. 3) They want to avoid a divorce, which was pervasive in the previous generation.

Ben’s response to the first point is that more and more women today are leaving the workforce. My response to the second point is that Boomers spoiled us when they did that, hence the term 'Trophy Kids'. And the third point I am willing to grant. But I would develop Ben’s argument about the “self over society.” Tocqueville describes it terms of love of material well being (we call it consumerism):

To build enormous palaces, to conquer or to mimic nature, to ransack the world
in order to gratify the passions of a man, is not thought of, but to add a few
yards of land to your field, to plant an orchard, to enlarge a dwelling, to be
always making life more comfortable and convenient, to avoid trouble, and to
satisfy the smallest wants without effort and almost without cost. These are
small objects, but the soul clings to them; it dwells upon them closely and day
by day, till they at last shut out the rest of the world and sometimes intervene
between itself and heaven.

The ubiquity of McMansions and dozens of creature comforts is another reason why Millennials delay marriage and children. Families weigh us down as we try to climb the economic ladder. Tocqueville decried this comfort-seeking mentality and believed it would make us soft. Borrowing an argument from Peter Lawler, I would point out the inevitability of death and how it forces us to reevaluate our priorities. Lying in your deathbed has a way of changing your outlook on things, especially when it comes to how you lived your life. Better to take that perspective now than later.

Millennials work weekends

The Millennials, aka Generation Y, is entering the workforce and being asked to work long hours if they want to move up in the world. One take on this is the Millennials are "Trophy Kids" who have been spoiled by their Baby Boomer parents and are now whining because they have entered the real world.

However, there is another possibility-maybe employers ARE asking Millennials to work too much. Maybe they're asking their employees to work more than any previous generation has had to before. While I don't have the numbers to back this up, I am sure we'll find 'hours per week' are on an incline.

At this point, I'm sure many people, especially Americans, will want to know why workaholism is a problem. "Didn't the Founders place industry on the list of virtues?" they'd ask. Yes, but virtue is the golden mean between two extremes and what we have today is no media via.

Coincidentally, the vice of workaholism breeds its counterpart, idleness:

When your mind and body are exhausted from overwork, what leisure time
there is tends to be squandered on passive entertainments: hours spent in
front of the television or sleeping weekends away. In this way the person
becomes impoverished on many levels: personal, familial and social.

This is the type of criticism Americans receive from their European counterparts: Work is for the sake of leisure, not the other way around. On this point, they're right; however, what many contemporary Europeans consider leisure is simply hedonism. What contemporary Americans and Europeans share in common is materialism, albeit of different varieties.

What do I mean by 'leisure' then? Check out Josef Pieper's Leisure: The Basis of Culture. Or if you want something shorter...

We are talking here about recreation, about doing things that that are
valuable for their own sake such as reflecting on the meaning of life, attending
cultural events or learning a new language.

In conversations I've had with family and friends what I often hear is that if you don't play the game then you'll either be permanently benched or relegated to second string. They say nothing can be done about this.

France's solution is to fix the number of hours per week by law, but I admit I don't want that for fear of corporate flight. But maybe my family and friends can change the culture once they're in control of things. What seems to be happening now is each generation asks more of the next generation. One day the Millennials will be the bosses and they will have to decide if they want to ask the up and comers if they can come into work on Saturday. My advise to them is they don't ask.

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.

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

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.